PDA

View Full Version : Atheist Bendy-Bus.



Pages : [1] 2 3

Pete!
06-23-2010, 04:21 PM
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/10/20/atheistbus.jpg

Hello, heathens.

This appeared in my RSS reader this afternoon, a new bus campaign (http://inspiredbymuhammad.com/campaign.php) in London about how great Islam is!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/XtalConfusion/MoAds-550x278.png

I'm not sure anyone bothered to vet it with an irony-meter. There are already plenty of "I believe in sex with children" parodies floating around.

Also, a pompous belch of cockgobblery from (where else?) CiF (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jun/23/channel-4-religion-slot) about 4's new religious strand, and gosh, I do love to be patronised by people who believe in fucking cosmic fairies.


Anyway, it's good to reflect diversity of opinion and belief in an increasingly heterogeneous society. But will the atheists, who've lobbied for inclusion for so long, have anything interesting to say beyond, "God is dead, long live Richard Dawkins?"

Thanks for that.

Michael Michael
06-23-2010, 04:49 PM
"God is dead, long live Richard Dawkins?"

So Richard Dawkins is the God of aetheism? They are confused! Or I am.

Neitzsche over in the corner just looking furious

Lathan
06-23-2010, 04:50 PM
Boo Hoo! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/atheism-lawsuit-illinois_n_446374.html)


William J. Kelly, a Chicago Republican, is suing the Illinois Secretary of State for allowing an atheist sign to be placed next to a nativity scene in the state capitol.

The sign read: "At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," according to the federal complaint filed last Thursday.

Kelly, who is running for the Republican nomination for state comptroller, tried to turn the sign face-down when he saw it during a visit to the Capitol on December 23, 2009, but Capitol police escorted him from the building, banned him for the day and filed an incident report, according to a CBS 2 report.

The suit claims that the Secretary of State knowingly allowed the sign to be posted, which is a violation of the Illinois Administrative Code. Kelly also contends that the sign was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The complaint reads, "The United States Supreme Court has specifically held, for instance, that the Constitution 'affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any ...' "

Kelly argues that the atheist manifesto, placed by a group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation, constitutes hate speech in its hostility toward and mockery of religion.

"He's kind of right," foundation co-president Dan Barker told CBS, "because the last couple of sentences do criticize religion, and of course, the beginning is a celebration of the winter solstice. But that kind of speech is protected as well - speech that is critical and speech that is supportive."

Kelly is seeking an injunction to prevent similar signs from being placed inside the Capitol.

devnull
06-23-2010, 04:52 PM
At first I thought "Hello, heathens" said "Hello, heather." And then I realized it didn't. And then I realized it really did.

Those posters are amazing. Islam is so progressive! I'm sure these girls (http://www.google.com/images?q=honor+killing)agree.

JAE
06-23-2010, 05:15 PM
I wake up every morning and think, 'Fuck, people STILL believe in all this shit??'

other pete
06-24-2010, 11:47 AM
Australia can haz atheist "not religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard#Personal_life)" Prime Minister http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10393918.stm

Also welsh, ginger, female, unmarried, sounds like Kath off Kath & Kim doing her serious voice - all of these Good Things for a Prime Minister to be able to be.

Lágnætti
06-24-2010, 12:55 PM
I believe in marrying nine year-olds. So did Mohammed!

I believe in assaulting and sometimes murdering people for committing adultery. So did Mohammed!

I believe in converting people to my religion at the point of a sword. So did Mohammed!

This is fun!

Lágnætti
06-24-2010, 12:57 PM
At first I thought "Hello, heathens" said "Hello, heather." And then I realized it didn't. And then I realized it really did.

There's probably no Heather. Mmm hmmm.

beanstew
06-24-2010, 01:18 PM
A great excuse to post a picture of Ariane Sherine I feel.

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00122/sherine_goldsmith_122382t.jpg

[post28][post28][post28] *sigh*

Pete!
06-24-2010, 02:25 PM
I believe in marrying nine year-olds. So did Mohammed!

I believe in assaulting and sometimes murdering people for committing adultery. So did Mohammed!

I believe in converting people to my religion at the point of a sword. So did Mohammed!

I believe in killing people for drawing Mohammed! So did Mohammed! Because idk, he was sick of people drawing him and getting his ears wrong or something.

I mean really, what is up with that silly shit?

Atheists are also great comedians. Allow me to submit my evidence:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCIvmdABBnU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXfmjMlPEic


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIx4g3K5F8E

Alan
06-24-2010, 07:20 PM
Tim Minchin is basically the greatest thing ever.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg

Pete!
06-24-2010, 10:07 PM
Just give me five more minutes...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0

Ryan
06-24-2010, 10:18 PM
I've never heard of him before but I'm really enjoying him.

It's always good to see an Eddie Izzard nod, too. [post28]

Alan
06-24-2010, 10:47 PM
While we're on the subject of Tim, this is genuinely one of the loveliest songs I've ever heard:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCNvZqpa-7Q

<3

ebby
06-24-2010, 11:50 PM
Oh yes:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8

Amazing.

other pete
06-29-2010, 11:57 AM
Because idk, he was sick of people drawing him and getting his ears wrong or something.

Maybe he was just really really fugly :(

But remember, they don't kill people for drawing Mohammed. They do it for being insensitive.

Mordecai
06-29-2010, 12:47 PM
Did you guys hear Prince Charles going on about how Islam is "green" and other anti-science/Noble Savage-esque bullshit?

requisite Hitchens article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2256915/?from=rss

eednic
06-29-2010, 02:41 PM
Last night I was watching the local news, and apparently there is a bit of an uproar about a new billboard that was just put up on I-35 near Austin:

http://unitedcor.org/images/Billboard_AustinCoR_350.jpg


It's not that far from my house actually!


Anydoodle...the billboard was put up by the Austin Coalition of Reason: http://austin.unitedcor.org

About them:
"The Austin Coalition of Reason (AustinCoR) is collection of non-dogmatic rationalist and freethinker groups in the greater Austin area.

We invite you to explore all the groups, which are listed under the Member Groups tab above. Find one or two that interest you the most, and contact them. You’re sure to find a group of interesting people who are engaged in the world around them and who live meaningful, fulfilling lives based on reason and compassion."

Pete!
06-29-2010, 03:06 PM
I saw that on Friendly Atheist (http://friendlyatheist.com/) last night. Those billboards get vandalised all over the States (most recently North Carolina (http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/06/27/atheist-billboard-in-north-carolina-vandalized-within-a-week/)), but I'm expecting this one to actually get burnt down. Didn't the new Texas Republican platform, supporting the criminalisation of oral sex, get passed this week? Amazing. (Edit: Yes, it did! (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/26/texas-gop-comes-out.html))

I don't think I've ever seen or heard of any of the Atheist ads getting defaced over here, which I think is basically an indicator that the true nutters in the UK just can't read.

Tarendai
06-29-2010, 07:19 PM
It would be too non-PC to deface an athiest poster over here, and kids find it too funny to let a we love jesus poster go without it being scribbled out into we love <expletive>

eednic
06-29-2010, 07:37 PM
Didn't the new Texas Republican platform, supporting the criminalisation of oral sex, get passed this week? Amazing. (Edit: Yes, it did! (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/26/texas-gop-comes-out.html))



I'm not finding any proof of that in here: http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf

But I wouldn't put it past them! There is something in there about banning sodomy. There are lots of horrible, ridiculous things in there.

Pete!
06-29-2010, 08:25 PM
Huh. I've been swindled! Wonder why BB ran with the oral sex thing, they're usually pretty reliable.

eednic
06-29-2010, 11:11 PM
Well I certainly hope they don't ban oral sex in Texas! I'd be one angry bitch if they did! > : O

Pete!
06-29-2010, 11:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxVKtNkQAtw

Pete!
06-30-2010, 02:50 PM
Boo-hooing about Dawkins' comments regarding "atheist schools": (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/jun/29/richard-dawkins-atheism-schools)


He was asked by one commenter:

"What would you say to parents of children who attend quite orthodox state-funded schools who are very anxious that their child be educated within that context? I am thinking specifically of the ortho-Jewish schools around my way (north London). I know for a fact a lot of these parents cannot countenance the idea of their child being educated within a non-Jewish school. What do you think they should do?"

His response was:

"That's a good point. I believe this is putting parental rights above children's rights."

It is impossible to read this as meaning anything but that children have a right to be educated as Richard Dawkins thinks fit, but not as their parents do.

Well actually it is not impossible to read that as meaning anything but. I read it as suggesting, rightly in my opinion, that it is putting a parent's rights above a child's to instruct said child to believe in fairy stories, and to teach them to placate a vengeful god for an eternal reward rather than develop an actual system of morality.

But maybe I'm wrong, I might just be sensitive about it because I was unknowingly baptised at birth and pretty much emotionally blackmailed into Confirmation, so I might not be the best person to ask. Is it unreasonable to believe children should be educated in a non-religious environment, encouraged to question rather than mindlessly accept?

devnull
06-30-2010, 04:52 PM
Huh. I've been swindled! Wonder why BB ran with the oral sex thing, they're usually pretty reliable.

Sodomy includes oral sex. It's basically anything besides penis-vagina sex.

Pete!
06-30-2010, 04:57 PM
Really? Wow. That's good to know, thanks!

other pete
06-30-2010, 05:02 PM
Well I certainly hope they don't ban oral sex in Texas! I'd be one angry bitch if they did! > : O

WAIT NO ONE HAS SAID

That sucks! ;l
YET? I HOPE YOU ARE ALL A SHAMED.

Pete!
07-01-2010, 02:46 PM
I think this is all the evidence we need for the outlawing of faith-based education:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/07/frickin_electricity_how_does_i/electricity.jpeg
From Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/frickin_electricity_how_does_i.php)

Also, despite being atheist, Welsh and ginger, Julia Gillard is a dick (http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-against-gay-marriage-20100630-zkcj.html).


"We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples," Ms Gillard said.

Asked if that was also her personal view, Ms Gillard said it was.

This makes no sense to me.

Tarendai
07-02-2010, 01:19 AM
Sounds like she's pandering to certain people trying to avoid answering the question.

I think Dawkins is right here as well ( and he tends to be right, infuriatingly so ), parents who wish to push their religion on their child are being immoral, regardless of whether their religion is correct. It warps their view of their religion, and damages their well being, and deprives them of a choice of belief or disbelief, that a lot will never manage to question later on in life as others do.

Pete!
07-02-2010, 10:51 AM
"Regardless of whether their religion is correct"? Har.

Stephen Prothero is professor of religion at Boston University, which is remarable considering he apparently knows fuck all (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-neroulias/stephen-prothero-intervie_b_630606.html).


Why are you so hard on atheists?

I think they're intellectually dishonest, and I think it's the hardest religious position to take up. With Christianity, you just have to affirm that Jesus is God and sent to the world to save the world. With atheism, you have to reject every single god. There's a lot of gods out there. How can you reject a god that you've never even heard of?

What? Seriously, what? Is a god I've never heard of any more likely to exist? I probably would've heard about it by now. Do I need to research every variety of fairy, pixie, leprechaun, goblin, ghost, elf, troll, demon, dragon, vampire, Cyberman and unicorn before I can say they're imaginary? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer here.


Perhaps they just feel committed to scientific evidence rather than mystery?

Then I hope they never read a novel, since mystery lies at the heart of so many novels!

I just can't even.


But, even rejecting the supernatural, not all religions have gods, not all religions necessarily have the supernatural. Confucianism and Buddhism might be the religion for them.

Because there is nothing supernatural about Karma or Nirvana. Did I mention this guy is a professor of religion?

Cairn
07-02-2010, 01:44 PM
Perhaps they just feel committed to scientific evidence rather than mystery?

Then I hope they never read a novel, since mystery lies at the heart of so many novels!

I am utter baffled. I've only read what you've quoted here so far, but, how is it lost on him that he just compared religious doctrines to works of fiction???? WHUT.

Off to read the rest of it now.

Pete!
07-02-2010, 02:00 PM
is it lost on him that he just compared religious doctrines to works of fiction?

Aahahzah, that thought hadn't even occurred to me. I was just all like, "Oh, I don't believe in God so I can't read a novel, LOGIC OBVIOUSLY"

Cairn
07-02-2010, 02:01 PM
One can see how this book appeals to believers who feel strongly that their religion is distinct. How does your Christianity affect your views on other faiths?

I'm religiously confused now. I don't have any real answers to any of these important questions. I think the reason that I keep studying them is because I don't have answers; I think if I had answers, I'd become an economist!

That pretty much says it all and reiterates the idea there is nothing to be learned from the man on this subject.

Cairn
07-02-2010, 02:09 PM
Aahahzah, that thought hadn't even occurred to me. I was just all like, "Oh, I don't believe in God so I can't read a novel, LOGIC OBVIOUSLY"

I'm in awe of how truly deluded this man seems to be about how full of fail his arguments are.

Just for the fuck of it, I'll mention here that the basis of Sikhism is the exact opposite of his message. Sikhism says truth is found everywhere, in art, in scripture, in science and that no truth should ever be denied based on where it was learned. In fact when studying comparative religion, it is the seeds of similarity that allow us to separate truth from illusion. Just sayin' /theological wank

ontheindianside
07-02-2010, 06:24 PM
I found this article really interesting.

http://www.slate.com/id/2258484/ (Slate: "The Rise of the New Agnostics" by Ron Rosenbaum)

It's less about atheism (though it is) than agnosticism, and reading it actually made me consider starting to identifying as "agnostic" rather than "atheist," as I currently do (actually, I guess since my Facebook "Religious beliefs" answer is "none," I could say I've chosen not to use religion as an identity category).

Reading it, I realized that I'm uncomfortable with the extent to which a lot of atheist discourse depends on science, as if science is going to find the answers to "spiritual"/where-did-we-come-from-type questions. I'm more in the camp that simply doesn't give a shit about those questions or their answers. It's not that I'm not certain about whether or not I believe in god(s); I am 100% sure that I don't believe in a higher being or in any religious doctrine. But why does science have to replace God; why does God need a replacement at all? I like the concept of, as the author says, "radical skepticism" more than I like the concept of dogmatic nonbelief. Yes, I am dogmatic about the fact that I don't believe in anything, but I don't want to turn to science (which is also a human creation) instead of "faith."

I'm not saying that I think that all atheists turn science into their new "religion" or trying to start an "atheists as fundamentalists" debate at all. I just found this an intriguing read and think I may be more comfortable just saying "I know what I believe, but I don't and can't know whether I'm right or wrong, and I don't care" than "[Insert religion of choice] is wrong, and eventually science will tell us what's right."

I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the relationship between atheism and science.

Lágnætti
07-02-2010, 06:32 PM
There's a Cyber-religion, Pete? COOL.

Michael Michael
07-02-2010, 06:45 PM
As someone who considers himself agnostic rather than atheist, I had a lot of hope regarding the article posted above, but it was a pretty big disappointment. It took a long time to get down to making its points, and pissed me off on the way. When it finally got to its points, they were disappointing and poorly made.

I think something like what the article is trying to do needs to be done, but that wasn't it. It's way too hostile toward "the New Atheists," for one. It makes the old "atheism is a religion too!" rhetorical move which is both antagonistic and overly simplistic and kind of wrong -- it won't convince atheists and it will get their backs up.

I do think agnosticism is most in line with the scientific principle of falsifiable claims, but, since there is no evidence for God, not believing in God is definitely a hell of a lot more reasonable than believing in God, so atheism is clearly on much firmer ground than any theism. Why/how the Universe exists is still a big question mark, but "a wizard did it!" is probably not a good explanation.

Lathan
07-02-2010, 06:52 PM
^ Maybe it is?


http://smithbeachwood.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/1307.jpg

http://www.jacksofscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/1185805470369.png
Gotcha!

Pete!
07-04-2010, 04:55 PM
Ugh. That agnostic article was infuriating, making the same tired, fundamentally incorrect argument that atheism is a religion or faith.


Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Just because other difficult-seeming problems have been solved does not mean all difficult problems will always be solved.

So what, exactly? We should give up trying? We should entertain the tiniest doubt in our minds that maybe a wizard did do it? For what reason? There is a scientific and rational explanation for damn near everything, and on that basis it is reasonable to assume that using science (which is a tool, not a doctrine), humankind will one day be able to learn why there is something rather than nothing. That's why we have science; not to indoctrinate, but to learn.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/XtalConfusion/2007-01-15--sciencevsfaithcopy.jpg

I see little point in agnosticism beyond bet-hedging. As an atheist, I don't believe in God. I see no reason to believe in God, and there is no evidence to support the existence of God. And you might say, "Ooh, but there's no evidence to support the non-existence of God, so you're acting on FAITH" and to you I say fuck off, bumhat. There's no evidence to support the existence of unicorns, but just because no-one's ever seen a unicorn skeleton doesn't mean they might exist. You want me to entertain the concept of the cock-swinging Cosmic Daddy, you'll have to do a lot better than "you can't prove it doesn't exist". That's not an argument, it's a wet tissue held by an infant.

Michael Michael
07-04-2010, 05:53 PM
It is a pretty awful article and yes it is offensive in how it protrays atheism.

I would say portraying agnosticism as mere "bet hedging" is, though, a little problematic. It isn't necessarily Pascal's Wager, which has always been a silly idea. The choice isn't "big beardy fellow on a cloud who doesn't like it when boys kiss other boys and other things" VS "unguided processes of accident and entropy over the course of billions of years," and agnostics aren't dullards in the middle going "oh I don't know there's a 0.000001% chance the beardy fellow might actually exist." I mean, some agnostics might be, but I'd argue that's not true agnosticism because they've rejected a set of clear untruths but are afraid to treat them like untruths. Agnosticism isn't about rejecting the nature of knowledge itself (I doubt you'll find an agnostic who'll say 'evolution might be true!').

Also, sometimes I tire a little bit of this continual engagement with straw-men. yes yes sky pixies yes, sure. All reasonable people know religious fundamentalists are insane idiots or willfully self-deceived cowards, and all reasonable people know organized religions based on doctrine or dogma don't have a rational leg to stand on. But there are philosophers working in a much more intellectually honest fashion on the question -- have been since the Enlightenment --- and the usual absence of engagement with that ongoing intellectual dialogue is a source of frustration for me.

I mean, why not take on Spinoza? I would be much more interested in that. Esp. since, in his life, he was considered a notorious atheist but his theories of immanence have also been appropriated by fuzzy pantheists (nb: I don't think he was an atheist or a pantheist but he definitely was a materialist secularist who rejected religious doctrines and dogmas as the irrational superstitions they are while still making theories and inquiries into the metaphysical nature of reality).

Of course if the game is socio-political then it's more important to take on the fundamentalists because secular democracy is just nicer to live in and scientific progress makes life better and they threaten that. Also, maybe it is best to stay on message ("science: it makes sense" and "civil liberty: pretty nice" last I checked?). Agnostics and Atheists and Enlightenment philosophers all look pretty much the same to bible thumpers and islamic fundamentalists.

Brian
07-04-2010, 08:26 PM
I dunno. If you don't watch out, I will still blather on about how atheism and agnosticism aren't exclusive. Most people peg agnostics as just holding open to some point or bit of "proof" that'll tip 'em over into faith of some sort, but that's pretty far off.

Really, I think agnosticism is about acknowledging that every time we come up with some sort of answer or origin, whether it be the big bang or god, there is always going to be an entirely new set of questions beyond it. What came before the big bang and caused it? Where did god come from?

Does anyone believe science will ever reach a point of well-there's-the-last-answer and just stop? There are no ultimate answers. A comprehensive, fundamental model of the nature and origins of existence is probably unattainable. I can believe this and still be an atheist. Quite easily. And quite securely as well. Atheists who portray agnostics as lacking strength in their convictions are almost as annoying as theists who call atheism a faith.

devnull
07-04-2010, 08:42 PM
Well, I think it's semantics really. A lot of people call themselves agnostics who are actually more atheists (I was one for years), and a lot of wishy washy idiots who are too lazy to really confront their own opinions call themselves agnostics, too. Atheists who make generalizations about agnostics vary widely and the context and delivery of their portrayal does, too. So -- haha -- I don't think it's fair to generalize about atheists generalizing, either.

Even Richard Dawkins admits that most atheists are to a certain degree agnostic (including himself). No rational and rigorous minded person believes something is impossible just because they don't have evidence for it, they simply conclude it is incredibly unlikely and have a lack of belief in said thing because the evidence doesn't support it. That's atheism and not agnosticism, even though it implies a possibility (even tiny).

Pete!
07-04-2010, 08:57 PM
It just makes no sense to me, sorry guys. "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God"? If it were anything else but God then it would be a non-starter, but since humans have insisted since time immemorial there is a Space Daddy, then the no-evidence-either-way crowd is afforded its own status.

And I do agree that there will be questions as infinite as the cosmos, and that for as long as our species is able to ask questions we will seek rational, scientific answers.

JAE
07-04-2010, 10:18 PM
Even Richard Dawkins admits that most atheists are to a certain degree agnostic (including himself). No rational and rigorous minded person believes something is impossible just because they don't have evidence for it, they simply conclude it is incredibly unlikely and have a lack of belief in said thing because the evidence doesn't support it. That's atheism and not agnosticism, even though it implies a possibility (even tiny).

Yes, exactly, and that's one of the reasons why I thought that article was shit. Who exactly are these atheists that are saying 'I have this special knowledge that means I can be 100% sure that there is no God'? If we are talking about atheism based on the scientific method then clearly any conclusion is going to be based on available evidence, and this is just another micharacterisation of where the 'New Atheists' (hate that term) actually stand. Most of the points the author makes in order to differentiate himself as an agnostic seem to be ones that people like Dawkins would happily admit and even include in published works and the 'New Atheist viewpoint' he is using as an example seems to be a straw man.

I don't believe in any god based on the available evidence and my experience of life, and I refer to myself as an atheist without seeing or feeling the need to temper that with some kind of footnote. That doesn't mean that I feel I have some kind of conclusive knowledge that there definitely isn't a god - my position on anything is based on available evidence. I don't have a problem with how someone else chooses to define themselves but I do get concerned with viewpoints such as this article being propagated because I feel it adds to the problem of creating a false dichotomy between theism and atheism, with these so-called agnostics looking down from outside this black and white scale where both sides are as fundamentalist as each other. The belief that God doesn't exist is not the polar opposite of the belief that God does exist, because the burden of proof is not on the person who disbelieves. The belief that God doesn't exist is the rational position based on all currently available evidence. They are not equal, because one side makes a claim based on no evidence, and the other makes a claim based on the fact that there is no available evidence.

Rational atheism itself takes a position outside a spectrum rather than at one end of it, looking at it with a critical eye and coming to a conclusion based on the evidence, and it's actually strong agnosticism that seems to be more at home on the fundamentalist scale. Saying that you can't know a particular thing just seems like a bit of a definitive statement to make - I'm completely open to the idea that maybe we actually can't ever know these things but I'm also of the opinion that we won't know until we've tried, and I am not able to see into the future to see how humans evolve and technology progresses. Atheism doesn't necessarily say that we definitely will reach a scientific understanding of everything but the point is we just keep questioning and trying rather than picking a position and sticking to it. The agnostic position of us simply not being capable of understanding certain things seems to be based more on a gut feeling or something equally intangible and the article also misses the fact that at its core, science is not about certainty. It's about degrees of how certain it's reasonable to feel; and that is constantly changing as we build upon our collective knowledge and understanding. On the contrary; it's certain aspects of agnosticism that offers an 'unwarranted certainty' while science in general (or the rational atheist perspective) is all about maintaining scepticism, asking questions, and refining theories and hypotheses when new evidence is discovered that contradicts them.

Mordecai
07-04-2010, 11:22 PM
That article was fucking awful. He really fits the "true unbeliever" stereotype. Not that we shouldn't criticize Dawkins and friends, but for fuck's sake, at least make an effort to understand their arguments. He just makes strawman after strawman.


Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence....Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing. But the question presents a fundamental mystery that has bedeviled (so to speak) philosophers and theologians from Aristotle to Aquinas.

....

I just don't accept turning science into a new religion until it can show it has all the answers, which it hasn't, and probably never will.


Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

http://www.citadelsaber.co.uk/img,316.jpg

ontheindianside
07-07-2010, 12:20 AM
I dunno. If you don't watch out, I will still blather on about how atheism and agnosticism aren't exclusive. Most people peg agnostics as just holding open to some point or bit of "proof" that'll tip 'em over into faith of some sort, but that's pretty far off.

Really, I think agnosticism is about acknowledging that every time we come up with some sort of answer or origin, whether it be the big bang or god, there is always going to be an entirely new set of questions beyond it. What came before the big bang and caused it? Where did god come from?

Does anyone believe science will ever reach a point of well-there's-the-last-answer and just stop? There are no ultimate answers. A comprehensive, fundamental model of the nature and origins of existence is probably unattainable. I can believe this and still be an atheist. Quite easily. And quite securely as well. Atheists who portray agnostics as lacking strength in their convictions are almost as annoying as theists who call atheism a faith.

Yeah, this is closer to the thought the article stirred in me. After I'd read it, I sort of forgot about all the new atheist stuff and the condescending attitude and only remember thinking "Hmm, I too feel like I hear too much 'science, science, science' from atheist thinkers."

I think I cut Internet articles too much slack or don't read them closely enough (because I'm usually at work or getting ready for work or wasting time when I read things on the Internet). I tend to post links the way I'd pose a question. My intention in posting the article was to engender discussion about the relationship between science and atheism, not to say, "Hey, guys! This is awesome!" I posted it because I wanted to hear what everyone's thoughts were on re: atheism and science. Are they necessarily tied together like conjoined twins? Can someone be an atheist but not give a shit about what science says? Can we problematize science in a way that is similar to the way in which we problematize religion? Etc.

devnull
07-07-2010, 05:54 AM
I posted it because I wanted to hear what everyone's thoughts were on re: atheism and science. Are they necessarily tied together like conjoined twins? Can someone be an atheist but not give a shit about what science says? Can we problematize science in a way that is similar to the way in which we problematize religion? Etc.

Uh, seriously? Those are all pretty silly and condescending questions.

No, not "necessarily conjoined"; of course people can be atheist without giving a shit about science; and yes, this mysterious dude named Science is not perfect. Who do you think is arguing otherwise?

Canodiva1
07-07-2010, 11:39 AM
Ugh, have you seen this bullshit?

http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/07/07/worldnetdaily-supports-atheist-billboard-vandalism/

Just when I start believing there is no hope for our country I get a little reminder from my God that all is not lost… It’s nice to know that I am not alone in my beliefs and that some people are still willing to stand on the right side of truth.

Never would I encourage vandalism, but in this case I think I’ll let it slide. Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years, so it’s about time the shoe was on the other foot.

The best part of this whole situation, though, is that these secular billboards were part of a Fourth of July project that placed similar ads in Greensboro, Raleigh and a handful of other cities –- and it totally backfired. They underestimated their demographic, and because the vandalism occurred days before the Fourth, no one could service the billboard until after the holiday. It’s the small victories in life that make it all worthwhile.

Incidentally, when was the last you heard about a Christian billboard that was vandalized? It happens all the time, yet it’s never “newsworthy.”

Atheists are always saying how offended they are by, well … everything. How is this billboard not offensive to me? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Where’s my PC? And who’s protecting my right not to be offended?

I would like to extend my deepest thanks to the man or woman responsible for this vandalism. I appreciate the action you took. Thank you for reminding me that I’m not alone. It took a lot of guts to do what you did –- and the fact that you haven’t stepped forward to take credit makes you a hero. It shows everyone that you are more devoted to the message than you are to the spotlight. I encourage you to keep your cover. Don’t give the secular world a reason to call your name; instead, let them call for our God.

Wait...we have a right not to be offended? Since fucking when?

Pete!
07-07-2010, 12:32 PM
Right, let's see if I can answer these without calling you a fucking numpty.


re: atheism and science. Are they necessarily tied together like conjoined twins?

Not necessarily, but it is common. Science (a tool, not a faith, as I'm getting the impression you're finding this distinction troublesome) requires theories to be provable one way or another. Atheists, on the whole, do not believe in God because it requires acceptance without proof. It's easy to see why they are often linked, although they're not mutually exclusive.


Can someone be an atheist but not give a shit about what science says?

Certainly, everyone has different motivations. You can be a teenaged misanthrope and hate every conceivable fount of authority and wisdom, for example. Again, it sounds as though you've misconstrued what science is and does.


Can we problematize science in a way that is similar to the way in which we problematize religion?

Erm. No? Why would you want to?

Science is able to provide us with facts and solutions where evidence exists, and scientists strive to prove their theories with rigorous testing and scrutiny. Religions do not. The religious method is, "This is true because we say so". In the 21st century, that's more than problematic, it's painfully ignorant.

ontheindianside
07-07-2010, 03:09 PM
Right, let's see if I can answer these without calling you a fucking numpty.

What the fuck is a numpty?




Not necessarily, but it is common. Science (a tool, not a faith, as I'm getting the impression you're finding this distinction troublesome) requires theories to be provable one way or another. Atheists, on the whole, do not believe in God because it requires acceptance without proof. It's easy to see why they are often linked, although they're not mutually exclusive.

I know what science is, but science is not a perfect tool unfettered by bias and all that. I'm an atheist because I think religion is a stupid ideological mode of oppression (and generator of idiocy and bigotry). Sure, I take science into account, but it's not my go-to when explaining why I don't believe in higher beings. I would go more with history than science. I didn't mean to imply that science is a "faith," but I don't think science is a perfect, vacuum-sealed font of Truth.


Certainly, everyone has different motivations. You can be a teenaged misanthrope and hate every conceivable fount of authority and wisdom, for example. Again, it sounds as though you've misconstrued what science is and does.



Erm. No? Why would you want to?

Science is able to provide us with facts and solutions where evidence exists, and scientists strive to prove their theories with rigorous testing and scrutiny. Religions do not. The religious method is, "This is true because we say so". In the 21st century, that's more than problematic, it's painfully ignorant.

I'm not endorsing the religious method. Clearly, that is more flawed than science. But I just find it problematic that it's all "science says . . ." when, really, science has been used historically to say that certain races are better than others, that there are innate differences between men and women (aside from that most men have penises and most women have vaginas), etc. I was simply asking if perhaps we don't rely too much on science when talking about atheism. The unquestioned reliance on science does bother me, and it's not because I say, "It's true because we say so." I don't say that. It's because I don't think science should be taken as the be-all-end-all of everything. Science is produced through human action, and there are bound to be flaws. I mean, in the religion debate, I don't think those flaws come into play as heavily. But, then, maybe because I'm not all that science-y (never did well in it, too much math, doesn't really interest me the way more humanities-y disciplines do) and don't rely on it to back up my nonbelief, I don't know as much about the scientific evidence for the nonexistence of God/s, which is why I said I'd like to hear more about that and hear everyone's thoughts on the relationship between science and atheism.

But I don't want to derail the thread, and I'm not intending to argue with anyone. Apologies.

Pete!
07-07-2010, 03:44 PM
Thread derailments are not generally a concern, and I enjoy an argument lively debate.

No-one is suggesting that science is perfect, or has never been abused to meet an agenda. Nor is anyone telling you that you have to justify your atheism with science. Really, I've no idea where you've got that notion. It's not like there's an Atheist's Handbook that says, "In order to not believe in God, you must demonstrate a working knowledge of evolutionary theory, particle physics and four-dimensional space."

However, I am comfortable saying that science is our best resource for understanding the world around us, and I'm sure it goes without saying how much poorer a species we'd be without it. It's also tied directly to my atheism, because I prefer reason, proof and evidence to fannying about pretending to have a magic telephone that connects me to an Invisible Space Daddy.

ontheindianside
07-07-2010, 03:59 PM
Thread derailments are not generally a concern, and I enjoy an argument lively debate.

No-one is suggesting that science is perfect, or has never been abused to meet an agenda. Nor is anyone telling you that you have to justify your atheism with science. Really, I've no idea where you've got that notion. It's not like there's an Atheist's Handbook that says, "In order to not believe in God, you must demonstrate a working knowledge of evolutionary theory, particle physics and four-dimensional space."

However, I am comfortable saying that science is our best resource for understanding the world around us, and I'm sure it goes without saying how much poorer a species we'd be without it. It's also tied directly to my atheism, because I prefer reason, proof and evidence to fannying about pretending to have a magic telephone that connects me to an Invisible Space Daddy.

I'm more comfortable saying that science sits among many other tools (like history and anthropology) as one of our best resources for understanding the world (and that we'd certainly be a poorer species without it).

And it's statements like "because I prefer reason, proof and evidence to fannying about pretending to have a magic telephone . . ." that give me the notion that you have to justify your atheism with science. In other words, I feel like there's this notion that you're either with science or you're with religion, and because of that, I think things that are not science v. religion get left out of the debate.

SoulQuake
07-07-2010, 04:09 PM
I'm having a hard time understanding how science being a big interest for a number of atheists equals other topics getting left out of the debate. You like history and anthropology, and they're your primary reason for feeling how you do? Good, then talk about it! But why are we (atheists in general, I mean) supposed to shut up about about science just because it's not your primary interest? I feel like you're just making that tired old "science is a faith" argument.

Pete!
07-07-2010, 04:20 PM
And it's statements like "because I prefer reason, proof and evidence to fannying about pretending to have a magic telephone . . ." that give me the notion that you have to justify your atheism with science.

Um. Okay. Do you also feel you need to justify disbelief in the Easter Bunny or Father Christmas with science?

Tarendai
07-08-2010, 01:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quSRLETlKDg

JAE
07-08-2010, 03:49 PM
What the fuck is a numpty?

SCOTLAND'S FAVOURITE WORD. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6520353.stm)

ontheindianside
07-08-2010, 04:04 PM
I'm having a hard time understanding how science being a big interest for a number of atheists equals other topics getting left out of the debate. You like history and anthropology, and they're your primary reason for feeling how you do? Good, then talk about it! But why are we (atheists in general, I mean) supposed to shut up about about science just because it's not your primary interest? I feel like you're just making that tired old "science is a faith" argument.

I'm not saying that science shouldn't be part of the equation. And I'm certainly not saying that everyone else should shut up about science because it's not my primary interest. That would be narcissistic, selfish, bratty, and stupid. I started out simply saying that I'm uncomfortable relying solely on science to back up my nonbelief. My question (it was not a challenge or an assertion but a question), really, was whether anyone else felt that way. Apparently the answer is no. That's fine. It never hurts to ask questions.*

I do think it takes a certain amount of something like faith to say that scientific findings represent universal truths with which people cannot argue, and I'm not sure if people here are doing that or not, so I'm not intending to accuse. But I would expect anyone who wasn't a crazy positivist to agree that we should look at the thing we call science with some degree of skepticism, whether it goes our way or makes claims that bother us. Anyway, isn't questioning and examination what science is supposed to be all about?

Having said that, I was not making (or did not mean to make) the "science is a faith" argument. I do think some people are doing a pretty good job of acting like I attacked their deity, though.


*I also have to admit that I'm not really all that familiar with how science relates to atheist discourse outside of these discussions. I don't spend a lot of time reading and talking about atheism; most of my friends are on the same page (and if they're not, we probably won't be talking about religion), I generally get bored listening to people talk about how stupid religion is (I'd rather hear about the stupid things people do for/due to their religious beliefs), and I don't really feel the need to be part of a community of people who similarly don't believe in spiritual bullshit. So, maybe I'm overplaying the relationship because that's what I see reflected here and in the bit of reading I do - generally because I see an interesting-looking link on the side of an article I'm reading about something else.

ontheindianside
07-08-2010, 04:05 PM
SCOTLAND'S FAVOURITE WORD. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6520353.stm)

Thanks. For the definition.

Lathan
07-08-2010, 04:16 PM
^ Science is totally about arguing. Scientific ideas are constantly being tested, refined and redefined. People are encouraged to. Scientists will publish their findings so others can understand, recreate and/or refute their ideas. Some of the things are thought to be "universal truths" because of the heft of scientific evidence supporting the findings, because they have been backed up, tested and recreated through a number of disciplines.

Science is also not the only support for atheism. If you do a little research, you may find that for yourself.

One of the reasons though, that science is used, is because of some of the claims of religion. "Miracles" and "acts of God" that cannot be explained in any other way except God, no really, trust us - can often be explained by scientific (or logical, or common sense) reasons. Things seemed quite magical before they could be explained. And religion claimed them.


Having said that, I was not making (or did not mean to make) the "science is a faith" argument. I do think some people are doing a pretty good job of acting like I attacked their deity, though.

Oh boo hoo.

Pete!
07-08-2010, 04:38 PM
Anyway, isn't questioning and examination what science is supposed to be all about?

Yes. As has been said repeatedly during this discourse.


I generally get bored listening to people talk about how stupid religion is (I'd rather hear about the stupid things people do for/due to their religious beliefs)

Potato/potahto.

Frasier Crane
07-08-2010, 04:46 PM
I do think it takes a certain amount of something like :confused::confused::confused:faith:confused::confused::confused: to say that :confused::confused::confused:scientific findings:confused::confused::confused: represent universal truths with which people cannot argue, and I'm not sure if people here are doing that or not, so I'm not intending to accuse.




Even if you hadn't before, you totally just equated science and religion in that part right there. "Faith" in science is (oxy)moronic because science does NOT assume things that are not there. You can't say "oh, I feel as though the gravitational constant is about, oh, say .0000000000669N. So it is!" Thousands of rational, mathematical, logical tests have been done to arrive at that number. Faith has nothing to do with a scientist perpetuating ""universal truths"" (which are universal truths, by the way, because that's how 99% of the known universe works).


Scientists DO look at science with rational skepticism, because old outdated theories have to be replaced by newer, shinier models that fit better with the passing of time, something that religion is incapable of doing. If scientists weren't skeptical, we'd still be under the impression that the atom is like plum pudding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model).

Tarendai
07-08-2010, 05:23 PM
So then, science is like pokemon trading cards, they're all after the shinys

Lágnætti
07-08-2010, 06:13 PM
Science vs. Faith:

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/1459/sciencevsfaith.jpg

Everyone clear?

ebby
07-08-2010, 06:51 PM
I know what science is, but science is not a perfect tool unfettered by bias and all that. I'm an atheist because I think religion is a stupid ideological mode of oppression (and generator of idiocy and bigotry). Sure, I take science into account, but it's not my go-to when explaining why I don't believe in higher beings. I would go more with history than science. I didn't mean to imply that science is a "faith," but I don't think science is a perfect, vacuum-sealed font of Truth.

Neither does Science. Indeed, Scientists work on the fact that they don't have the truth, and they don't know the truth, and they strive to scientifically find answers to questions, but also to continue to challenge those answers further.

Religion touts their teachings as the truth and the only way. Science is the opposite. Science is all about the quest for knowledge and challenging the knowledge base that currently exists.


Also, the chart that Helen posted says it clearer than I can.

Pete!
07-08-2010, 09:15 PM
Helen, I posted that two pages ago, I think it went right over his/her head.

other pete
07-09-2010, 11:38 AM
Protect Your Children from Online Indoctrination - with Godblock

186 (http://www.godblock.com/)

Download it NAO!


A couple of nicemoderatechristians I know have tweeted along the lines of "OMG THIS IS TERRIBLE!
Can't they see they're even worse than the people they perport to oppose it's such ATHEISTFUNAMENTALISMTM!

Shortly followed by "Oh. Satire. LOL."


ETA:

On the atheist/agnostic thing I think it's a blind alley to think there's a spectrum that goes atheist/agnostic/religious - just as it is to think that gay/bi/straight, or indeed socialist/liberal/conservative, are neat little rainbows where red and green never touch.

Atheist and agnostic are more like, say, soul and R&B as categories.

So atheist literally means "does not believe in god" whereas agnostic literally means "does not believe the existance of god is knowlable". Well I'm both. I'm Aretha Franklin. And "It's Mr DiFranco to you"! I am also unreligous and see that as a seperate thing too (there are a HELL of a lot of religious people who seem to hope rather than "believe" - in England we call them vicars, hoho).

in single file
07-09-2010, 05:20 PM
Guys, guys, guys! Stop with the arguing and come to the agreement that the Catholic Church has: ORDAINING WOMEN AS PRIESTS IS AS BAD AS MOLESTING CHILDREN! :D


New rules the Vatican is expected to issue soon on penalties for priests who sexually abuse children will also put the ordaining of women in the same category of the most serious crimes under church law.

Church sources told Catholic News Service that the new "norms," as the policies are called, will include the "attempted ordination of women" among the list of most serious crimes, or what are known as "delicta graviora."

Sexual abuse of a minor by a priest was added to the classification in 2001. The new norms are largely expected to codify changes made in 2001 and 2003 that were aimed at addressing the burgeoning clergy abuse scandal. But the policies expected to be issued later this month will also specifically include the abuse of mentally disabled adults as on par with abusing minors, and it will extend the statute of limitations under the Church's Code of Canon Law from 10 years after a victim turns 18 to 20 years.

Word that the Vatican will also use this opportunity to codify the attempted ordination of a woman as a "delicta graviora" is a surprise, however, and is not likely to please either victims advocates -- who have been pushing for much more stringent and universal church policies against abusers -- or those who favor a greater role for women in the church.

In recent years, a number of women around the world have sought to be ordained as priests, in violation of longstanding church prohibitions. In some cases male priests who were legitimately ordained have performed the ritual, which is apparently what concerns the Vatican most.

In 2008, the Vatican department overseeing orthodoxy, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- which Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger headed for 23 years before his election as Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 -- formally decreed that a woman who attempts to be ordained a Catholic priest and the person attempting to ordain her are automatically excommunicated.

The new policy would apparently make it easier for the congregation to defrock any priest who participated in such an ordination.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/09/vatican-rules-ordaining-women-priests-a-crime-like-sex-abuse-of/

Isn't that nice?

ebby
07-09-2010, 05:49 PM
Having women priests in their made up playtime with their favourite work of fiction: Twilight the Bible, would be like raping the baby Jesus :( it says so in the book. (one of them.. I'm pretty sure )

SoulQuake
07-09-2010, 06:12 PM
Sorry to jump back to the other topic, but ontheindianside, you'll have to forgive me if I'm less than patient when people try to equate science with faith or say that the former relies on the latter in any way (and yes, whether you meant it or not, the idea was all over your posts). It's a bit irritating to hear the same fallacious comments made all the time, even by people I usually respect.

Case in point, apparently Jon Stewart (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/jon_stewart_you_let_me_down.php) did it last night.

Really. Fucking. Annoying.

Brian
07-09-2010, 06:21 PM
Sexual abuse of a minor by a priest was added to the classification in 2001.

That is so fucking shameful. Not news, I know, but I still can't wrap my head around it.


it will extend the statute of limitations under the Church's Code of Canon Law from 10 years after a victim turns 18 to 20 years.


Oh, how right and just. And holy. You diddled an altar boy? You're excommunicated! Wait, it was 40 years ago? Oh, well, never mind then.

Michael Michael
07-10-2010, 03:33 AM
Wow, Peter Hitchens is on CBC and goodness is he a whiny alarmist. Yes it sure is awfully hard to be a Christian, you guys sure are super persecuted in western society.

The fucking martyr complex among certain Christian commentators is just disgusting. You guys held the reigns of power in Western civilization for 1500-odd years and you still wield influence disproportionate to the intellectual merits of your belief system. Give it a rest.

Michael Michael
07-10-2010, 03:38 AM
"Atheists realize fundamentally there is a logical case for belief, and they wish to reject it emotionally"

I FEEL LIKE I WOKE UP IN OPPOSITE LAND

SMMY
07-10-2010, 04:30 AM
Wow, Peter Hitchens is on CBC and goodness is he a whiny alarmist. Yes it sure is awfully hard to be a Christian, you guys sure are super persecuted in western society.

The fucking martyr complex among certain Christian commentators is just disgusting. You guys held the reigns of power in Western civilization for 1500-odd years and you still wield influence disproportionate to the intellectual merits of your belief system. Give it a rest.

Pfft! The mistake we made was when we stopped feeding them to the lions.

Lágnætti
07-10-2010, 11:34 AM
There's a *logical* case for belief in Sky Daddy? I'd love to see it.

Lágnætti
07-12-2010, 01:23 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/stoke_and_staffordshire/10596808.stm


Swimming lessons in some Staffordshire schools should stop during Ramadan to ensure Muslim pupils "do not swallow water", a council has suggested.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council has issued an 11-page Ramadan guide for schools to help pupils who may be fasting when the school year starts in September.

It said swimming was acceptable to Muslims but posed a high risk of swallowing water that may break a fast. 'Not disadvantaged'

It also suggests re-scheduling sex education classes during the holy lunar month, as Muslim followers who have reached puberty are required to avoid sexual thoughts during this period.

*eyeroll*

Michael Michael
07-12-2010, 02:07 PM
What.

If some super-strict Muslim family objects to their kids going fucking swimming during Ramadan, then perhaps those kids can sit in the library during the lesson? The only school in the little town where I grew up was a Catholic, so the protestant kids would get to play on the computers during religion class and the like (much envy I had).

other pete
07-12-2010, 04:03 PM
*eyeroll*


perhaps those kids can sit in the library during the lesson?

Due to the unstoppable parentalchoiceagendaTM state schools in mixed areas of England are becoming ever more segregated along religious lines.

So in an area with a 50:50 muslim to non-muslim population (like parts of Stoke on Trent) you'll get one school that's split, say, 90/10 and another that's split 10/90. I'm guessing someone has noticed, or has worried, that a mainly muslim school might miss its child health targets in ramadan and so the council is getting its excuses in early.

Thank you for that legislation, fucking Tony "We Dont Do God" (But, Y'know, Actually, He Agrees With Me About Everything) Blair.

in single file
07-12-2010, 06:34 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/stoke_and_staffordshire/10596808.stm



*eyeroll*

I think I've read this about fives times now and I STILL can't wrap my mind around it. [faint]

Lágnætti
07-14-2010, 06:32 PM
Meanwhile, it is revealed that the state which is the biggest consumer of porn in the USA is Utah.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/03/06/religious-conservatives-love-online-porn.htm

Lágnætti
07-15-2010, 12:27 PM
Meanwhile, in the sunny, oppressive Maldives, the state's only out atheist kills himself. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south+asia-10644685)


A man in the Indian Ocean island state of the Maldives has died, apparently by suicide, after complaining of being victimised for not being a Muslim.

Ismail Mohamed Didi, 25, had admitted being an atheist and had sought political asylum abroad.

He was found on Tuesday hanging at his workplace - the air traffic control tower at the international airport in the capital, Male.

It is compulsory for citizens of the Maldives to be Sunni Muslims.

Despite the rigidity of its religious laws, the Maldives was recently elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

A Maldivian website, Minivan News, printed what it said was a recent e-mail from Didi in which he said he was an atheist.

He asked a foreign charity to help him seek asylum in Britain because, he said, "there is no place for non-Muslim Maldivians in this society".

He said his colleagues had spread word of his apostasy and that his closest friends would no longer meet him.

He was afraid for his life and knew no-one in the country who could help him, he added.

The website said his employer at the airport had launched an investigation into his lack of belief and referred him to the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

It quoted one colleague as alleging that Didi had "openly insulted God".

The Maldives' constitution demands that all its citizens be Muslim, and religious office-holders regularly stress the unacceptability of other faiths being accepted or propagated.

In May, a 37-year-old Maldivian man professed to be non-Muslim at a public meeting with a visiting Indian preacher, Zakir Naik.

An NGO, the Islamic Foundation of the Maldives, declared that if he did not repent he should be sentenced to death.

Another victory for tolerant, peace-loving Islam, folks.

PS. The UN Human Rights Council is basically a fucking joke, right?

Aerelonian
07-16-2010, 07:00 AM
Has anyone seen this? The Vatican:

Ordaining women as priests is "as grave an offense as pedophilia" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/europe/16vatican.html?_r=2&sudsredirect=true

LOVE YOU CATHOLIC CHURCH. [banghead]

JAE
07-16-2010, 02:44 PM
Ordaining women as priests is "as grave an offense as pedophilia"

So they think it's OK then?

Frangipani
07-16-2010, 02:46 PM
^ zing

Tarendai
07-18-2010, 08:01 AM
It took the Vatican 2010 years to declare child pornography as sin, I expect itll be another 2010 before they sort out equal rights for women

JAE
07-21-2010, 04:19 PM
Councillor faces inquiry over tweet calling Church of Scientology 'stupid' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jul/20/councillor-inquiry-stupid-scientology-tweet)


A councillor is facing a disciplinary hearing after calling the Church of Scientology "stupid" on Twitter, it emerged today.

The Welsh public standards watchdog investigated Cardiff councillor John Dixon's short message and decided it was "likely" to have breached the code of conduct for local authority members.

News of the ombudsman's decision prompted a flood of messages of support on Twitter for Dixon, the council's executive member for health, social care and wellbeing.

Tweets included an offer to find a lawyer to fight his case pro bono and many others defending his right to free speech.

The case centres on a message posted by the Liberal Democrat councillor during a visit to London.

It said: "I didn't know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off."

The message was posted on an account called CllrJohnDixon. He has since set up a second account, JohnLDixon, for his "more personal musings", in which he describes himself as a "microbiologist and web developer, into science, rugby and web geekery".

By 3pm today, Dixon's number of followers on Twitter had trebled.

One supporter said: "Instead of a disciplinary hearing, they should canvas all the electorate to see if they agree with you. I think they just might."

Another wrote: "We're all behind you mate, if any disciplinary action goes ahead it will be because the stupid rubbed off on someone."

Dixon later tweeted: "Just seen all the retweets about my ombudsman's judgement. Um... Wow... Thanks."

A spokeswoman for the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales confirmed there had been an investigation into Dixon.

The investigation had found there was likely to have been a breach of the code of conduct local authority members must follow.

The ombudsman has referred the case to Cardiff council's standards and ethics committee, which will consider it in the autumn. It will have to decide if there has been a breach and, if it finds there has been, consider any sanctions.

A spokesman for the Church of Scientology said: "The complaint was made by an individual Scientologist who was personally offended by the comments."

The spokesman suggested people go to their website to find out about the church and its founder, L Ron Hubbard.

Dixon argued that the remarks were made in a personal capacity rather than as a councillor, and said his Twitter name was CllrJohnDixon only because JohnDixon had been taken.

He told the Guardian he was in London in June last year to buy a wedding ring for his wife-to-be – which he also tweeted about. Other postings made at the time included remarks about visiting a relative in Richmond and going to a musical.

Dixon said he thought the remark about the Church of Scientology was "whimsical" and had thought nothing more about it until he began to suspect that members of the church were following him on Twitter.

He posted another message: "Just realised the Scientologists are following me. Quick everyone, pretend you're out."

But he said that, in December, the ombudsman received a complaint about the remarks. Councillors are obliged to carry out their duties with due regard to the principle that there should be equal opportunity to all, regardless of their religion.

Dixon said that even if he had been speaking in an official capacity – which he maintains he was not – he was surprised at the complaint going so far.

"As a Liberal Democrat, I'm used to having things said about me. You take it on the chin," he said.

He said he did not have very strong opinions on Scientologists before the saga. "Having done some research on them, I take a harder line now," he added.

Autumn
07-21-2010, 05:07 PM
Going back a few posts here, but since when does fasting = dehydration? I guess I have never associated fasting with abstaining from water, so I'm surprised that people do that. I mean, you could die. And if you're not eating OR drinking ANYTHING, you probably shouldn't be participating in physical activity. Surely your muscles wouldn't be very effective without fuel.

ebby
08-08-2010, 07:39 PM
This was the best place I could think of to post this:

The Periodic Table Of Irrational Nonsense:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RQjQvxtmK8A/TFiXItuYZ7I/AAAAAAAADMs/fYApM83k26s/s1600/Woo+Table+v2.0.png

(might now show up, as it's a blogspot host, if it doesn't then click here instead (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RQjQvxtmK8A/TFiXItuYZ7I/AAAAAAAADMs/fYApM83k26s/s1600/Woo+Table+v2.0.png), where you'll also see it full size :) )

Frasier Crane
08-08-2010, 08:40 PM
Let's play Guess the Reaction-Type game!

Ex:

2C+2X-->2CX (p) + Headspin is the Exorcist Reaction


1. 5C2HC+ 5LrhId---M---> 5CId + 5HCLrh + Il (s) + M(g)

The Sarah Palin and Tom Cruise Win the 2012 Election Reaction


2. Ac+ Np(VtAy)4---> Ac(VtAy)4 + Np

The GOOP Newsletter Reaction

3. 2F+O2+2Rg+2VI---(horrible, horrible music and a wig)---> 2FORI+ 2Vg(l)+ horrible, horrible music (g) + wig (s)

The Fori Amos Reaction

Lágnætti
08-10-2010, 11:12 AM
Exorcism of kidnapped brides in Chechnya. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10913297)

A heartwarming blend of religious woo, old-fashioned misogyny and quaintly barbaric cultural customs.


Dozens of cars were parked outside. Crowds thronged the pavement, desperate to get through the metal gates.

In the courtyard women were filling plastic bottles and jerry cans with water blessed by the imam.

As I took off my shoes, I noticed a marble plaque on the wall:

"There is no illness which Allah cannot cure".

Inside, huddles of families were camped out on sofas.

There were many tearful faces. Men paced up and down. It might have been an ordinary hospital waiting room until a girl started shrieking and contorting.

A man scooped her up and carried her off into a room off the landing.

Spine-chilling yells came from behind the frosted glass door but nobody turned a hair. Gradually they were stifled by incantations from the Koran.

Most of the patients here are young women and many have suffered breakdowns after being forced into marriage. They are brought to be exorcised and turned into Chechen-style Stepford Wives.


In 2007, in violation of Russian law, he issued an edict banning women and girls without a headscarf from schools, universities and other public buildings.

Since June, unidentified men with paintball guns have driven round the centre of Grozny shooting at girls with uncovered heads.

On state television, Mr Kadyrov said he did not know who was responsible for the attacks but added: "When I find them, I will express my gratitude."

When I met the Chechen president in the capital's football stadium last summer, he told me: "Women are so much more interesting when they are covered up."

Officials nearby smiled awkwardly as Kadyrov boasted that Chechen men can take "second, third and fourth wives" and that polygamy, illegal in Russia, was the best way to revive his war-ravaged republic.

According to some estimates, one in five Chechen marriages begins when a girl is snatched off the street and forced into a car by her future groom and his accomplices. The internet is full of videos of these "bride stealings" set to romantic music.

More often than not, the girl is pressured into marrying her kidnapper to preserve family honour and avoid triggering a blood feud. Some are resigned to their fate and make a surprising success of their marriages.

For others, that is far from the case.

Lipkhan Bazaeva, who runs an organisation called Women's Dignity, says brides are often brought in by mothers-in-law who believe the girl is possessed by evil spirits or "genies".

"Just imagine - her son has stolen a girl he liked and married her. What they want is a nice, quiet, hard-working woman in the house, not someone who's feeling down from the moment she wakes up and who's hysterical in the evening. So they take them to the mullah."

I was struck by the readiness of patients and relatives alike to accept the treatment, and even to come back for more

End Quote Mullah Mairbek Yusupov is a small bearded man dressed in a green surgeon-style top and skull-cap. He appeared pleasant enough to me, softly spoken, until I saw him at work.

The patient was lying blindfolded on her back, wearing a long, flowery robe. Mairbek began yelling verses from the Koran into her ear and beating her with a short stick.

"She feels no pain," he said. "We beat the genie and not the patient."

The woman, probably in her early twenties, was writhing on the bed: "Shut up! Leave me alone," she growled.

Mairbek claimed this strange voice belonged to the genie possessing her. He shouted back: "Take your claws out of this woman. Aren't you ashamed? Go on! Leave her body like you did last time, through her toe."

With a deadpan expression, Mairbek explained that the genie inside the girl was 340 years old.

wout
08-10-2010, 11:37 AM
when I met the Chechen president in the capital's football stadium last summer, he told me: "Women are so much more interesting when they are covered up."

???
Ugh!

Is saw that this is from a documentary that'll be on the BBC tomorrow evening..? *makes note*

Lágnætti
08-10-2010, 01:25 PM
Wout, I'm not sure. ETA: Yes:
This World: Stolen Brides will be broadcast on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 at 1900 BST on BBC Two

One to catch on iPlayer, if I can stomach it, which I'm not sure I can.

Just wanted to address this:


Going back a few posts here, but since when does fasting = dehydration? I guess I have never associated fasting with abstaining from water, so I'm surprised that people do that. I mean, you could die. And if you're not eating OR drinking ANYTHING, you probably shouldn't be participating in physical activity. Surely your muscles wouldn't be very effective without fuel.

During Ramadan, Moslems are supposed to abstain from food and water from sunrise to sunset. Between sunset and sunrise, they can eat and drink all they want. But yes, it seems dangerous to me to abstain from liquids in this way.

Frangipani
08-10-2010, 02:43 PM
I worked for Muslims & Ramadan were the worst week/s of my life.

Pete!
08-10-2010, 09:43 PM
Oh, of course, complete human extinction is the natural conclusion to atheism (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/08/i_knew_we_were_evil_but_i_didn/atheistSociety.php)! How could I not have seen it?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/08/i_knew_we_were_evil_but_i_didn/atheistSociety.jpg

Brian
08-10-2010, 09:58 PM
Hmmm. Legalized genocide precedes unification of governments? I'll have to readjust my timeline.

ebby
08-11-2010, 12:10 AM
http://a.imageshack.us/img265/4633/18181940conventionallogml2.jpg

Tarendai
08-14-2010, 05:23 PM
omg epic winsauce

*hands over a cookie*

liquid_running
08-15-2010, 07:43 PM
Oh, of course, complete human extinction is the natural conclusion to atheism (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/08/i_knew_we_were_evil_but_i_didn/atheistSociety.php)! How could I not have seen it?


Is that for real or is it a parody? If it's real, then "disintegration of the concept of truth" is the best one. Because, as we all know, teaching kids things that there is actually evidence for will give them a hell of a skewed understanding of truth.

ebby
08-18-2010, 01:32 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l75t2r607Q1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg

^ from some lovely tumblr account.

Tarendai
08-21-2010, 10:02 PM
US Soldiers punished for not attending an Evangelical Christian concert

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/us-soldiers-punished-for-_b_687051.html


For the past several years, two U.S. Army posts in Virginia, Fort Eustis and Fort Lee, have been putting on a series of what are called Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts. As I've written in a number of other posts, "spiritual fitness" is just the military's new term for promoting religion, particularly evangelical Christianity. And this concert series is no different.

On May 13, 2010, about eighty soldiers, stationed at Fort Eustis while attending a training course, were punished for opting out of attending one of these Christian concerts. The headliner at this concert was a Christian rock band called BarlowGirl, a band that describes itself as taking "an aggressive, almost warrior-like stance when it comes to spreading the gospel and serving God."

Lágnætti
08-21-2010, 10:37 PM
'Spiritual fitness'. Now, there's a term that should give any remotely indepenently-minded person the flaming willies. Such a nasty, smug, totalitarian-flavoured phrase, isn't it?

Then there's the money:


The cost of these concerts led MRFF's research department to start looking at some of the DoD contracts for other "spiritual fitness" events and programs, and what we found was astounding. One contract, for example, awarded to an outside consulting firm to provide "spiritual fitness" services, was for $3.5 million.

Barbarella
08-22-2010, 01:53 AM
Ugh. Did Bush start this practice?

Lágnætti
08-31-2010, 07:24 PM
Always reminiscent of a trendy vicar, Tony Blair reveals himself to be the lickspittle religotwerp that he always was, managing to conflate atheism and secularism with religious extremists who blow the shit of of anyone who looks at them wrong:


“We face an aggressive secular attack from without. We face the threat of extremism from within.”

Arguing that there was “no hope” from atheists who scorn God, he said the best way to confront the secularist agenda was for all faiths to unite against it.

He said: “Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6864775.ece


I know you can't expect sense or real intellect from a man who willingly converted to Roman Catholicism at the end of the twentieth century, but really. He is a disgusting, smug-arsed little godbotherer and I'd love to see Richard Dawkins or Chris Hitchins absolutely shred him on a public stage.

Lathan
08-31-2010, 07:37 PM
"And I swear we won't turn on you once we've gotten rid of the non-believers!"

beanstew
08-31-2010, 07:57 PM
Protest The Pope (http://www.protest-the-pope.org.uk/)




Protest the Pope! Be there!

Join the big march through London to oppose the state visit of Joseph Ratzinger to the UK!

The diverse groups who support this campaign have many different reasons for not approving of the State Visit to the UK by the Pope in September 2010. They all however share the following view:

* That the Pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country.
* However, as well as a religious leader, the Pope is a head of state and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:
1. opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of AIDS
2. promoting segregated education
3. denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women
4. opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people
5. failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.
6. rehabilitating the holocaust denier bishop Richard Williamson and the appeaser of Hitler, the war-time Pope, Pius XII.
* The state of which the Pope is the head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties (\u2018concordats\u2019) with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states.
* As a head of state, the Pope is an unsuitable guest of the UK government and should not be accorded the honour and recognition of a state visit to our country.

If you believe, as we do, that the Pope should not come to the UK without hearing from the millions of people who reject his harsh, intolerant views and the practices and policies of the Vatican State please get involved.


I'll be there. :)

other pete
09-02-2010, 11:17 AM
Hawkins (Stephen, not Sophie B) finally gets on board. The readers of the Daily Mail seek to correct him (http://bit.ly/cZzzff).

Alan
09-02-2010, 11:45 AM
This is my favourite comment on that story:

The idea that a magical god waved his wand and created everything for us is silly childish non-sense . Have you seen the size of the universe.

aaahahahahhaha. "God couldn't create the universe, are you kidding, it's fucking massive!"

beanstew
09-02-2010, 11:50 AM
This is my favourite so far.



Im shocked at how ignorant people are....Prepare for the fire of hell...you cant escape death...

If you want proof of GOD...then look closely at yourself...look at you proportion whcih is so perfect..could we just had evolved so perefectly?..definatly not..how come we can see to an extenet or hear to an extent...because if we could hear more then usual we would die of all the noise in the world...or if we could see beyond we would no be able to take it...

So take a good look at yourself..as you are walking proof GOD exists!!
"God had created us in perfect proportion, How can you deny GOD the all knowin


:confused: :confused: :confused:

Tellurium
09-02-2010, 12:15 PM
I didn't realise my proportions were so perfect.

I'm going to sign a modelling contract right now! Thanks guy!

*self-esteem'd*

JAE
09-02-2010, 12:41 PM
My appendix is PERFECT.

other pete
09-02-2010, 12:47 PM
My drinking is PERFECT.

Pete!
09-02-2010, 12:54 PM
The stupidity of all comments on either side of the argument wounds me. I hate the internet and every cunt on it.

Callum
09-02-2010, 01:39 PM
I fancy God. He's all man.

Tarendai
09-12-2010, 04:32 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/aug/27/science-teaching-religious-education-re


The whole problem with RE lessons is not that they exist but that they amount to religious instruction in some schools. There is no basis for allowing state-funded schools to indoctrinate their pupils, even if that is what their parents want. They can provide this in optional after-school (or lunchtime) classes or clubs. They could even have something on a Sunday where children are taught to be believers. They could call it Sunday School!

The recognition that RE lessons can be proselytising is reflected in the right that parents have to withdraw their children from these lessons. In contrast, they can't withdraw their children from biology lessons even if they have profound religious objections to their being taught about sexual reproduction or evolution – these subjects are recognised as non-proselytising.

beanstew
09-12-2010, 07:04 PM
Galileo was wrong, the church was right (http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/)



Galileo Was Wrong is a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Geocentrism, the academic belief that the Earth is immobile in the center of the universe. Garnering scientific information from physics, astrophysics, astronomy and other sciences, Galileo Was Wrong shows that the debate between Galileo and the Catholic Church was much more than a difference of opinion about the interpretation of Scripture.



Scientific evidence available to us within the last 100 years that was not available during Galileo's confrontation shows that the Church's position on the immobility of the Earth is not only scientifically supportable, but it is the most stable model of the universe and the one which best answers all the evidence we see in the cosmos.


okay then...

ebby
09-12-2010, 07:10 PM
In other news, gravity is only a theory.

ebby
09-15-2010, 06:37 PM
Only caught this article from last sunday's Observer this morning over breakfast: Societies without God are more benevolent (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/12/pope-benedict-atheism-secularism)


The pope's visit to Britain has been the perfect excuse for many commentators to traduce secularism

[...]

In advance of the pope's visit, clergymen and commentators are deploying every variety of bogus argument against those who advocate the superiority of secularism. Edmund Adamus, director of pastoral affairs for the Catholic diocese of Westminster, led the way when he denounced the "wasteland" secularism produced. If he had been condemning the atheist tyrannies of communism and fascism, I would have no complaint. However, Adamus was not objecting to Cuba, China or North Korea, but to the wasteland of secular, democratic Britain "with its ever-increasing commercialisation of sex, not to mention its permissive laws advancing the 'gay' agenda".

[...]

But the notion that in free countries atheism promotes intolerance and immorality is demonstrably false. Last year, Californian sociologist Phil Zuckerman responded with facts rather than witless abuse to claims from Christian psychologists and theologians that atheists were "selfish and pusillanimous curmudgeons", "unnatural" or "just damn angry". He pulled together the available evidence and found that the more atheists or agnostics a free society has the more moral it becomes.

Predictably, atheists were far more likely to be tolerant supporters of women's rights and gay rights than believers. The pope, like militant Islamists, orthodox Jews and the ultras in every faith cannot see that struggles for female and homosexual emancipation are among the most moral causes of our age. But as believers in a sternly misogynist and homophobic god, they must want to be tough on crime.

If so, they should welcome the contribution that atheists make to promoting law and order. A study in the 1990s found that a meagre 0.2% of the US prison population were atheists. In America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates are among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon.

True, there is some evidence to suggest that atheists and agnostics are more likely to engage in underage drinking and illicit drug use. But the wider conclusion on the links between crime and religious belief holds good: if you want safe streets, move to a godless neighbourhood.

Atheism and secularism, Zuckerman continued, are also correlated with higher levels of education and lower levels of prejudice not only against women and gays, but people from other ethnicities as well. For good measure, atheists were less likely to beat their children and more likely to encourage them to think independently.

ebby
09-15-2010, 06:38 PM
Only caught this article from last sunday's Observer this morning over breakfast: Societies without God are more benevolent (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/12/pope-benedict-atheism-secularism)


The pope's visit to Britain has been the perfect excuse for many commentators to traduce secularism

[...]

In advance of the pope's visit, clergymen and commentators are deploying every variety of bogus argument against those who advocate the superiority of secularism. Edmund Adamus, director of pastoral affairs for the Catholic diocese of Westminster, led the way when he denounced the "wasteland" secularism produced. If he had been condemning the atheist tyrannies of communism and fascism, I would have no complaint. However, Adamus was not objecting to Cuba, China or North Korea, but to the wasteland of secular, democratic Britain "with its ever-increasing commercialisation of sex, not to mention its permissive laws advancing the 'gay' agenda".

[...]

But the notion that in free countries atheism promotes intolerance and immorality is demonstrably false. Last year, Californian sociologist Phil Zuckerman responded with facts rather than witless abuse to claims from Christian psychologists and theologians that atheists were "selfish and pusillanimous curmudgeons", "unnatural" or "just damn angry". He pulled together the available evidence and found that the more atheists or agnostics a free society has the more moral it becomes.

Predictably, atheists were far more likely to be tolerant supporters of women's rights and gay rights than believers. The pope, like militant Islamists, orthodox Jews and the ultras in every faith cannot see that struggles for female and homosexual emancipation are among the most moral causes of our age. But as believers in a sternly misogynist and homophobic god, they must want to be tough on crime.

If so, they should welcome the contribution that atheists make to promoting law and order. A study in the 1990s found that a meagre 0.2% of the US prison population were atheists. In America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates are among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon.

True, there is some evidence to suggest that atheists and agnostics are more likely to engage in underage drinking and illicit drug use. But the wider conclusion on the links between crime and religious belief holds good: if you want safe streets, move to a godless neighbourhood.

Atheism and secularism, Zuckerman continued, are also correlated with higher levels of education and lower levels of prejudice not only against women and gays, but people from other ethnicities as well. For good measure, atheists were less likely to beat their children and more likely to encourage them to think independently.

beanstew
09-15-2010, 06:52 PM
Only caught this article from last sunday's Observer this morning over breakfast: Societies without God are more benevolent (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/12/pope-benedict-atheism-secularism)

Thanks! That's a great article. :)

SMMY
10-03-2010, 06:24 AM
I found this through another message board I post on:

Christians who practice yoga are embracing, or at minimum flirting with, a spiritual practice that threatens to transform their own spiritual lives into a post-Christian, spiritually polyglot reality. Should any Christian willingly risk that?Who knew that by doing yoga, you risk your mortal soul? (http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/20/the-subtle-body-should-christians-practice-yoga/)
Yoga is evidently the new communism, as far as the religious right is concerned.

and just for complete lolz, Janine Turner has co-opted yoga and made it Christian-safe aka a "Christoga" Dvd. There aren't enough words for how hard I snarfed when they announced the Moses staff position. Plus the soft porn delivery makes it so much more laughable. I'm waiting for the parting of the Red Seas pose - only properly done once a month.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_t5jApEYJ0

Frangipani
10-03-2010, 02:50 PM
is ummm...is yoga in the bible?

looks like Carmella from The Sopranos hired someone to make her a yoga- I mean Jesus Magic room.

Pete!
10-27-2010, 03:11 PM
Just over a year ago, I used a Formal Defection form distributed by Count Me Out (http://www.countmeout.ie/) to try and leave the Catholic Church. I received no response, and when I chased it up with my local diocese, I was basically given a load of flannel and stringent conditions to facilitate my excommunication. As I've spent the year bouncing around between counties, I just decided to put it off until I could get my shit together better.

Now it turns out I am a Catholic for life (http://www.countmeout.ie/suspension/). BOOO.


The Holy See confirmed at the end of August that it was introducing changes to Canon Law and as a result it will no longer be possible to formally defect from the Catholic Church. This will not alter the fact that many people can defect from the Church, and continue to do so, albeit not through a formal process.

Fine, I don't consider myself a Catholic, and metaphysically that's pretty much all that's necessary. As a matter of principle, though, I'm irritated by the notion that they think they've got my eternal soul because my name's on the baptismal register, and that they can continue to claim so many million members despite the non-belief and informal defection of many now former Catholics.

Kari
10-27-2010, 04:11 PM
What? That's bullshit! I don't think I ever formally defected, but now I really, really want to. :(

Barbarella
10-27-2010, 04:28 PM
It's like THE FIRM!

ebby
10-27-2010, 04:39 PM
Yeah. That came up recently. It really pissed me off. The guys behind through CountMeOut site have suspended their service until they find out what is going on. It's completely ridiculous though. How cab any organisation refuse to let someone leave of their own (supposedly god given) free will

Lágnætti
10-27-2010, 07:07 PM
For those of you desperate to leave, do something so heinous they'll have to excommunicate you. Like, you know, provide a life-saving abortion to a raped kiddie or something. That's been known to do the trick before.

Ryan
10-27-2010, 07:22 PM
^ I was going to say you could rape a kid, but then I remembered what thread I was in.

SMMY
10-27-2010, 07:24 PM
They'd probably canonize him for that, Ryan.

Ryan
10-27-2010, 07:27 PM
This seems like the perfect time to once again post Tim Minchin's Pope Song.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0

NSFW language. A lot of it.

Barbarella
10-27-2010, 08:13 PM
;l That was glorious!

Frasier Crane
10-30-2010, 05:41 PM
Devils and gods... now there's an idea...

Barbarella
10-30-2010, 09:50 PM
Why don’t Catholics eat meat on Fridays? I’ll tell you why: It’s because the Pope owns Long John Silver’s!

Medusa
10-31-2010, 01:29 AM
If I believed in God - if I believed in sin - this is the place where I'd be sucked straight to hell. If I believed in hell.

Barbarella
10-31-2010, 01:32 AM
You sound like my mother being pulled on stage at a 2 Live Crew concert.

Pete!
11-02-2010, 07:02 PM
For those of you desperate to leave, do something so heinous they'll have to excommunicate you. Like, you know, provide a life-saving abortion to a raped kiddie or something. That's been known to do the trick before.

I'm going to sterilise some coathangers right now!

Just seen this by my favourite CiF berk Theo Hobson: Britain's illiberal attitude to the church has driven me away. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/nov/02/britain-illiberal-attitude-church-faith).


I have moved to New York, for I don't know how long. I don't think I've emigrated, but for the first time in my life it's a possibility. I used to assume I was too patriotic to think of living elsewhere for long, but I have gradually found my patriotism wearing thin. Religion is at the heart of this.

I have found the English way of religion to be dominated by nostalgia, class, and embarrassed evasion. It has no real interest in reforming itself; indeed it is deeply inoculated against reform. It would take an uber-Luther to get the necessary debate rolling.

Many will say that establishment has become so weak in recent decades that it's not worth complaining about. I disagree. In some ways it now dominates national Christianity more than it used to. The established church used to be balanced by a liberal Christian tradition, pushing for reform, known as nonconformity, or dissent. This religious opposition has crumbled into dust over the last generation or two. British Christianity has become a two-horse race, with Roman Catholicism looking increasingly fanciable.

Oh, okay then! Enjoy your self-imposed exile, you ninny. I can't imagine how anything within the Anglican church can be so bad that the gaybashers and kiddy-fiddlers suddenly seem appealing, let alone decamping to sample the barmy delights of the colonies' own brand of anti-intellectualism, but to each their own.

Lágnætti
11-02-2010, 07:09 PM
Hey, decamping to the kiddie fiddlers and gay bashers was good enough for Ann Widdecombe and Tony Blair. Surely it should be good enough for ... oh wait.

Lathan
11-09-2010, 11:49 AM
http://i.imgur.com/54lMw.png

Barbarella
11-11-2010, 02:52 PM
"Atheists Don't Have No Songs"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADNesm6F27U&feature=player_embedded#!

Cairn
11-11-2010, 03:03 PM
;l Fanfreakingtastic!

Alan
11-11-2010, 05:39 PM
*posting to facebook*

Barbarella
11-19-2010, 03:26 PM
Try not to vomit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iVtNzONbaiU

ebby
11-19-2010, 03:29 PM
I love that this made the news.

Ryan
11-19-2010, 03:35 PM
Well, it made FOX News. *grumble* I love that Jesus had sea-blue eyes and a smile that lit up the heavens.

Frasier Crane
11-19-2010, 07:48 PM
Yeah, he gave an interview to Kirk Cameron, too, and the interview appears in a pamphlet that's to be released along with the book How Darwin's Lies Evolved.


What would YOU do if you caught a glimpse of heaven? Colton Burpo, and his father Todd, decided to write a book.

"It was so cool," said Colton in an exclusive interview. "I was there, and Jesus was there."

Todd Burpo, misty-eyed, adds "It was fantastic. I mean-- I just couldn't believe it when my son told me he'd been to heaven. He made a believer out of me." Todd pulls his son into a warm embrace. Touching stuff.

And what was Jesus like?

"Oh. He was a very nice man. The light behind him was so white, so bright that I couldn't see his face at all. I was so scared and cried for daddy, but Jesus took me onto his lap and said. 'Boy, do not be afraid,' and he soothed me by singing."

Jesus sings?

"Yeah! He sings good too," laughs Colton. "Let me try to remember the lyrics-- umm..."

"Take your time, son," says Todd, and says to me "We are planning to record this song as an inspiration to all those nonbelievers out there"

"Oh! I remember now: 'They told him don't you ever come around here /Don't wanna see your face, you better disappear /The fire's in their eyes and their words are really clear!' After that I don't remember anything and I woke up. But Heaven is for real!"

Real it is. Real it is.

pan
11-19-2010, 08:09 PM
I had to stop watching it.

I've had experiences myself but I constantly go back and forth on them. I'm like half atheist/half believer (but in a christian pissing off kind of way) (I actually was near death during my surgery five years ago and think all I felt was the chatty doctors around me and nothing more.)

I'm wondering if the story is staged for one thing cause this is faux news. (hired actors/employees)

and don't some of the crazier christians in the US believe no souls right now are in heaven or hell cause jesus has not come back and there hasn't been a judgment day yet?

oh how can you say you can't see his face but know what eye color he has?

EnjoyJoy
11-19-2010, 08:18 PM
I'm wondering if the story is staged for one thing cause this is faux news. (hired actors/employees)

Yeah, but there's a book about it.

And God can fit the entire world in his hands. What about the universe? And Jesus was blackish, wasn't he?

Ryan
11-19-2010, 08:21 PM
I highly doubt this kid saw anything. He's probably been coached and brainwashed since he was little to believe this, and now the family can write a book and make millions from it. If there's anything most Christians love, especially the FOX News watching kind, it's a little white boy with a southern accent talking about how Jesus was real and beautiful and has blue eyes! Awww, here's my $20! I'll pass these out as Christmas presents! You know they're going to cash in big for this.

ETA: Where is Steven when we need him to tell us about manufactured memories? Can you really remember things that vividly from the age of 4?

pan
11-19-2010, 08:41 PM
Yeah, but there's a book about it.

And God can fit the entire world in his hands. What about the universe? And Jesus was blackish, wasn't he?

these things could be planned far in advance that they were to write the book first then appear all over the right wing media outlets to appear legit. I just don't trust anything anymore.

SrslyChris
11-19-2010, 08:45 PM
I saw this the other night when a FB friend posted this with the comment "How awesome is this??" One of her friends was upset about the youtube comments and she was surprised when she saw the link came from AthiestMedia.com. ;l ;l ;l

I sort of want to post the link and say "How stupid is this??"

Barbarella
11-19-2010, 09:29 PM
I highly doubt this kid saw anything. He's probably been coached and brainwashed since he was little to believe this, and now the family can write a book and make millions from it. If there's anything most Christians love, especially the FOX News watching kind, it's a little white boy with a southern accent talking about how Jesus was real and beautiful and has blue eyes! Awww, here's my $20! I'll pass these out as Christmas presents! You know they're going to cash in big for this.

ETA: Where is Steven when we need him to tell us about manufactured memories? Can you really remember things that vividly from the age of 4?

This!

SoulQuake
11-20-2010, 04:19 PM
"We are planning to record this song as an inspiration to all those nonbelievers out there"

Yes, that'll do it! I'm positive that after 5 seconds of hearing a shitty song by a kid who doesn't know what the eff he's talking about a miracle song written by Jesus I'll drive myself right to the nearest church and never look back!

kljsdflkjsdflkj

Why do these people always think they have the key to "fixing" nonbelievers? Trust me, guys, you can spend your whole life trying. It's not going to work.

Edit: Ahahahaha. Reading comprehension FAIL.

Mori
11-20-2010, 05:09 PM
The only belief I'd have is that these people are either insane or scam artists.

SoulQuake
11-20-2010, 05:30 PM
My vote is on both of the above.

Alizarin Crimson
11-20-2010, 05:58 PM
"Oh! I remember now: 'They told him don't you ever come around here /Don't wanna see your face, you better disappear /The fire's in their eyes and their words are really clear!' After that I don't remember anything and I woke up. But Heaven is for real!"

uh, he's quoting "Beat It" by Michael Jackson?????? WTF

SoulQuake
11-20-2010, 06:10 PM
It's a joke. Don't feel bad, I fell for it too!

ebby
12-14-2010, 11:23 PM
Oh. Well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xayDw2gS7-0

lacuna
12-15-2010, 04:43 AM
I can't believe I want to punch every actor in that trailer except Daniel Baldwin.

Barbarella
12-15-2010, 03:44 PM
OnKneesforJesus probably doesn't mean what I'm imagining, huh?

Lathan
12-16-2010, 12:16 PM
http://www.picshag.com/pics/122010/atheist-protester-big.jpg


Hahaha!

Barbarella
12-19-2010, 09:31 PM
A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I’m An Atheist (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/#)

Brilliant.

ebby
12-19-2010, 10:47 PM
It's a great piece! I loved this part:


You see, growing up where I did, mums didn’t hope as high as their kids growing up to be doctors; they just hoped their kids didn’t go to jail. So bring them up believing in God and they’ll be good and law abiding. It’s a perfect system. Well, nearly. 75 percent of Americans are God-*‐fearing Christians; 75 percent of prisoners are God-*‐fearing Christians. 10 percent of Americans are atheists; 0.2 percent of prisoners are atheist

Barbarella
12-19-2010, 11:13 PM
I know! One of my favorites too!

Along with this:


“Do unto others…” is a good rule of thumb. I live by that. Forgiveness is probably the greatest virtue there is. Buts that’s exactly what it is -*‐ a virtue. Not just a Christian virtue. No one owns being good. I’m good. I just don’t believe I’ll be rewarded for it in heaven. My reward is here and now. It’s knowing that I try to do the right thing. That I lived a good life.

Lathan
12-19-2010, 11:39 PM
That's great. Funny and thoughtful.

I liked:


If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God”, I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

lacuna
12-20-2010, 12:09 AM
I liked this part:


But living an honest life – for that you need the truth. That’s the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, in the end leads to liberation and dignity.

devnull
12-20-2010, 10:20 AM
Fantastic piece. Ricky Gervais = <3

Barbarella
12-20-2010, 04:01 PM
Anyone catch his HBO special this weekend? He did a bit on The Book of Noah that had me rolling!

beanstew
12-20-2010, 04:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prglk8wSoMk&feature=player_embedded#!

SoulQuake
12-20-2010, 04:05 PM
I recorded it and watched the first part of it, but I still have to see the rest. I only got up to where he has a go at fat people. ;)

I can't wait to hear the Book of Noah bit.

Edit: I do love that piece. I'm going to save it and print it out, and if anyone ever asks me why I'm an atheist, I think I'll just hand them that. It sums up my thoughts perfectly.

SoulQuake
12-20-2010, 04:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prglk8wSoMk&feature=player_embedded#!

Okay, having an imaginary friend is unhealthy, unless your imaginary friend is a magic man in the sky who grants wishes. Got it!

Barbarella
12-20-2010, 04:47 PM
Man, God really is like a Genie to them isn't he?

Meditation has been proven to be just as beneficial.

Brian
12-20-2010, 06:21 PM
Meditation is just masturbatory prayer, Barb, sheesh.

Lathan
12-20-2010, 07:12 PM
And Yoga is the devil's flexibility!

beanstew
12-20-2010, 07:16 PM
And Yoga is the devil's flexibility!

Ha ha :D

ebby
12-23-2010, 12:02 PM
A Christmas Message for Christians = awesome.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iGwnL-CAjk

Lathan
12-23-2010, 12:11 PM
;l Great.

I would be very upset if I got a birthday card without you-know-what on it. BUT NO ONE WOULD DARE!

Mori
12-23-2010, 12:32 PM
a priest saying prayer is good for you? No wai!

Barbarella
12-23-2010, 03:05 PM
That was fantastic!

ETA: What program is that?

Lathan
12-23-2010, 03:15 PM
ETA: What program is that?

I want to know too.

My guesses: "The Daily Lorry with Pip Stuart" or "The Lorry Show with Stuart Windsor"

Mordecai
12-28-2010, 03:58 PM
This is not satire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agexr88YHFE

Barbarella
12-28-2010, 06:12 PM
*vomits*

Mori
12-29-2010, 01:08 AM
http://kajota.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/respect-my-authority.jpg

lacuna
12-29-2010, 11:12 PM
yeah, I only got to the 45 second mark. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, but that's because I thought it was going to be a white supremacist kids band. It's still pretty bad though. Shit, they couldn't even get real instruments.

Mori
12-30-2010, 06:26 AM
"BUT!!". That made me lol.

beanstew
12-30-2010, 09:51 AM
That is freakin' hilarious. Oh, it's not satire. That's just plain scary.

This is the most appropriate I can think of.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH0UuyNTakY

My mate used to make a point of winding down the windows and playing that at 11 whenever he drove past any coppers. :D

lioness
12-30-2010, 07:07 PM
Wait 'til the respect authority kids start to rebel. That should be a lot of fun!

Mori
12-31-2010, 05:53 AM
That is freakin' hilarious. Oh, it's not satire. That's just plain scary.

This is the most appropriate I can think of.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH0UuyNTakY

My mate used to make a point of winding down the windows and playing that at 11 whenever he drove past any coppers. :D


Whenever I see something scary like that "Respect Authority" bullshit, I listen to NWA or the like to cleanse my mental palate.

beanstew
01-03-2011, 02:54 PM
This is hilarious: The science vs. creationism debate exemplified on a facebook page (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/the_science_vs_creationism_deb.php)

ebby
01-03-2011, 03:37 PM
^ oh my god. The stupid, followed by the "lalallalaa I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is just so incredulous.

ebby
01-03-2011, 03:53 PM
A few Irish bits of news: The "Teach Don't Preach" (http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/) campaign is getting underway. Which I'm really very happy about. 98% or so of primary schools here in Ireland are Catholic schools linked into the local parish churches, and every day starts with prayers. Essentially indoctrinating children from a young age, and creating enormous social pressure to do the First Holy Communion (aka: wear a nice white dress, get fuck loads of money from relatives, and have it be ALL ABOUT YOU when you're 8) along with the other sacraments.


Also, Dublin will be hosting the Atheist Alliance International Conference in June! Interesting, diverse lineup of speakers:

We'd like some feedback on the price for the Atheist Alliance International Conference in Dublin next year. It will be a three-day conference held from 3-5 June 2011.

The theme will be celebrating the positive benefits of atheism, for individuals and society. Most of the sessions will be panel discussions rather than lectures.

It will be co-hosted by Atheist Ireland and Atheist Alliance International

Speakers and panelists so far include:


Richard Dawkins (UK), evolutionary biologist
PZ Myers (USA), writer of science blog Pharyngula
Paula Kirby (UK), consultant on secular projects
Ivana Bacik (IRL), Irish Senator and secular campaigner
Graham Linehan (IRL), writer of Father Ted and IT Crowd
Dan Barker (USA), founder Freedom from Religion Foundation
Michael Nugent (IRL), chairperson Atheist Ireland
Speaker to be arranged (UK) from Atheism UK
Plus many more speakers to be added as they are confirmed.


Plus an evening of godless entertainment.
Plus the launch of the new Atheist Alliance International.

MTC
01-06-2011, 06:42 PM
A song for those on the Bendy Bus.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/08/steve-martins-gospel.html

MTC
01-06-2011, 06:57 PM
Oh dear.

God causes the tides, not the moon per O'Reilly (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/oreilly-god-causes-tides_n_805262.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=745121,b=facebook)

Barbarella
01-12-2011, 04:29 PM
Editor’s Note: Earlier this week, in an essay that drew a deluge of comments, British comic, actor and filmmaker Ricky Gervais argued against the existence of God.

To give Wall Street Journal readers a chance to respond, we asked Gervais to answer via email some of the most frequently asked questions about his article.



In your piece you write, that “Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know.” In fact, mainstream scientific thought has sometimes been wrong, and it is constantly changing and revising itself. So how can you be so sure that science supports your belief that God does not exist?

Ricky Gervais: Science doesn’t concern itself with the non-existence of something. The periodic table of imaginary things would be too big for a classroom- infinitely big in fact, and rather pointless. It’s not trying to prove the non-existence of anything supernatural. All it knows is there is no scientific proof of anything supernatural so far. When someone presents a jar of God it will test it. If it finds some evidence of “godness” it will follow the evidence till it knows everything it can.

The fact that science can say “we don’t know” is exactly my point. Science doesn’t start with a set of convenient conclusions and try to justify them. It follows evidence. In fact, it tries to prove itself wrong. When it can’t, it’s right. Superstition, religion and blind faith cherry pick the evidence and justify the results by changing the goal posts. There are no cover-ups in science. For better or worse it finds stuff out. It has no moral code as such. It leaves those decisions to society. It discovers life saving drugs but leaves it up to you whether to use them or not. It discovers that splitting the atom can release a massive amount of energy very quickly and leaves it up to governments to try it out or not. It finds out what and how and why. It asks can we? Not should we? This is why it baffles me that some god fearers believe that without a god there is no reason to be good. Really?

Doesn’t the idea that God was somehow involved in the making of the universe seem immensely more reasonable than believing that some random form of matter has existed for all of time, or that matter just up and popped into existence?

So you’re asking whether it’s more plausible that everything in the known universe including man was made by a supernatural being, in 6 days, than from a massive explosion of matter that expanded and gradually became the known universe in all it’s beauty over the last 14 billion years? I don’t think so, no.

If you don’t know what made the universe it seems pointless to say a God must have made it then. You have to then say “But what made God?” If you are then willing to say that God was always around, you may as well say that the universe was too. Saves time doesn’t it? How long did he wait till he made the universe by the way? And where was he? Did it turn out just like he planned? If he had to make another one would he do it any different? Where would he put it?


Does science really have an objective agenda?

Yes.

Wasn’t it also used to justify slavery, genocide and the subjugation of women? Why should we trust science when it comes to God?

When was science used to justify slavery, genocide and the subjugation of women? There are bad people who believe in God and bad people who don’t but neither can claim to have science on their side when they commit their deeds. I don’t know who’s been going round saying that science justifies any of those things. It certainly doesn’t and anyone who says it does is taking the name of science in vain. Many theories try to wear the badge of science to give their practices credibility but the badge is a forgery. Religion even tries to claim scientific evidence but fails. Astrology wants to be recognized as a science. It isn’t. Real science comes along and shows them the door. Its only agenda is truth. It doesn’t wish something were true. It finds out whether something is or isn’t true. Believing something is true simply because you wish it was, isn’t science. It’s faith.

Woody Allen is widely quoted as having once said: “You cannot prove the nonexistence of God; you just have to take it on faith.” Is being an atheist as unscientific a stance as believing in God? Isn’t it more intellectually honest to be agnostic?

Well Woody Allen was being facetious but makes a good point. Is being an atheist as unscientific a stance as believing in God? No definitely not. How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself?


What does a comedian really know about God anyway?

Since there is nothing to know about god, a comedian knows as much about god as any one else. An atheist however is alone in knowing that there is nothing to know so probably has the edge. An Atheist comedian can make people laugh about belief or lack of it. A good atheist comedian can make people laugh AND think about belief or lack of it. An agnostic would say that since you can neither prove the existence nor the non-existence of God then the only answer to the question “Is there a God?” is “I don’t know.” Basically they are saying just because you haven’t found something yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Well firstly we have to know what definition of God we are asking about. Many can be dismissed as logical impossibilities. In the same way that if you were asked can you imagine a square circle the answer is of course “No.” Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. Let’s just say there is a definition of a God that is possible. Does he exist? “I don’t know” in this case is indeed the correct answer. However this must also be the answer to many other questions. Is there an elephant up your a—? Even if you’ve looked you can’t say “no.” It could be that you just haven’t found it yet. Please look again and this time really believe there is an elephant up there because however mad it sounds no one can prove that you don’t have a lovely big African elephant up your a—.

People who believe in God sometimes have moments of doubt about their faith. Have you had any moments of doubt about your atheism?

Atheism isn’t a belief system. I have a belief system but it’s not “based on” atheism, it’s just not based on the existence of a god. I make none of my moral, social, or artistic decisions based on any god or superstitions. Saying atheism is a belief system is like saying not going skiing is a hobby. I’ve never been skiing. It’s my biggest hobby. I literally do it all the time. But to answer your question I am constantly faced with theories of God, and angels, and hell. It’s everywhere. But unless there is an ounce of credibility to it, I reject. I have to. You can’t lie to yourself. If you do you’ve only fooled a deluded person and where’s the victory in that?

How do you plan on celebrating Christmas?

Eating and drinking too much with friends and family. Celebrating life and remembering those that did, but can no longer.

They are not looking down on me but they live in my mind and heart more than they ever did probably. Some, I was lucky enough to bump into on this planet of six billion people. Others shared much of my genetic material. One selflessly did her best for me all my life. That’s what mums do though. They do it for no other reason than love. Not for reward. Not for recognition. They create you. From nothing. Miracle? They do those every day. No big deal. They are not worshiped. They would give their life without the promise of heaven. They teach you everything they know yet they are not declared prophets. And you only have one.

I am crying as I write this.

It usually gets me this time of year. That’s what’s special about Christmas. It’s when you visit or reminisce about the ones you love. And reflect on how lucky you are. How they helped shape you. I remember the first time my mum took me to see a movie. I’d never been to a cinema before. I can still remember the place to this day. Everything seemed carpeted. The floors, the walls, everything. I had sweets and Pepsi and the biggest screen in the world, I thought. I was blown away. I lived a life in a couple of hours. When I thought Baloo was dead I was sobbing uncontrollably but trying to hide it. My mum was consoling me but didn’t seem as distressed as me. Then when it turned out that Baloo was still alive I was f—ing euphoric.

But it made me think. On the way home I asked my mum how old I’d be when she died. “Old,” she said. “Will I care?” I asked worried about my far off future feelings. She wasn’t sure what to say. She knew I wanted the answer “no” in some ways but as usual she chose honesty. “Yes,” she said. “But it won’t happen for a very long time.” That was good enough for me.

When I returned to school a few weeks later we had to do a little presentation about our holidays. I proceeded to act out the entire movie using the other kids in the class. I told them where to stand and what to say, filling in the action with narration. Eventually the teacher had to stop me because I was taking up the whole day. Now I’m a real director I never make that same mistake. I’m home by 4 o’clock on any movie I do.

I haven’t seen the film for 40 years so I’m not sure how good it is but it’s still one of my fondest memories because it was a gift from my mum. My mum died when I was 40.

She was right by the way. I did care. But luckily 35 five years before, I’d learnt the bear necessities to get me through.

Just like Baloo, she’s still with me.

Dads are pretty cool too. Mine was a man of few words. He let me make my own way. He taught me one important lesson though. That it’s OK for a man to cry. He only cried once in his life. Just one time. When his mum died. Luckily for him all his children out-lived him. Otherwise there would surely have been a second.

I hope you are with your loved ones at this wonderful time of year. That’s what will make it wonderful.

Peace to all mankind. Christian, Jew, Muslim and Atheist.

What about Agnostics?

Uhm?…I don’t know. Only joking. Yes even Agnostics.

Peace and goodwill to ALL mankind.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/22/does-god-exist-ricky-gervais-takes-your-questions/

Hannah.
01-12-2011, 04:52 PM
Oh dear.

God causes the tides, not the moon per O'Reilly (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/oreilly-god-causes-tides_n_805262.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=745121,b=facebook)

Just watching that video... URRRGHHHH. O'Reilly is truly an artist of douchebaggery; every time he opens his mouth I just imagine diarrhea and cockroaches seeping out.

Zippo
01-13-2011, 12:12 AM
Oh dear.

God causes the tides, not the moon per O'Reilly (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/oreilly-god-causes-tides_n_805262.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=745121,b=facebook)

"I'm not the smartest guy in town"

[icon16] You said it, Bill.

Mori
01-13-2011, 01:58 AM
Why did he have that guy on if he's just going to talk over him the whole time? Seems rather redundant and just an excuse to argue with someone.

ebby
01-15-2011, 09:47 PM
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbdyyqTZZs1qztfsio1_500.png



edit: website address redirects to: Illini secular student alliance (http://uiucatheists.blogspot.com/)

Lathan
01-15-2011, 10:12 PM
Oh snap!

I like it.

Cairn
01-15-2011, 10:26 PM
Beautiful.

jeth
01-16-2011, 03:30 AM
Except they spelled Evangelical wrong.

Right? Or is that an acceptable spelling that I wasn't aware of?

Mori
01-16-2011, 06:00 AM
Ok, I hate to rant, but I need to get this out. Today was my nephew's 1st birthday party, and my aunt gave him some pajamas and a toy.

Oh, and some Baby God Loves Me books. I had to joke and say "Are you trying to tell me something?" and had a laugh. Inside I was just sighing and thinking "oh brother". So on the car ride home, I told my dad "What's up with her giving these God books?"? And he said "Why not?, It'll be good to give him some religion". I was saying he doesn't need it, you don't have to get your morals from church and what not. He said 'Well, you had some good church before you became an atheist. Plus, WE'RE raising him. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean everyone else has to be".

OMFG, I was just seething! Why is it that everyone gets so smug when I say I'm an atheist and think they are so much better than me cause they believe in god? This is why so many people are quiet over their atheism, everyone else thinks it's a big joke. Oh, and I also I apparently talk about it too much. FFFUUUUU-

ebby
01-16-2011, 11:47 AM
Except they spelled Evangelical wrong.

Right? Or is that an acceptable spelling that I wasn't aware of?

I've a sneaking suspicion the 3rd one isn't done by the same people. But the three were together in one image. 3rd one has a different font, none of the logos, and just looks a bit cheaper - the spelling mistake just adds to that. But the 3rd one brings the lols.

other pete
01-16-2011, 04:54 PM
New Testament story about John the Baptist and Herod prompted Tony Blair 'wobble' on bombing Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/jan/14/tonyblair-alastaircampbell?INTCMP=SRCH)

Late night reading of Bible led former prime minister to 'rethink' military attack on Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/jan/14/tonyblair-alastaircampbell?INTCMP=SRCH)


But (can I just say) not, y'know, e-fucking-nough.

Lágnætti
01-17-2011, 09:49 PM
Ugh, Blair.

This thread needs more Dara O'Briain:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHqOG8p0Lkc&feature=related

Barbarella
01-17-2011, 09:51 PM
I'd never heard of him. He's great! ;l

Lágnætti
01-18-2011, 08:59 PM
He is!

On Catholicism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUVNZFylTdo&feature=related

"You could join the Taliban. You'd merely be regarded as a bad Catholic."

On 'mixed' marriages:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0thRUS1wUw&feature=related

Mori
01-18-2011, 09:09 PM
that was brilliant!

Barbarella
01-18-2011, 09:39 PM
"Mule Child" ;l

other pete
01-18-2011, 09:56 PM
"In Ireland, in a predominantly catholic country, this is what we thought protestants looked like"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLeMplo7RDs

Lágnætti
01-18-2011, 10:02 PM
Ah, she's on his Enemies List too! I love him even more.

Barbarella
01-28-2011, 07:27 PM
Spend a few minutes: http://atheistsnever.com/

jeth
01-29-2011, 01:47 AM
Oooh, this one's local!

Atheists Never...

murdered their children by relying on prayer or faith healing instead of getting them proper medical care.

Cunter Fartlett
01-29-2011, 05:30 AM
Spend a few minutes: http://atheistsnever.com/

That was depressing.

Lágnætti
01-29-2011, 06:34 PM
Atheists Never...

starved one of their sons to death because he wouldn't say Amen and then expected him to be resurrected.


got angry for showing a woman's face on the media, instead of getting mad about the fact that she beat her two year old child to death.


formed a 40 man gang and went on a hunt with the explicit intention of murdering one of their daughters.

Are there links to the actual news stories somewhere?

Barbarella
01-29-2011, 07:19 PM
There's a link for each quote on http://atheistsnever.com/ right under the quote to the left.

Lágnætti
01-29-2011, 08:12 PM
I'm going blind. Thanks!

Mordecai
01-31-2011, 12:48 PM
ho boy.

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20110125/ARTICLES/101251017/1088/sports?Title=Woman-accused-of-torturing-killing-Bible-chewing-devil-dog


Woman accused of torturing, killing Bible-chewing 'devil' dog


http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=SJ&Date=20110125&Category=ARTICLES&ArtNo=101251017&Ref=AR&Profile=1088&MaxW=250&border=0

A 65-year-old Pacolet Mills woman is accused of hanging and burning a 1-year-old pit bull after the animal chewed her Bible.


Click to enlarge
Miriam Fowler Smith.
Miriam Fowler Smith, of 410 John Worthy Road, Pacolet Mills, is charged with ill treatment of animals in general, torture, according to an arrest warrant.

Smith's nephew told officers he left the animal at the home he shared with his aunt during the recent winter weather.

After returning, he could not find the dog, named Diamond, and he assumed she had broken the chain that kept her on the home's front porch, according to a report filed by a Spartanburg County environmental enforcement officer.

The man later told officers his aunt admitted to killing the animal, calling it a devil dog, and authorities were called to investigate.

After officers responded to the home, the woman told them she killed the dog because it had chewed her Bible and she feared for the safety of neighborhood children.

Officers found the dog's body, which had been partially burned, lying in a pile of dried grass. An orange extension cord had been tied tightly around the dog's neck and in its mouth.

Smith was booked into the Spartanburg County jail on Sunday night.

JAE
01-31-2011, 05:08 PM
Atheists never...

JAE
02-03-2011, 11:58 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M

ebby
02-03-2011, 12:10 PM
Just where did the moon come from? Well? Well?

JAE
02-03-2011, 12:22 PM
I think we can all move on now that O'Reilly logic has proved the existence of God.

Lathan
02-03-2011, 12:24 PM
Just where did the moon come from? Well? Well?

I say we ask Oprah's mom. We seem to be discovering new Oprah siblings at quite a pace lately.

The moon looms large in our lives and is unreachable for most people. It's continually getting bigger and smaller. Clearly, the moon is Oprah's female counterpart.

Where's the birth certificate? Think about it, sheeple. It's obvious.

ebby
02-03-2011, 12:35 PM
I thought Oprah's new sister was that new astrology sign that's been around forever.

other pete
02-03-2011, 12:53 PM
Just where did the moon come from? Well? Well?

I think the guy's part Meerkat


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DljZvX3iCEA

MTC
02-21-2011, 06:17 AM
I so wanted to buy this.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/forumzpics/doggiejesus.jpg

Chalk
03-22-2011, 04:29 AM
A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers.

The data reflect a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation.

The team's mathematical model attempts to account for the interplay between the number of religious respondents and the social motives behind being one.

The result, reported at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, US, indicates that religion will all but die out altogether in those countries.

[...] The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

More on the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197)

Yeah, I really doubt that. There will always be those who will cling onto religious beliefs unconditionally.

Barbarella
03-28-2011, 11:41 PM
CNN: Atheists Die First In Survival Situations (VIDEO)



Proving that they will not be outdone by Fox News in the pretty, blonde and vapid talking head department, CNN produced Dr. Wendy Walsh, "journalist, mother, doctor of psychology and popular culture junkie" in a segment about the worldwide decline in religious affiliation.

During the discussion, Walsh dropped this bomb shell:


Most studies on survivors show that the Atheists die first because if you don't believe in something supernatural, how can you imagine that you yourself have supernatural abilities enough to survive?

And she should know about these things. After all, she wrote both The Boyfriend Test and The Girlfriend Test. So it just makes good sense to bring her in on a discussion of life, death and the existence or lack thereof of a divine creator. In fact, we humbly suggest Walsh get to work on The God Test immediately.


As one blogger pointed out, the best response to Walsh so far comes from YouTube commentor, jacobryanball10:


very true, just the other day I was being chased by a bear. Then I realized I should stop and pray. I did just that, then Jesus came down, killed the bear and said "Hey see you again on May 21, or December 12th, or some other time, I haven't quite decided yet." I said "Sweet, I'll bring the water, you make the wine" Then he rode a flying donkey into heaven while waving the American flag chanting "USA USA USA!" I'd like to see THAT happen to an atheist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/cnn-atheists-die-first_n_841448.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_I5Z5q8A68&feature=player_embedded

Hannah.
03-28-2011, 11:51 PM
Oh god, how have I survived all these years without any supernatural abilities??

lacuna
03-29-2011, 06:04 AM
I wonder if this lady's source for these "studies" is just Stephen King's The Mist.

Hannah.
03-30-2011, 05:57 AM
Sorry to hijack le thread: (Remove this post if necessary)

To the person who sent me reputation: I can't see who it is that sent me reputation since I don't have premium. Therefore, I can't answer your question until you make yourself known ;)

Cairn
03-30-2011, 10:55 AM
Oh god, how have I survived all these years without any supernatural abilities??

You are sort of like a trinity around here.

MTC
04-27-2011, 05:47 PM
One more reason religion is so messed up: Respected theologian defends genocide and infanticide (http://www.alternet.org/story/150742/one_more_reason_religion_is_so_messed_up:_respected_theologian_defends_genocide_and_infanticide?page=entire)

It essentially says what I keep preaching about the Bible. I like this next bit.


In this piece, Craig says that the Canaanites were evil, and deserving of genocide, because (among other things) they practiced infanticide. The very crime that God ordered the Israelites to commit. I shit you not. Quote: "By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice." (Emphasis -- and dumbstruck bafflement -- mine.) And he says the infanticide of the Canaanite children was defensible and necessary because the Israelites needed to keep their tribal identity pure, and keep their God-given morality untainted by the Canaanite wickedness. Again, I shit you not. Again, quote: "By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable." As if an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god couldn't come up with a better way to teach a lesson about assimilation to pagan idolatry than murdering children.

beanstew
05-18-2011, 11:48 PM
Judgement Day nonsense (http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/Savior-the-Date-May-21-is-Judgment-Day.html)



lvis Nditafon, 25, left his engineering job at the end of March. Hes standing next to his gleaming white Mitsubishi Eclipsehe just drained what was left of his bank account to get huge Return of Christ graphics on the sides of his car. Im not sure how its going to work, but our bodies will be changed, he says of May 21. It could be vanishing. The Bible gives evidence that its going to be something visible to those who are left behind. I just pray that Im one of the chosen.


Probably going to feel a bit of a twat on the 22nd.



Minus their dog. Like many May 21ers who plan to euthanize their pets prior to Judgment Day, the Pisanos considered putting down their 3-year-old pit bull, Bella. [She] wont have food or water. Its like knowingly leaving one of your children behind and saying you dont really care. The family ultimately decided to leave her post-apocalyptic survival in the Lords hands.


That right there is where I get pissed off with all this bullshit.

Girl Friday
05-19-2011, 12:37 AM
[jawdrop]

Just wow.

Barbarella
05-19-2011, 05:13 AM
Fucking nut jobs.


“The information is coming from the Bible and the Bible is God’s word. And therefore ... it’s not a possibility that Judgment Day won’t happen on May 21.”

Oh, OK.

Cairn
05-19-2011, 01:25 PM
The pet thing is fucking disgusting.

The other thing that kills me about the judgement day whackjobs? The book they call The Living Word states that no human being will ever be able to predict the day of judgement. So once they think they've figured out when it's going to happen, logic should dictate they know it can't be when they think it will be just because they think they know when it will be.

Dizzy after reading that? Yeah, me too. I think it's designed that way on purpose- so that people will just STOP thinking about it and subscribe blindly to what they're spouted.

beanstew
05-19-2011, 03:53 PM
Damon Fowler of Bastrop, Louisiana asked his school to obey the law and not impose sectarian prayer on his high school graduation, and for that he's being ostracized. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/standard_small_town_saga.php)



My graduation from high school is this Friday. I live in the Bible Belt of the United States. The school was going to perform a prayer at graduation, but due to me sending the superintendent an email stating it was against Louisiana state law and that I would be forced to contact the ACLU if they ignored me, they ceased it. The school backed down, but that's when the shitstorm rolled in. Everyone is trying to get it back in the ceremony now. I'm not worried about it, but everyone hates me... kind of worried about attending graduation now. It's attracted more hostility than I thought.

My reasoning behind it is that it's emotionally stressing on anyone who isn't Christian. No one else wanted to stand up for their constitutional right of having freedom of and FROM religion. I was also hoping to encourage other atheists to come out and be heard. I'm one of maybe three atheists in this town that I currently know of. One of the others is afraid to come out of the (atheist) closet.

Though I've caused my classmates to hate me, I feel like I've done the right thing. Regardless of their thoughts on it, basically saying I am ruining their fun and their lives, I feel like I've helped someone out there. I didn't do this for me or just atheists, but anyone who doesn't believe in their god that prayer to Yahweh may affect.

Moral of the story: though the opposition may be great, majority doesn't necessarily mean right. Thank you for reading. Wish me luck at graduation.

EDIT: Well, it hit the fan a couple hours ago. They've already assembled a group of supporters at a local church and called in the newspaper. I've had to deactivate my Facebook account and I can't reason with any of them. They refuse to listen. The whole town hates me, aside from a few closet atheists that are silently supporting, which I don't blame them looking at what I've incited here. Thanks for the support though.

If anyone would like to offer support, the superintendent is who I emailed and the school's website is mpsb.us

Thanks for the support. It's really helping. This has just gotten sickening.

JAE
05-19-2011, 04:27 PM
The book they call The Living Word states that no human being will ever be able to predict the day of judgement.

So if I predict that it will happen on every day ever, then it never will?

Cairn
05-19-2011, 04:38 PM
You may be on to some weird theological wormholeish thing, there.

SweetPea
05-19-2011, 05:14 PM
http://chzdailywhat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/d72ebb18-ad8f-487b-95ab-a0209a403b88.jpg

SweetPea
05-19-2011, 05:21 PM
Ok, last one... I swear... But I think we should all go give this a shot... turn the tables on them!

http://chzragecomics.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/rage-comics-atone-thy-sins1.jpg

JayPeaches
05-19-2011, 07:21 PM
I wonder if these are the same idiots who said 1/1/00 would be the return of Christ?

Cairn
05-19-2011, 07:32 PM
You'd think they'd be embarrassed enough at being wrong so many times they'd just give it a rest and get over it already.

Brian
05-19-2011, 11:40 PM
I wonder if these are the same idiots who said 1/1/00 would be the return of Christ?

This particular preacher previously predicted the rapture for June 9, 1994.

And yeah, Jesus did say no man would know the hour, but he also said it would happen before the current generation had all died, so… yeah. There's that. (Some people argue he meant the generation alive for the restoring of the tabernacle, so reset to 1948 then, and we have less than a century to wait)

JAE
05-20-2011, 12:54 AM
If anybody lives near nutters please tell me you're going to leave piles of clothes and shoes outside on Saturday.

Girl Friday
05-20-2011, 02:21 AM
If anybody lives near nutters please tell me you're going to leave piles of clothes and shoes outside on Saturday.

Better yet leave them like this (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=211118348922234)

JayPeaches
05-20-2011, 02:23 AM
Better yet leave them like this (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=211118348922234)

;l !!!

Mori
05-20-2011, 02:45 AM
Damon Fowler of Bastrop, Louisiana asked his school to obey the law and not impose sectarian prayer on his high school graduation, and for that he's being ostracized. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/standard_small_town_saga.php)

I'm glad that kid is standing up for himself and not giving in to social bullying, even if it means an entire town hates him.

JayPeaches
05-20-2011, 02:50 AM
I really hate this idea that so many Christians have that "majority rules" when it comes to religion. The individual rules when it comes to religion.

Girl Friday
05-20-2011, 03:01 AM
I really hate this idea that so many Christians have that "majority rules" when it comes to religion. The individual rules when it comes to religion.


THIS x1000

FJeff
05-20-2011, 03:13 AM
My idea of hell would be spending eternity with a bunch of fundies. I'm afraid "God" might punish me by rapturing me on Saturday. :(