Doing their Wurst

Russian homophobes (which seems to include the Russian Orthodox Church’s leadership) are foaming at the mouth again. The reason? A successful drag queen.

Not being partial to chansons, I wasn’t up-to-date on what was going on in the Eurovision Song Contest. It transpired that Austria’s contribution was presented by artist Tom Neuwirth under her stage name ‘Conchita Wurst’. Her outfit, a beautiful dress, long hair, and stylish beard shook the religious fag haters to their collective core. Even more so the fact that Wurst won the contest.

After calling Wurst an ‘Abomination’, Vladimir Legoyda, chairman of the orthodox church’s information department told Interfax that

the legal and cultural spheres are moving in a parallel direction, to which the results of this competition bear witness.

Actually, while indeed parallel, they move in opposing direction, with the church accelerating fast into the stone age.

Still, as many people have pointed out, it’s not without a little irony that the hate-mongers at the helm of the Russian Orthodox Church are so strongly opposed against men in beautiful dresses wearing beards…

Orthodox drags seventyfive
Beards in Dresses
(Image Source: Twitter)

A Dog’s Religion

Yesterday I came across a cute picture of dog walking itself, carrying its own leash.

Dog  leash proc Image Credit: Source Unknown/Twitter

The image was  captioned:

a strong independent dog, who don’t need no man

But that’s not what I saw. I just couldn’t help myself – I thought: “look, a religious person.”

The dog can do whatever it wants. Presently, it is walking itself. That’s not a problem.

The problem is the leash. 

To me, the leash represents religion better than most analogies – it’s obviously unnecessary for the dog, it restricts its will, and can be used by anyone to subdue the it, to force it to do someone else’s bidding. The dog would be much better of it it didn’t have a leash. Yet it proudly carries it in it’s jaw.

How is that different from devout believers proudly professing their faith?

The Power of Prayer

Matthew 21:22 says

And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

We know this to be bull: when I still was a believer, I prayed that sweet, dark-haired, blue-eyed Susie would be mine – but she went with Pete, that idiot leather-jacketed jerk. I then prayed for a leather jacket. Nope. And no – that’s neither when nor why I eventually became an atheist.

But that verse is pretty much why Christians pray. Many believers take it literally. They especially believe this to be true in dire situations. Usually, the error of this belief should quickly reveal itself.

Yet, for millennia, it hasn’t.

Why not? Well, until recently, there was a simple Darwinian determinator built in: just like history is written by victors, only those who survive a dangerous situation can tell of the ‘powers of prayer’ – you literally have to live to tell. If you pray and die, it’s end of story. So we have many stories of those who pray and live, and none of those who pray and die (well, except for the Christians that were fed to the lions in Rome, but let’s disregard those).

Not even two two centuries ago, medically speaking, we were still savages. Then, when you prayed for your own (or someone else’s) life it didn’t make any difference if there also was a Doctor, Alchemist or Medicine Man present. Your chances of survival didn’t change with either.

Today, you’ll have a significant better chance to survive if you go to a medical doctor instead of just praying.

For anyone who has any sense this is more than just a correlation. The only thing that has changed is modern medicine – religions have remained the same for more than 1000 years. So it’s medicine that cures you, not prayer.

Next time you thank God for curing your illness, please consider also thanking those who actually saved you: your nurses, your doctors, and the researchers who made your cure possible.

Allah’s Sex Slaves

In 2005, a newspaper published 12 cartoons that depicted Mohammed (the Prophet) in various vaguely satirical ways. As a result, fanatical Muslims around the world became so enraged that their riots left some 200 people dead, embassies burnt down, and churches destroyed.

In 2014, Islamist Fundamentalist group Boko Haram (which roughly translates to ‘the western ways are sinful’) kidnapped 230 Nigerian school girls to sell them as sex slaves. Their justification? Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram’s Leader said in a video message: “Allah commands me [to sell the girls]”.

No riots.

Why not?

This is no idle question.

It certainly seems that fanatical Muslims believe it is a worse crime to draw a a caricature of a mythical person than raping 230 children. Now, I don’t want these people to go out, riot, and kill another 200 humans just to set the record straight – but can’t the fundamentalists at least show some indignation at this terrible crime? And if not at the crime itself, then at least at the (hopefully) blasphemous claim that Allah condones sex slavery?

Ah.

Muslim Mars

As Time reports, the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowments (GAIAE) in the United Arab Emirates have issued a fatwa against traveling to Mars. Their reasoning:

It is not permissible to travel to Mars and never to return if there is no life on Mars. The chances of dying are higher than living.

GAIAE concludes that the trip is akin to suicide, and not permissible.

Well, I guess that’s why they are called explorers, guys! Does GAIAE really want to supply the western world with legitimate reason to call muslims ‘Sissies’? After all, there are dirty, morally degenerate unbelievers who are perfectly willing to take the plunge.

Mars One – the Organization that funds the one-way trip to Mars – was able to dig up a perfect reply: They compare the first Martian settlers with Muslim explorers like Ibn Battuta, and include a Quranic verse that encourages Muslims to go out and see ‘the signs of God’s creation in the heavens and the earth’.

Well played, Mars One! At least it’s better played than Swiss Comedians Viktor Giacobbo and Mike Müller who merely commented that it’s certainly important to distinguish suicide by exploration from one in a crowded market.

So, after the ‘Red Moon’ scare in the 50s and 60s, we can sleep easy knowing that there will be no ‘Muslim Mars’ threat.

Religion – the final frontier

As children, we learn an important ability; an ability that that makes life so much more enjoyable. As a child, I called it ‘play pretend’ – ‘Let’s pretend I am sheriff, and you are the deputy’, or ‘let’s pretend I’m Captain Kirk, and you are Spock’.

Today, I know its scientific name: it is called ‘Suspension of Disbelief‘: the willful disregard of reality in favor of some fantasy. Almost everyone has this ability, and it allows us to enjoy reading a book, or watching a movie. This ability greatly varies between individuals, and it is quite arbitrary. For example, I enjoyed reading the ‘Hunger Games’ books, but disliked ‘Divergent’ because – for reasons I do not understand – I was unable to keep my disbelief sufficiently suspended while reading it. Yet both stories are equally unlikely, there are many people who like both, and some even prefer ‘Divergent’.

Still, one thing is certain: suspension of disbelief is an active frame of mind. It requires that, for example when you open a book, you consciously switch into ‘play pretend’ mode: I now ‘play pretend’ that what I read is actually happening, and I am inside the story. When I close the book, I snap back into reality.

And that is what I don’t understand: it takes considerable effort to ‘snap into’ the stories of holy scripture; those stories are even more unlikely than most science fiction. Surely it should be effortless to get back to reality. Yet religious people can’t. Otherwise perfectly reasonable people, believers can’t switch out of their play pretend mode when they leave church. They are stuck in a preposterous, horrible, bizarre universe. They can’t get out even though they must invest massive amounts of willpower to stay inside, to ignore their own disbelief.

Maybe they should ask Scotty to beam them up?

Not even a smidgen

You can’t make this stuff up. Ever since former US Vice President Candidate Sarah Palin wrote ‘Good Tidings and Great Joy’, the debate was if her IQ read-out was high enough to qualify as a decent earthquake; mixing her fundamental gun-toting beliefs with equally fundamental Christianity caused some unease among the faithful and gave rise to legitimate questions with regards to her skills of reason.

Two days ago, at the NRA’s national annual convention, Palin said

Enemies, who would utterly annihilate America, they who’d obviously have information on plots, to carry out jihad. [sorry, that’s the transcript – CF] Oh, but you can’t offend them, can’t make them feel uncomfortable – not even a smidgen.

Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we’d baptize terrorists.

To their credit – and unlike the crowd at the convention – some Christians in the US weren’t too amused. After all, waterboarding is torture, and linking torture to the one ritual that defines Christianity does go against the grain of those who purport to believe in a religion of love.

Well, I guess the incident settles one issue: that of Palin’s intelligence. There is none.

Not even a smidgen

Come on, Cameron!

In a boneheaded speech to narrow-minded believers, UK Prime minister Cameron had the following to say:

“Many people tell me it is easier to be Jewish or Muslim in Britain than in a secular country precisely because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths, too.”

Ah. Many people, eh? Well, many people tell me that it is perfectly normal to kill homosexuals. Assertions, even if made by the majority, do not make facts. The history of Christianity easily belies every word of what Cameron said. It’s secular (humanist-enforced) rules that coerced England to stop persecuting other beliefs. So it’s actually against Christian tradition to be tolerant of other beliefs. Just how shallow is Cameron’s historical education? Doesn’t ‘Edict of Expulsion’ or ‘William Tyndale’ ring a bell? You know, people who don’t know their history and all that…

“People who, instead, advocate some sort of secular neutrality fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality, or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code. Of course, faith is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality.”

It’s inconceivable that a thinking listener would let that direct contradiction slip by. Indeed, Morality has nothing to do with faith. If you are moral that’s good. If you also happen to have faith, that is coincidence. There is no role that faith has on morals except downgrading it. So it’s Cameron who doesn’t grasp the simple fact that secular neutrality makes it more likely to have a good moral code.

“Many atheists and agnostics live by a moral code – and there are Christians who don’t. But for people who do have a faith, that faith can be a guide or a helpful prod in the right direction – and, whether inspired by faith or not, that direction or moral code matters.”

It would be much better if people just were moral, regardless of their faith. Fact is, though, that more often than not, faith retards morals. All that Cameron is saying is that ‘people can be moral, and they can have faith’. There is no causality between faith and being morals, as Cameron said himself. Why is he still pretending that there is?

“THIRD, greater confidence in our Christianity can also inspire a stronger belief that we can get out there and actually change people’s lives, and improve both the spiritual, physical, and moral state of our country, and even the world.”

No. Goodness, no! Cameron obviously doesn’t realize that if he replaced ‘Christianity’ with ‘Islam’, he’d be saying exactly what the Taliban are saying. Doesn’t he get it that changing people’s lives based on faith is a terrible idea? Ask any woman in Pakistan. Not everyone shares your notion of what constitutes an improvement. And when we talk about ‘improvements’ based on religion, we almost always talk about restrictions: no gay marriages, no abortions, no women’s education, no blaspheming, no work on the holy day, etc. The more confidence you have in your religion, the more likely you are to impose your worldview on others.

It’s a bit frightening that the UK is currently led by a moral lightweight.

The importance of keeping a straight face

On Sunday, the Catholic church will make saints out of two former priests, one of them the late pope John Paul II.

As an atheist, I have nothing against this. It’s their club, their rules, and their show. But parts of their rules do look silly. To become a saint, you have to have worked two (not one, no, two) miracles. That’s about as reasonable as anything else when you believe in the supernatural. So now two miracles have been ‘confirmed’. I looked at all the recent miracles that were confirmed and then used to have someone accepted into the club of saints. They all have something in common: they’re not miracles. All – every one of them – are mere remissions of illnesses that are, gosh, known for their tendency to suddenly go into remission. If someone regrew a limb, that would be a miracle (at least until modern medicine can offer that as a therapy). Still, that’s OK. As I said: their club, their rules. But what’s with all the officious looking, important men staring intensely into TV cameras? I mean – come on! – you all know it’s a sham. Can’t you at least wink and have some fun?

As I said before – the true miracle here is that everyone manages to keep a straight face.

Talking to God

Some time ago, during the Brouhaha surrounding Dawkins’ comment on the professional integrity of a journalist who believes in the literal truth of an obviously allegorical event, the professor tweeted

A believes in fairies. B believes in winged horses. Criticize A and you’re rational. Criticize B and you’re a bigoted racist Islamophobe.

I’m still convinced that Dawkins was spot on. A few days ago, though, I noticed that reality is even stranger. I was walking down a street, encountering someone who was loudly arguing – with nobody. Belatedly, I noticed an earbud and a cable linking it to a phone. Somewhat relieved I walked past.

But the encounter got me thinking: At first I thought the guy was mad, talking to thin air. The phone altered by perception. That is rational. The reverse, though is completely irrational:

If you tell some one that you are talking to god, nobody bats an eye. Do the same while holding a phone, and they’ll put you in the looney bin.