Monthly Archives: October 2014

Mother lode mining

Posted on by

Sam Harris, while on Bill Maher’s Real Time with actor Ben Affleck as another panelist, said:

We have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas

Affleck, for reasons unknown, seemed intent on outing Harris, whom he had never met before, as a religious bigot. Had Ben not been so focused on finding flaws in what Harris said, and had Harris – who was visibly surprised by Affleck’s hostility – slightly amended his statement, the whole discussion could have taken a turn for the better.

Had Sam said ‘Islam, like Christianity, is a Mother lode of bad ideas’, even Ben would have seen Harris’ intent. Since Sam didn’t, Ben deemed the statement to be a one-sided attack on Islam.

Now, the occasional good point aside, all religions are Mother lodes of bad ideas. Their claims of absolute truth and inerrancy make them intrinsically poisonous to the mind. As I wrote, the debate could have turned there and then: Pointing out that Christianity and Islam have the same amount of bad ideas (actually, Levicitus, Numeri and Deuteronomy alone are as bad as anything the Quran can offer) could have led to the discovery of the fact that even though Christians posses their own Mother lode of Really Bad Ideas, today fewer Christians act on them than their Muslim counterparts (which, I think, was Harris’ point all along).

Sam Harris wrote

After the show, Kristof, Affleck, Maher, and I continued our discussion. At one point, Kristof reiterated the claim that Maher and I had failed to acknowledge the existence of all the good Muslims who condemn ISIS, citing the popular hashtag #NotInOurName.

In response, I said: “Yes, I agree that all condemnation of ISIS is good. But what do you think would happen if we had burned a copy of the Koran on tonight’s show? There would be riots in scores of countries. Embassies would fall. In response to our mistreating a book, millions of Muslims would take to the streets, and we would spend the rest of our lives fending off credible threats of murder. But when ISIS crucifies people, buries children alive, and rapes and tortures women by the thousands—all in the name of Islam—the response is a few small demonstrations in Europe and a hashtag.”

That is the difference between Islam and Christianity, and we should be able to say this openly. Ben’s ambivalence on this comes close to the racism of low expectations. Christianity has had more time (and they literally took their bloody time) to moderate their doctrine of hate, homophobia and misogyny to today’s (still unacceptably high) levels. A majority of Muslims today believe that death is the appropriate punishment for apostasy as earnestly as Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross. Neither see anything wrong with their belief.

From an ethical standpoint, neither ideology is defensible; cutting Islam some slack because it has to ‘catch up’ is not an option – that would be the ‘low expectation’ trap. All religions must be measured by today’s standards. Yet that is not even the real issue here.

The real problem is that the world has progressed technologically too far to let Muslims have their own Crusade or Inquisition. Muslims around the world must ‘do the time warp’ into ethical present or risk that their faith becomes the cause for the greatest catastrophe in human history. IS(IS), Boko Haram, al-Shabbab and Taliban may well be mere precursors of what is come if they don’t.

Why bother?

Posted on by

Often, I’m asked why I even bother; why don’t I just shut up and ignore all those religious idiots? After all, it’s none of my business; I really should care less about what people believe. As one exasperated fundamental Christian asked: ‘If you don’t believe in God, why do you keep talking about Him’? And isn’t belief in a benevolent God a good thing?

Of course, most of that is correct: I shouldn’t care about other people’s religion; mostly I don’t. Belief in supernatural beings can be benign. The problem is, however, when someone’s superstition adversely affects the freedom and well-being of others.

In 2004, a devastating Tsunami hit the Aceh province in Indonesia. A horrendous tragedy. Every rational person agrees that this happened naturally. In deeply religious (and therefore scientifically retarded) Aceh, however, those in power saw it as a sign from God that they weren’t pious enough. As a result, Aceh now has one of the most draconic, barbaric and misogynistic Sharia in place that punishes even trivial things like not going to prayer on Friday. It’s irrelevant if you are a muslim or not, by the way. You either go to prayer – or the stockades, awaiting your punishment. Sharia has outlawed cinemas, heavily restricts what – if any – music you may listen to. Women must no longer straddle a motorcycle, nor are they allowed to wear pants.

If you now think that perhaps I’m citing an extreme example to make a point – please recall that less than 50 years ago, children’s playgrounds where closed on Sunday, and dancing was forbidden on holy days – in the UK, Germany, Switzerland and most other European countries.

So the next time you ask why bother, ask yourself: how would you like ten lashes from the whip for skipping a service for the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his noodly appendages)?

That is why I bother.

And so should you.

Human Farce

Posted on by

The Tories in the UK are proposing a new Bill to end the ability of the European Human Rights Court (ECHR) to oversee England’s legislation. On the surface, it even has the semblance of reason: removing oversight, the Tories argue, will make sure that foreign criminals and terrorists lose their right to stay in the UK.

Is this a wise course of action? No. Hell, no!

Repealing higher authority on Human Rights issues opens the door to the same totalitarian government that was rampant in Europe not 100 years ago, and still is in those European states that are not signatories of the ECHR act. Because it’s not only the rights of terrorists that are being repealed – it’s everyone’s rights that are being encroached upon. It used to be that the need of many outweighs the need of a few. Now this principle is stood on its head: the need to get rid of a few, it is argued, outweighs the need of all to protect their human rights. This is a very, very dangerous idea.

Similar to the PATRIOT act in the US, legislation already passed in the UK gives authorities rights to seize and imprison you under trumped-up charges. A brief example: David Miranda, partner to the Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwalt who broke the NSA Snowden case, was held at London Heathrow under terrorism charges, was denied access to lawyers, and all his electronic devices where confiscated. Yet Miranda never was a terrorist suspect. Demonstrably, this was an attempt to get at Greenwalt for exposing the NSA Scandal. This is a direct violation of European Human rights, but already legal in the UK under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act (people stopped under schedule 7 have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning. Critics say that among other things, this curtails the right to remain silent). Do you really want to remove the last vestiges of oversight that prevent security forces from running roughshod over your loved ones in order to get to you?

The Human Rights are a central pillar of humanity. Are they perfect? No. But we should strive to increase their influence and better them instead of lessening the authoritie’s incentives to adhere to them.

The core of the human rights are

  • the right to live
  • freedom from torture
  • freedom from slavery
  • right to a fair trial
  • freedom of speech
  • freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  • freedom of movement
  • [EU exclusive] freedom of sexual orientation and gender identity

Look at the list above and ask yourself: Who in their right mind would want any less of that? Who would want to curtail everyone’s access to above rights? Do you really think the UK would be better off if they rescinded these rights in order to get rid of a few unsavory characters?

The Daily Express has called the Human Rights ‘madness’, the Daily Mail a ‘farce’. I know that learning from history is something that isn’t en vogue these days. But comparing their comments with what the Völkische Observer wrote in the 1930s gives me an unwelcome deja vu.

The scary people over at Express and Mail have called Torie’s new proposal a ‘triumph’. Well, if that’s what you think it is, here’s another scary phrase you should become comfortable with:

Sieg Heil!

God hates you

Posted on by

Atheists often hear the ridiculous assertion that they hate gods.

But let’s be honest – even if we did, it wouldn’t affect anyone else. If a god can’t take the fact that a mortal hates them – well… On the other hand, there are ample reason to hate gods if they existed.

If you look at the Aceh province of Indonesia, for example, you’ll see a God-given system in effect. And it positively hates humans, women in particular. If you drink alcohol, kiss while not married, skip friday prayer, or – god forbid, literally – engage in anything homosexual, you will receive barbaric, horrendous corporal punishment. There is nothing benevolent about this system; it is pure, unadulterated hatred of anything that those in power deem ‘un-islamic’. And of course it also applies to non-muslims.

If you look at Aceh’s sharia laws, and believe that they are inspired by a God, the conclusion is obvious: God hates humans. Anything that could be fun, happy, or joyful is an affront to that god: music, cinema, driving a motor cycle, or openly showing affection. That god expects everyone to be miserable – and thank him for it. Hating such an unpleasant, blood-thirsty, petty and spiteful God would be a virtue.

Militant Bullshit

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, there was a commotion downtown. Heavily armed Police swarmed the area close to the main station; roads were blocked, and sirens were blaring.

Onlookers kept their distance to the cordoned-off area and speculated about what was going on. Due to the proximity to the main station, many thought it was a terrorist attack – after all, ISIS had just threatened exactly that. Others supposed a demonstration of some other militant group – Salafists, Separatists, or Fascists – gone awry. Or perhaps some gangsters had robbed one of the many banks located at the Banhofstrasse?

There were a million different theories flying about – many of them laughably wild. I particularly liked the idea that perhaps irate bee farmers let loose a swarm of hornets (Swiss government had just struck down a proposed bill to support ailing bee farmers).

But as exotic and outlandish these theories were, no-one ever voiced a particular notion: that perhaps militant atheists were to blame.

There’s a reason for that. Everyone knows that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, at least not in the true meaning of the word ‘militant’. That is why, after a bomb blast, an attack on a group of people, or some other violent crime, no police resources are diverted to gather evidence against atheists, no security forces are sent out to round up known atheists, and no DA ever thinks about investigating militant atheists.

‘Militant Atheist’ is just a phrase dishonest people use to shift blame, to demonize atheists and to make perpetrators out of victims. It’s one of the few surefire tell-tales to identify a religious demagogue.

Oh – the commotion? A large-scale exercise. So what did they rehearse?

Well, certainly not evacuation procedures for when militant atheists attack.

Thank God – you’re out!

Posted on by

The gesture is the epitome of sanctimonious self-aggrandizing: thanking god when you score in a game or win in a competition. Believing that god not only favors you over the other team, but also alters reality to help you win is borderline megalomaniac, and a crass contradiction to the idea that your god is just.

A few days ago, referees penalized Kansas City Chief’s Husain Abdullah who, after a successful touch-down, had nothing better to do than to kneel, and thank his god – probably for using his celestial powers to smite New England, the opposing team.

Since it’s not a US custom to penalize open displays of stupidity – even in egregious instances as this – I think that the referees over-reacted. Is thanking god for winning stupid? Yes. Is it in-your-face arrogant? Definitely. Is is unsportsmanlike? You bet.

But it’s also very American. Just watch the Academy Awards.

Neal Larson: Moran

Posted on by

Neal Larson is angry at ‘militant atheists’. Why? It’s not entirely clear, but after carefully reading his ‘Militant Atheism Rears its Ugly Head‘, I conclude it’s because these terrible, ungodly people dare to speak up for themselves.

Since we should never assume malice where simple incompetence suffices, let’s be kind and assume that Neal really lost his marbles writing this.

First, he flat out states that he

would refuse to vote for a proud and vocal atheist for high office, regardless of any offsetting credentials.

But he would vote for proud and vocal theists who flaunt their faith – who make a show of going to church, and make it a point to use phrases like under god during allegiance, …so help me god for their oath, or finish their speeches with God bless America. Because double standards are a sign of healthy morals, right? I guess his regardless of any offsetting credentials is the cherry on top to underscore his open-mindedness.

He then unintentionally proves that he doesn’t know the difference between private and official roles, claiming that a school official who leads everyone into prayer over the intercom is merely someone who privately affirms their faith. A little later he bemoans the fact that many Americans are falling prey to political hyper-correctness, who then outlaw phrases like ‘bless you’. Doing that would indeed be silly – but it is in no way something that Atheists would demand. It’s what religious people do because they erroneously believe that saying ‘bless you’ would offend Atheists. It doesn’t. And here’s a hint: we don’t mind people saying ‘merry Christmas’ either. We know how to interpret kindness, thank you very much.

But those are only small fry. Neal goes full-on Moran with this:

While atheists are certainly capable of doing good works, those good works are not inspired by an absence of belief in God. How could they be? If atheists do good, it is in spite of – not because of – their atheism, so let’s stop acting like not believing is just another super awesome way of believing.

Can you be more condescending while spouting world-class stupidity? His complacent ‘How could they be?’ alone is weapons-grade stupid, merely underscoring the fact that Neal has skipped Ethics 101. So he’s never heard of Euthyphro – his (rather obvious) loss. But to really kick this into a universe of stupidity of it’s own is to accuse Atheists that they believe Atheism to be a religion. Not understanding non-belief is one thing. But confidently stating an idiocy of this magnitude is really asking for it.

He then whips himself into a truly righteous anger, condemning the activities of some atheists:

Particularly insidious are the atheists who get a sense of satisfaction eroding the faith of others and behave as though it is a favor to rattle another’s belief in a higher power.

Although I, too, have qualms about ‘proselytizing’ Atheists, I would like to pose the following two questions to Neal:

  1. Do you think that Christian missionaries are equally reprehensible?
  2. How do you define the word hypocrisy?

At the end of his text, Neal forgoes the classic ‘Hitler’ argument (which I was expecting), likening atheists to jihadists instead:

I think we could all be more tolerant of unintrusive atheism, because who doesn’t have doubts? But let’s separate them from the purveyors and jihadists of Godlessness

It requires an extraordinary level of incompetence – or, ideed, malice – in times of daily beheadings, rape and torture by jihadist ISIS and militant believers who kill for their god, to use either term in conjunction with atheists who until today have never killed, tortured or raped anyone in the name of unbelief.

What a piece of self-important, hypocritical, holier-than-thou drivel. It’s difficult to believe someone can be that incompetent.

Write less, think more, Neal.