Tag Archives: silly

Alien Hell

Posted on by

You just have to admire the dogged, willful stupidity of the advanced Creationists. Ok, Ken Ham has built a business around not understanding science; yet he manages to successfully walk the fine line between being a complete idiot and religious businessman.

He now has managed one of humanity’s first: he’s earth’s first antixenoc; he’s the first human who hates aliens (the extra-terrestrial kind) for irrational reasons. So our hat is off to Ken for unlocking the ‘alien hate’ accomplishmnt.

As the Huffington Post reports, Ken states that

You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. […] This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation.

So not even Jesus can save E.T. With that, aliens are even worse off than us uncouth atheists. While we can change our ways, repent, and be welcome to his god’s paradise, all aliens are bound for hell.

Yet it requires some special bravado to come up with Ken Ham Caliber reasoning. All aliens are bound for hell because they are not descendants from Adam and Eve, yet they are affected by original sin. Now, this would usually raise some eyebrows, as intellectual pedestrians like me think that Original Sin applies to all descendants from Adam and Eve. This is because, well, Christianity – when they invented the concept based on Romans 5:12–21, 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Psalm 51:5 – has always maintained that it applies to all descendants of Adam and Eve. It does not, for example, apply to animals. Hence Ken’s assertion that ‘the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe’ is somewhat out of this world. The Bible itself never mentions Original Sin; it’s a construct developed in Lyons during the second century. Perhaps Ken merely forgot to take his meds?

But does Ken really have an alternative to crossing into rational Never-Never Land? Let’s turn the question around. Let’s say SETI is successful, and we contact an alien race. Now, if the benevolent Christian God exists, these aliens will get to heaven because they are not tainted by original sin – they have no blood line (if they even have blood) to Adam and Eve. So aliens get a free pass to heaven, while the humans that God allegedly loves so much must toil all their lives to gain entry.

Now, that would make humans look really, really bad, and definitely puts a dampener on the ‘chosen race’ belief, doesn’t it? So in order to restore the balance, Ken somehow implicates all aliens – who weren’t present at the scene of the crime – as coconspirators. They are now guilty of something humanity did. And somehow, his benevolent and just God would agree with that.

At least Ken has already managed the difficult art of alien logic.

Trojan Hoax

Posted on by

A great brouhaha has erupted about the fact that faith-based schools are teaching outrageous lies to children.

Really?

I mean – come on! What else do you expect? Did anyone really think that the lies would be limited to scripture? What kind of hypocrite thinks that one lie is different from another? What mental contortions do you have to make to think ‘God hates homosexuals’ and ‘you are lucky to be Muslims and not ignorant like Christians and Jews’ are somehow different?

This is no ‘Trojan Horse‘. Read the Odyssey. If you are morally backward or stupid enough to support faith based schools, don’t feign surprise when the teachers lie to your children. That’s what you pay them for.

Steeple Power

Posted on by

‘All this science is nothing compared to His grace’, she says as we turn to go.

I glance at the church where she just spent the past two hours, and keep my peace. I’m just happy to see her.

The church’s steeple, though, belies what she just said. At the very top glistened a small but definite testament to the fact that religion has lost to science long ago:

A Lightning Rod.

Aliens vs. Atheists

Posted on by

A new book called The true history of atheism and written by Nick Spencer was recently published. Writing for the venerable Slate, Michael Robbins reviewed the book. Unfortunately, Robbins chose to use this opportunity as an attack on atheism. Unfortunately, that is, for Michael Robbins, because he makes himself look like a pretentious idiot, to the delighted exhilaration of everyone – except Robbins.

The way Robbins paints atheists as idiots and condescending schmucks makes his text a laugh-out-loud treat to read. Here are some choice bits:

atheists weren’t always as intellectually lazy as Dawkins and his ilk.

Boom!, take that, Dawkins! I’m aware of the trappings of the argument from authority fallacy, but still want to mention that this comes from someone who’s education has been in literature, and who’s occupation is being a poet. I’ve read some Dawins and more of his ilk; even if his prose is lacking, and his alliterations few, this is the first time someone has accused him of intellectual indolence. For perspective I just read Robbin’s poem Alien vs. Predator and am slightly at a loss of words. It seems Robbins uses an alien interpretation of the word ‘intellect’ when referring to atheists.

Robbins then states

Several critics have noted that if evangelical atheists (as the philosopher John Gray calls them) are ignorant of religion, as they usually are, then they aren’t truly atheists.

Together with this:

[atheists] can’t be bothered to familiarize themselves with the traditions they traduce

Talk about intellectually lazy assertions. Most atheists relinquished their faith exactly because they investigated their belief and know far more about their ex-religion than most believers. But even if they didn’t, it’s like saying you must have studied the tooth fairy in order to disbelief her existence. Robbins’ comment is the quintessential Courtier’s Reply – that one needs to study dress design before being able to say that the Emperor is naked.
Finally, as every theologian will admit, all believers are atheists with relation to all other beliefs. Wouldn’t they therefore be as ignorant as Robbins accuses atheists are? Doesn’t that obvious flaw in reasoning reveal the intellectual insufficiency of the argument?

I love the ‘evangelical atheist’ pun, though. Nice one, John Gray!

Robbins continues

Christians have recognized the allegorical nature of these accounts since the very beginnings of Christianity. […] Science and religion ask different questions about different things.

Seriously? Accusing atheists of being lazy while not knowing (or feighning not to know) that more than 40% of all US Christians believe in a literal interpretation of that bible (meaning that for them, the Bible does make physical claims, like, for instance the whole universe was built in 6 days) is priceless. It’s so simple: if anything in a belief refers to anything factual, that belief treads on scientific ground. How can Robbins not understand? Does Robbins really think that Jesus rising from the grave was meant to be interpreted allegorically? Maybe he should ask, um, pretty frigging much any other Christian in the world about that? After all, that’s pretty much what Christianity is all about. What an idiot. This review would have been so much better if it were written for the Onion.

The article is click-baitingly subtitled

Atheists Used to Take the Idea of God Seriously. That’s Why They Mattered.

OK, so it is a cheap shot intended to generate views. But why is it such an effective click bait? Because most Atheists at some point in their life did take the Idea of God seriously. Then they became atheists.

Every atheist understands the ideology that represents belief in something supernatural. They all think the idea is ridiculous – but they fully understand just how dangerous that ideology is. That is why they take it seriously.

Plus, nobody likes to read they don’t matter any more.

Anyway, it is funny how Robbins is looking down his nose at atheists, saying ‘oh, you are not real atheists. They would know and respect believers. Because we have thunk long and hard about God. We wrote entire books. And poetry! We went to church each week, 12 miles, barefoot, in the snow, up-hill both ways, and liked it! You young whippersnappers are just lazy spoiled brats.’ He’s almost giving Monty Python a run for their money.

So let’s close this post with an entirely unnecessary ad hominem:

Richard Dawkins claims that religion “is a scientific theory,” “a competing explanation for facts about the universe and life.” This is—if you’ll forgive my theological jargon—bullshit.

Indeed, Bullshit is theological jargon. It’s used as a generic term to refer to religion. Does Robbins really try to claim that the first chapter of the Bible (Genesis), when written, was not an attempt to explain how this world came to be? And just what does he think that a science theory is except an explanation attempt for reality?

Please, Michael, leave science, logic and reason to the pros. You are better at poetry – and that’s not a compliment.

Is rape wrong?

Posted on by

Is rape wrong?

That question was raised a couple of days ago by Darek Isaacs, a Creationist author. In an interview that would even make “Divine Banana” Ray Comfort’s eyes water, Isaacs stated that

You have to start asking questions: Well, if evolution is true, and it’s just all about the male propagating their DNA, we had to ask hard questions, like, well, is rape wrong?

For the intelligent, atheistic reader I must note that questions of this kind are common in the world of believers, and apparently aren’t simple to answer. For example, a few weeks ago, St. Lois Archbishop Robert Carlson said in his deposition on child rape that he’s

not sure whether I knew [that sex with children] was a crime or not.

So it seems that devout believers do have an issue with discerning ethical behavior unless you bang them them about the head with the bible. In Isaacs case, though, repeated banging may have led to permanent damage. He states that studying the works of “purveyors of evolutionary thought” like Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens caused him to reach a “very, very dark place” that forced him to ask a lot of “hard questions”.

Well, first, it would seem that the “dark place” he found was his intellect – it’s switched off. Because, seriously, anyone who thinks that “is rape wrong” is a hard question must be short a few chromosomes.

Of course, Isaacs is not quite that dumb, if only by very little. Because after using ‘logic’ he concludes that people who ‘believe’ in Evolution must answer that question with ‘No’, hence Evolution is untrue.

Well, Derek, here’s another approach to ‘scientifically’ disprove atheism:

“If you believe in Gravity, and there was any substance to atheism, it must be Down With Atheism”

Since you already proved that Dragons exist, maybe that can be the central thesis of your next book.

Christian Predators

Posted on by

I know they are trying hard to ‘save’ me. But all they manage is to creep me out.

‘Without god, everything is permissible,’ they say. ‘Without a God, what would stop you from raping or killing?’

It takes a lot of self-control not to run away screaming. These people don’t get it. And the fact that they don’t gives me the willies. Here’s the thing: each day I already rape and murder as much as I want. Which is not at all. Which is normal for most social beings. At least for each and every atheist I know.

And that is why believer’s incessant talk about rape and murder makes me nervous. From where I stand, they are obsessed with it; they seem to find it natural that everyone wants to rape, murder, kill. More disconcertingly, though, the only thing that prevents them from giving in to these urges is an even more vicious being – one that they completely made up: God.

Worst: What horrors can we expect from deeply religious people when they find out that this God doesn’t exist?

Faithful Atheist

Posted on by

Sometimes, a believer will assert that

it requires faith to be an atheist.

The first few times I heard it I thought that this was a tongue-in-cheek, somewhat tacit admission that they knew that their faith was somewhat tenuously grounded, something not to be examined too closely – like a mother’s claim that her baby was the most beautiful baby in the world and also unusually intelligent. It’s just something we say.

Now I know better. Believers really do think that it requires faith to not believe. Like an addict who needs a certain substance, believers have been made dependent on faith and need it to face the real world.

With the addict, the contradiction in the assertion is startlingly obvious: you don’t need drugs to stay clean. So perhaps we should build a bridge for believers that they can walk across to understand this point:

You don’t need drugs to not become high.
You don’t need a razor to not shave.
You don’t need a pen to not write a letter.
You don’t need a car to not park somewhere.

And you certainly don’t need faith to not believe something.

Militant Stupidity

Posted on by

[please note: a slightly redacted (BHA cultivates a somewhat more polite style than I do) version of this article was published on the British Humanist Association’s blog. You can read it here. I’m of course a great fan of BHA, and thank them for the opportunity to write for them]

If you believe what some politicians would tell you, the UK is developing a new problem; a social evil so menacing that it threatens to eclipse ‘Islamophobia’ any day now: Militant Atheism.

There is a certain progression to be observed: first come accusations of ‘special rights’, then we hear dire warnings of a slippery slope that invariably leads to persecution of religion and death camps for believers, run by – you guessed it – militant atheists.

This calls for some explanation – on more than one account: By and large, ‘militant atheists’ are about as threatening as ‘fundamental hippies’. Coining the phrase is demonstrably an attempt to tarnish a term of non-description (‘atheist’) by combining it with a word evocative of conflict, violence, automatic weapons, scimitars, and death: ‘militant’. And yet, this attempt is about as successful in suggesting lethality as the term ‘combat doe’.
The most ‘militant’ of atheists was Christopher Hitchens. He earned that distinction by publicly assailing men of the cloth with remarks as cutting as ‘you are an idiot!’
The world’s second most ‘militant’ atheist would be Professor Richard Dawkins. Soft-spoken and infuriatingly polite, he’s known for book signings where, on occasion, he brings along a sharp pen.

So it’s not by their actions that militant atheists have gained the ‘militant’ epithet; there is a decided lack of streets overflowing with blood, no posters yelling ‘massacre those who insult atheism’, and to my knowledge no atheist has yet blown up a church on the grounds of advancing atheism.

So, for better understanding, we need to turn to the source. Recently, a number of British exponents have complained about the exploits of militant atheism:

In a highly publicized BBC-produced episode of The Big Questions (and a same-day publication on their web page), Voice For Justice UK speaker Lynda Rose raised awareness about the alarming fact that militant atheism is the reason why Christians are now persecuted in the UK.

A few days later, UK Minister of Faith (an Office I have difficulty mentioning while keeping a straight face – it’s way too Monty Phythonesque; in my mind it’s always the ‘Ministry of Silly Thought’) Baroness Warsi voiced similar sentiments.
Shortly thereafter, UK’s Prime Cameron went on record saying that living in a religious country was easier for people of competing faiths than in a country run by (presumably militant) seculars.
And just a few days after that, former MP Anne Widdecombe – in a strangely preemptive evocation of Godwin’s Law – bemoaned the fact that today Christians have it more difficult to live in the UK than Nazis.

What is going on here? From a rational thinker’s point of view it surely seems as if they left a lot of lead in the pipes that feed the drinking fountains down at Westminster Palace. Let’s take a closer look.

VFJUK’s Lynda Rose complained :

But now, apparently, the newly claimed sexual rights of a minority are being prioritised over all other traditional rights, to the extent that ‘religious’ rights are now being assigned a separate, and seemingly subsidiary, category.

It’s a bit disconcerting that Lynda – who is a lawyer – makes this mistake: there are no ‘rights of a minority’. She was referring to a couple in the UK who had their existing right to sexuality enforced. Lynda not only makes it sound as if a sexual minority (gay people) have special rights; she then asserts that there is something called ‘traditional rights’. First, of course, there are no special rights – everyone has the same rights. Further, no civilized country in the world recognizes ‘traditional rights’: once it is determined that something is unethical (e.g. slavery, or the right to discipline your disobedient wife), it is done away with, all ‘tradition’ be damned. ‘Traditional’ never trumps ‘just’. Most importantly, though, there are no longer religious rights – i.e. special rights attained only through adherence to a particular religion – in the UK. Today it is one law for all. Or it should be, anyway.

What we do see here – and we’ll see this again – is the feeling of entitlement: people are loath to give up privileges that they used to have. Here it is the privilege of imposing one’s own view of sexuality on others, something that Christianity has enjoyed for over two millennia, but now has been curtailed.

We next turn our attention to Minister of Faith, Baroness Warsi. Now, a Minister of Faith can’t be expected to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, so we may need to cut her some slack. Trying to make Sharia Law more acceptable in the UK, Warsi first remarked that

There is no doubt that the word ‘sharia’ carries huge challenges in relation to public relations. If you talk about anything [related to] ‘sharia’, the first vision people get is chopping off of people’s hands, having four wives and all sorts of unusual practices which, in today’s world, are not compatible with the values which we live by.

Above is an astute observation. The word ‘Sharia’ has a bad reputation, just as the words ‘Apartheid’ and ‘Spanish Inquisition’ have. I believe that this is well deserved, on all accounts.

Now, Warsi, for reasons fully understood, complains that acceptance of ill-reputed Sharia law into UK’s courts is impeded by secular fundamentalists :

The most aggressive post I get is [sic] from people who are secular fundamentalists.

Of course atheists are vehemently opposed to these ideas, ideas that would introduce superstition and medieval morals into present-day jurisdiction – but I would submit that vehement opposition is to be expected not only from ‘militant atheists’, but from everyone who can count to eleven without having to remove a sock.

Warsi’s efforts to impose her preferred version of law are frustrated by people who do not share her ideology. She believes that she is entitled to bring Sharia law into UK’s courts, and spots the enemy among what she believes to be militant atheists – those people who publish so many ‘aggressive post[s]’.

Not being outdone by amateurs, David Cameron enters the fray asserting that

it is easier to be Jewish or Muslim in Britain than in a secular country.

The reason? Militant atheists, of course. He goes on to extol the virtues of a religious society – blithely ignoring that each and every social advance during the past two hundred years came at the cost of lives among the humanists, and at the strongest opposition from the Church. Cameron feels he needs to build up a straw man and defend religion for one reason only: because the devout in his constituency are starting to grumble that their privileges are being taken away; that they can no longer tell the fags what to do.

More frighteningly, though, Cameron concludes his speech with this:

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.

I guess it does take a pesky militant atheist to point out that if you replace ‘Christianity’ with ‘Islam’, Cameron would be saying exactly what the Taliban and Boko Haram are saying: they, too, believe that by stronger adherence to belief, that by following scripture more closely, this world will become a better place. The Taliban in particular are quite explicit about this; they state that their intent is to improve this world by changing the way people behave: by making them stronger believers.
Changing people’s lives based on faith is a terrible idea. Ask any woman in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. 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 people have in their religion, the more likely they are to impose their religious ideology on others. Ironically, there is only one group who can’t do that: (militant) atheists – who, by definition, don’t have a religion.

Ann Widdecombe’s rant takes the cake, though :

Christians now have quite a lot of problems, whether it’s that you can’t display even very discreet small symbols of your faith at work, that you can’t say ‘God bless you’, you can’t offer to pray for somebody, if it’s an even bigger stance on conscience that you’re taking, some of the equality laws can actually bring you to the attention of the police themselves.
So I think it is a very difficult country now, unlike when I was growing up, in which to be a Christian, an active Christian at any rate.

As a former MP, Ann has unfortunately developed a distinct habit of being economical with the truth. She did so when during the ‘Intelligence Squared’ debate she claimed that everyone who joined the Waffen-SS had to sign away their religion. The exact opposite is a documented fact; people who joined the SS had to sign a paper stating that they were ‘gottgläubig’ – believers in God – and affirmed that they were not atheists.

Widdecombe does it again here when she claims people can no longer wear religiously-themed jewelry, say endearing well-wishes, or promise piety to other people.
In reality Ann is angry at another fact: she has lost the privilege of an automatic religious bonus. People now openly scoff when someone offers prayer as ‘help’, and do not look impressed when someone openly wears a crucifix, crescent, or Star of David. Her importance and status as an openly devout believer have diminished – which is what irks her. In short, she’s angry that she’s become unpopular, and wants to assign blame.

That, in short, is what ‘militant atheism’ is all about: a scapegoat for one’s own misgivings and shortcomings, a scapegoat for the perceived injustice of privileges revoked, a scapegoat for being called upon one’s own moral failings.
Well, at least the believers are staying true to form – if there ever was an Abrahamic ritual it’s the scapegoat.

Is it really that simple? Are politicians really trying to shift the blame from them to a minority? After all, much of what was said is monumentally stupid. Wouldn’t the political elite be more careful to avoid putting their foot into their collective mouth? Obviously, no. The reason for that, though, can be explained:

As we know, any sufficiently advanced stupidity is virtually indistinguishable from religion. That is what is tripping up politicians: they are increasingly coming down on the wrong side when they try to decide: ‘Is this still stupid or already religion?’

And then they do something ‘militantly’ stupid.

MP’s race to IQ bottom

Posted on by

Former british MP Ann Widdecombe is upset. After some semi-intellectual rhetorical stunts she claims that Christians are persecuted and militant atheists are the reason for her stupidity. You may recall that Widdecombe is the Minister who converted to Catholicism because the Church of England allowed the ordination of women as priests. So she has some serious fundamentalistic street cred to call her own. In a somewhat less endearing continuation of her public performance from the ‘Intelligence Squared’ debate (with Hitchens and Fry in 2009), she begins her rant with a number of astonishing assertions:

Christians now have quite a lot of problems, whether it’s that you can’t display even very discreet small symbols of your faith at work, that you can’t say ‘God bless you’, you can’t offer to pray for somebody, if it’s an even bigger stance on conscience that you’re taking, some of the equality laws can actually bring you to the attention of the police themselves

Not to put too fine a point on this: Widdecombe is lying through her teeth. You can wear a crucifix to work, you can say ‘god bless you’, you can offer to pray. Now, what people think of you if you do one of those things is another thing.
If you are brought to the police’s attention, you may have violated a law – a law that was passed to protect someone: so yes – if you, for example, openly call for discrimination of gays, the police will come knocking on your door. Thank God!

So I think it is a very difficult country now, unlike when I was growing up, in which to be a Christian, an active Christian at any rate.

What she is actually bemoaning is her loss of privilege to insult and shame religious dissenters, something she is trying right now with her outcry of false injury. It’s not difficult to be a Christian in the UK. It’s only become harder to be adored on the grounds of just be a Christian. Today people also look at what you do and judge you by your actions. Being pious alone doesn’t cut it any more. Hurting others because of your beliefs is no longer tolerated. That’s a good thing, Ann.

a concern about “political correctness” meant people were reluctant to express their faith to others because “they think strong belief offends them”.

So that is what bothers her. She’s furious that the empty phrase “I’ll pray for you” no longer engenders respect, but a look of concerned pity instead. She’s angry that it becomes more difficult to get people to admire her, to inflate her ego with vacant pious gestures or meaningless acclamations of faith (like, for example, converting to hard-core Catholicism because women were being ordained as priest).

In short, she blames atheists for the fact that she’s become afraid to say what she really thinks – because people would think she’s an ass.

Well, the reason people think that is not because of militant atheists – it’s because people increasingly employ common sense and reason. People becoming atheists is merely a result of that.

Survival of the dumbest

Posted on by

Ah, Creationists. If there ever was proof that mankind descended from monkeys, they could be it. But, as Creationist would point out: How come there are still monkeys???

Recently, during a ‘debate’ (not really), I heard a rather odd argument put forward by a devout believer: Since atheists believe (argh!) in Evolution, that means that we must advocate survival of the strongest, making us a bunch of asocial pathological egotists.

Let’s put aside the fact that instead of ‘believing in’ evolution we are convinced by the facts – someone who thinks that faith generates knowledge will not grasp the difference. Furthermore, we’ll also ignore that even if Evolution teaches that only the strong survive, that does not mean that we advocate applying this principle to society. A Christian believes that god created this earth, and therefore all diseases. Yet she does not believe that you should leave a disease untreated just because god gave it to you. So why should someone who thinks Evolution is at work advocate applying it to everything?

What bugged me most, though, was the idea that Evolution means ‘survival of the strongest’. It’s a common misconception, not limited to fundamental believers.

So I tried to explain that evolution actually postulates that instead of ‘only the strongest’, it ‘favors whoever is best adapted‘.

And then I tripped myself up: I tried to illustrate this with how the dinosaurs became extinct; how only small, weak mammals survived while the great, strong lizards died out.

This didn’t go over well with someone who believes the world is only a couple of millennia old.

It’s somewhat gratifying to know that eventually, these nuts will go the way of the dodo.