Stupidity Challenge

Steve Neumann, in a Salon article, challenges all atheists to

refrain from posting disparaging commentary about Christian newsmakers on Facebook and other social media sites — including blogs — for one month.

Why? Because Neuman, himself an atheist, believes that atheists are too negative, and should refrain from ridiculing believers, lest they are offended and cast atheism in a bad light. As bad examples of too-aggressive atheists, Neumann cites Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins.

Which makes you wonder what Neumann is smoking. Maher’s one-liner ‘I don’t need a mandate – sounds gay to me’ exposes homophobia and political ignorance with just nine words better than the entirety of Neumann’s article.

The single biggest reason atheism exists is because religious exponents, based on their own misguided morality, try to force their worldview on others. Foremost on the mind of everyone this week are black-hooded religious monsters that kill, torture and mutilate for Allah. This is not the time to dial down the rhetoric.

Belief in false gods has real, tangible result for many. And it is the exponents of religion – those who are targeted by atheists – who contribute most to the problem. It’s called leverage – if you expose the stupidity of one leader, his followers may start to think. When Archbishop John Nienstedt preaches hate, it’s much better to attack and ridicule him than to try to point out his idiocy to each individual member of Nienstedt’s parish.

Plus, Maher is God.

Crosswire logic

Computer science knows a special case called ‘Short-Circuit evaluation’ that – despite its misleading name – allows computers to correctly evaluate an expression more quickly. For example, if you evaluate ‘a AND b’, you can stop evaluating if a is false; the whole expression will be false no matter what b evaluates to.

It seems the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has demonstrated another kind of logic that – since ‘short circuit’ is already taken – we should call ‘Crosswire Logic’: no matter what either side of the expression evaluates to, the result is always what you want.

In an interview with the BBC Welby admits candidly that he sometimes doubts the existence of God, yet he is certain of the existence of Jesus.

Welby’s comment is strongly reminiscent of what the Swiss believe of their national hero and freedom fighter William (Wilhelm) Tell: They aren’t sure if he ever existed; it is a fact, however, that he killed Imperial Vogt Gessler.

… so much good …

It is usually either the last, slightly desparate argument – or one of the first; in a friendly discussion between believers and atheists it’s as sure to come as ‘amen’ at the end of a christian prayer:

… but there is so much good done in the name of religion.

What believers fail to understand is that to atheists, this is not an argument in favor religion. There are many reasons for that, but most muddle the issue. So let’s disregard the evil that is done in the name of religion, and forget the question whether the good outweighs the bad. Let’s simply look at the bright side of religion.

Fact is, there is a lot of good done in the name of God, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu and other gods, including Zeus and Athene. My hat is off to those who selflessly give; they are much better persons than I can ever hope to be and I shall not belittle their efforts.

But that’s not the point. What atheists argue is that it can’t be shown that these good deeds have been done on account of religion. A good case can be made that good people do good deeds, and that religion is not a necessary precondition. Looking closer, we might argue that while doing good, religious people waste a lot of ressources that could be much better employed: how many more people could be treated, how many more children educated if the money and effort spent to build temples, churches or other places of worship went into schools or hospitals instead? How much more could be done if the time spent on prayer was employed to till fields or heal illnesses?

Yes, a lot of good has been done in the name of religion. Only, it could have been so much more with less had religion not been involved.

‘So much good’ is not an argument for religion – it’s an argument to do good.

Rick Insanetorum

US Presidential Wannabe Rick Santorum appeared on fundamentalist Christian TV yesterday to give his ideas of what he thinks are sane propositions once his party assumes power:

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion

You know, strangely enough, it is. In unrelated news, one plus one equals two! Is America reverting to ‘W’-era stupidity? Can we expect Americans again to be proud of their ignorance, confidently holding up signs yelling “Get a brain! Morans”?

He then went on saying that removing the Bible from the classroom isn’t neutral, but the promotion of a different worldview. Yeah, like forcing a boxer to remove his knife before he enters the ring is promoting his opponent.

But Ricky didn’t leave it at that. Brace yourself, this one’s going to make you spell Moron with an ‘a’:

[They say that] the absence of religion is not a religion in itself – which it is!

Moran!

Like being dead is a way to live or being bald is a hair color.

Rick: Unfortunately, the absence of intelligence is not a form of genius.

Well, you’ve got to hand it to Santorum. It’s 79 seconds of concentrated stupid, so dense that it’s on par with Archbishop John Nienstedt – and that guy is a pro!

The Gay Choice

Tennessee preacher Robby Gallaty has defended homophobia and discrimination against gays. Closing the gap to the Westboro Baptist Church (you know, the loonies that picket funerals holding up signs that say ‘God Hates Fags’), he also advocates killing homosexuals. His argument: being gay is a choice – perhaps similar to the fact that being a hate preacher is a choice.

But how does he know that? Has he decided to be attracted to women instead of men? Has he tried to be gay? It’s not as if this is difficult to understand. If he tried, he knew.

What is wrong with this guy that he not only worries about what other people do between the sheets, but also preaches against it?

Gallaty takes justification for his hate from the Bible, specifically the Old Testament (which, according to so many Christians isn’t in force anymore, because, you now, Jesus and stuff. Yeah, right), specifically Levicitus (a.k.a. third book of Moses).

Like this moral ass, I read the same book. Levicitus 20 indeed says what Robby Gallaty says it does. Yet, only a few lines further down it also says that people who are tattooed should be put to death. As should be people who wear garments made from two kinds of thread (the shirt he wears in the video looks like a cotton/synthetic mix to me…).

And of course, Levicitus is extremely clear on what to do with people who work on the sunday. Not just one, but three passages in just that section tell you that god wants you to kill them: “Bring them outside the camp, and stone them”. Guess on which day of the week Gallaty does most of his work.

If you wondered, Levicitus is also the part of the Bible that tells you that killing a couple of doves and sprinkling their blood about (plus some other hokus pokus) will cure Lepers. Yeah, that’s Levicitus. A great place to draw your inspiration from.

For the glory of God and the honor of God in your body, you may have to remain single for the rest of your life

Let me quote Proverbs 17:28 for you, son:

Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

May I suggest that for the Glory of God and Humanity you STFU?

Morally depraved West

Many Islamist denounce the West because they think it is decadent and morally depraved. They may have a point:

Reports show that western Djihadists who join up with murderous bands like ISIS, Al Shabab, Taliban or Boko Haram do so not because of religious zeal – but out of boredom. They torture, shoot and behead others as pastime.

Take the hipster Jihadi (another middle-class boy gone wrong). The photo of Islam Yaken that went viral doesn’t suggest a man who has submitted to the will of Allah but a boy who likes posing with kick-ass swords – with an effeminate little satchel which probably cost most people’s annual salary to buy. It’s quite obvious, isn’t it, that he thinks he’s cool? He’s the Islamist James Dean – the rebel with a cause.

Can you be any more decadent or morally depraved than that?

Darwin = Hitler

And here we go again. Dumb as doornail ‘Discovery Institute’ (DI) are trying to scientifically ‘prove’ that science leads to immoral behavior. This time around, they have drawn a line between Darwin and Hitler, claiming that the Holocaust is a direct result of Darwin’s theories. Citing a film by Dr. Richard Weikart called “Darwin to Hitler”, based on his book of the same name and funded in large parts by DI, their argument goes as follows:

Natural selection was the guiding idea for Hitler and the Nazis. … the term [selection] was related directly to Darwinian terminology that when you went to the camps, you went through a selection process. They were selecting this person to survive and this person to go to the gas chambers.

And that’s their complete line of reasoning. Just what did this ‘Dr.’ get his title for? I bet it’s not science. Darwin discovered the principle of natural selection. The grisly scene Weikart describes is unnatural selection, the exact opposite.

[slow clap]

Bravo.

PCphobia

In Rotherham more than 1400 children were systematically raped. The authorities knew about this, but did not step in. The reason? Because the perpetrators were all of Pakistani origin, and because all were Muslims, the people in charge preferred to look away, lest they be called ‘racist’. Politically correctness run amok.

Yesterday, Nazir Afzal, the Crown Prosecution Service’s lead on child sexual abuse and violence against women and girls, tried to politically correct the situation. It is an ill-advised attempt at saving something that shouldn’t be saved.

So I know that the vast majority of [sex] offenders are British white male

That’s not the point. In this case they weren’t. It is exactly this attempt at relativism that has angered the public. The children don’t really care if they have fallen prey to a statistical anomaly – they still were raped. The ethnicity and religion of the perpetrators is not in dispute. What has caused the anger was that the perpetrators were untouchable for exactly that reason. But the real scandal wasn’t their ethnicity, it was that the authorities ignored the girls.

A few weeks after the Rochdale case, we dealt with a case of 10 white men in North Yorkshire who had been abusing young girls, and they were all convicted and they got long sentences. It didn’t get the level of coverage

And neither got as much attention as Jimmy Savile who abused hundreds of children. It’s not the media’s job to attribute attention justly. It’s the authorities’ job.

He argues that evidence suggests that victims were not targeted because they were white but because they were vulnerable and their vulnerability caused them to seek out “warmth, love, transport, mind-numbing substances, drugs, alcohol and food”.

Except that the girls were all white, and did not represent the demographical average. Why argue against facts?

Afzal was disturbed at the way that some responded by muddling the actions of those prosecuted with their religious backgrounds. […] Someone called the Radio 4 Any Answers programme. “He said the Qu’ran supports paedophilia. I’m not paraphrasing, that is what he said. He wasn’t cut off”

That is probably because the Qu’ran does support paedophilia: As the Hadith narrates, Aisha was married to Mohammed at age 6, raped (Mohammed ‘consummated’ the marriage) at age 10 (Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64). Again, this is not in dispute. Why argue the facts?

if there are lessons to be learned from the Rotherham tragedy, they are less to do with the dangers of political correctness, and more with the need for a radical shift in the way that victims of this kind of crime are treated.

This is a surprising conclusion, given the fact that the problem stemmed entirely from too much politically correctness – the authorities didn’t act because they were afraid that they would be called racist.

Nazir’s attempt at downplaying this is entirely misguided. At issue isn’t as much the suspicion that ‘Religion’ (Islam) and ‘Asian’ (Pakistani) origins are the cause for the rapes. The issue is with the authorities who did not help the children because they feared for their own reputation. The whole Guardian interview is a textbook example of what went wrong: diversions, misattribution and red herrings are everywhere, and to blame is no-one but the nebulous community. A pity, since Nazir seems to be a decent chap who actually wants to help. But the first step is to acknowledge that this issue is much simpler than people make it out: Islamists are very quick to use the words ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Racist’, which has become an effective weapon because politically correct people fear being labelled that.

This will only improve once we understand that ‘Islamophobia’ is a BS term, and that religion is not a race.

And, perhaps, that it’s always a good idea to stop rapists.

Duck Brain

On the subject of ISIS’ barbaric murders, the bearded studio guest raises his hand, the index finger extended:

God said: “All who hate me, love death”

and

Either convert them or kill them, one or the other.

When you think that wacko was a fundamental islamist, you wouldn’t be too far off. It was Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, interviewed by FOX’s Sean Hannity, and he was talking about ISIS. That it’s difficult to discern a lunatic Islamist from a crazy Christian is no surprise; after all, the difference in their beliefs is semantic at best, their god is the same one. And both are blood-soaked, barbaric ideologies.

Ducky Brain then went on to say that he’d much prefer to convert the murderous thugs to christianity than to kill them. Oh, great. Then we’ll have lunatic, wide-eyed, heavily armed murderers for Jesus instead of Allah. What could possibly go wrong?

Now, as I remarked before, from the outside the loony bin is just a big building. I find it remarkable that the inmates are at each other’s throat while reciting exactly the same hate-filled stupidities.

And very, very, frightening.

Bible Libel

Forget the Grisons Exorcists, they are wimps. It seems that Nigeria has the one true Van Helsing, in the name of born-again Christian Pastor Helen Ukpabio. Now, Ukpabio is really into witchcraft and stuff. She can diagnose potential baby witches from more than a mile away (symptoms: they get sick, cry, and scream at night – all very unusual characteristics for children), has made a fortune with her anti-witchcraft, and has just sued BHA for a humble half a billion pounds. Yeah, with a ‘b’.

What for?

Because BHA had the insolence to write that Ukpabio attributes the above symptoms to satanic possession – when clearly they are signs of vampiric possession. This of course ruins her reputation and livelihood, hence the half a billion pounds of damages.

Well, I guess when your livelihood includes the budged of a small nation, it’s easy to lose track of details. Like, for instance, reality. Not that anyone who makes their living by endangering children (what do you think happens to a child in Nigeria – where superstition is rampant – when it is diagnosed with a demon?) can be expected to have trace elements of sanity or decency.

Boy, and I thought Nigerian Scams were bad. If it weren’t such a gross waste of resources, I’d have loved to see this go to trial in the UK. British humor and a frivolous lawsuit? Hand, glove.