Natural Selections

Patsy McGarry Needs To Do His Homework

Darwin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:04:49 +0000

Crazy vs Religion

The Irish Times religious affairs correspondent seems like a nice enough chap and a decent writer/journalist too. He and Seán Moncrieff had a pleasant chat on Newstalk during the week, ranging over Catholicism, Christianity, the history of the Jews in Ireland, etc. Most entertaining.

Then Patsy said something which made me drop my monocle into my afternoon brandy.

When Seán politely broached the subject of McGarry's own religious views, Patsy freely admitted to being an agnostic because

it takes too much faith to be an atheist.

At which comment, both men chuckled condescendingly, mentioning 'aggressive secularists' in the same breath as religious fundamentalists.

I was stunned. My head began to spin. McGarry has been religious affairs correspondent for the Irish Times (the paper of record!) for the last 13 years. And he still doesn't know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Or for that matter, he doesn't even know the definition of an atheist.

Let me elucidate a little for the casual reader.

(For the one millionth time) it takes no faith whatsoever to be an atheist. Atheism is by definition a lack of belief. Does it take 'too much faith' not to believe in astrology? Or in Santa Claus? Or fairies at the bottom of the garden? Zeus, Thor, Mithra, Seth? No, it takes zero faith.

People present all kinds of religious propositions, for example that plenary indulgences can remove the temporal punishment of purgatory, or that wearing the scapular will prevent death by drowning or fire. No, let's take something simpler–that when we die we go to heaven or hell.

To demonstrate their proposition, these people will be asked for evidence. However, none exists. Thus any rational person would conclude that heaven and hell are just simplistic and arbitrary man-made fictions designed to scare naughty children.

So, the proposition (existence of heaven and hell) plus the evidence (none) gives a final result of: Case Not Proven. Next hypothesis please?

But bizarrely to McGarry, this simple logic is some kind of 'leap of faith.' To be fair, this is probably because of his woeful and inexcusable ignorance of what atheism means. As our usual clientèle here are well aware by now, the term atheism (theos) relates to a belief in god(s) while agnosticism refers to actual knowledge (gnosis) of god(s).

So the terms actually refer to two wholly unrelated magisteria. Thus, one can be (as I am) an agnostic atheist. I don't see any compelling evidence for a divine interventionist creator (thus lack belief), but I also admit to having an incomplete understanding of the universe (lack knowledge).

Following his chummy guffaw with Moncrieff, McGarry added a hasty anecdote about an Anglican who, in response to Patsy's admitting he was agnostic, apparently replied 'well, aren't we all.' And we were assured that was a 'typically Anglican' comment, both presenter and guest agreed smugly. The suggestion being that the Anglican was eminently more down-to-earth and philosophical than any 'aggressive' atheist.

How this canard keeps rearing its head I'll never know. That we are all equally ignorant of those very questions for which religion claims to have the answers, is the default position for us secularists. I mean of course no-one knows what happens after death, you idiot.

If an Anglican makes the throwaway comment 'we're all agnostics,' then the follow up question has to be: 'if that's true, then how, in the name of Jabba The Hutt, can you claim to know that God himself dictated a rambling instruction book to some superstitious Bronze Age tribesmen?'

Where is your smugness now? You say we're all agnostics, well fine I agree. Then be an agnostic, leave your childish religion, and stop telling everyone that God told you exactly how we have to live our lives.

But of course, harmless old Anglicanism won't be subjected to any scrutiny by McGarry. No, the lazy, comfortable, inconsistent logic that allows Patsy to entirely misunderstand 'faith' is the very thing that keeps him in his job. He's inoffensive and respectful and 'understanding of faith' (as in 'compassionate to' rather that literally 'knowledgeable about' faith) in all its forms.

Though at first I wondered 'what the hell is going on over at the Times? Thirteen years in the religion business and he doesn't even understand his own position on faith?'

But then I remembered John Waters.

And I said 'Oh.'

My Favourite Comment In A Religious Discussion

Darwin — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:32:05 +0000

About this time last year, someone pointed me at a fairly long post called A Contemplation on Music by PreacherMike. It quotes a lengthy address by Karl Paulnack, director of the music division at Boston Conservatory to the incoming freshmen of 2004 (as far as I remember).

For musicians or lovers of music, it's a delightful and inspiring read–most especially for fellow atheists. Unfortunately, the godly-ones only see what they want to see, and got entirely the wrong end of the stick, as you can see in the twenty or so comments that follow the article.

I'm not much of a troll, but I do like to add my two cents to inane discussions of this sort, so I set out my stall in comment number twenty-one.

The flood of starry-eyed comments about 'manifestations of his divinely creative spirit' seemed to dry up immediately. Tumbleweeds drifted across the screen for about a month.

The only comment which followed mine is hilarious, and I think buttons up the debate nicely. Read the whole thing here.

Faith Is Easy; Thinking Is Hard

Darwin — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:35:40 +0000

The Sky-God is angry. Grunt!

And you thought it couldn't happen here.

I had the misfortune to hear a radio interview a couple of weeks back that was both hilarious and terrifying at the same time. On this little isle of ours, up north in Belfast to be exact, the Minister for Arts and Culture has recommended that the Ulster Museum include 'alternative views' on the creation of the universe.

Well, you ask, exactly which models does he mean? Newtonian? Lorenzian? Machian? All of these might deserve some mention as they each compete with the prevailing cosmological theory, famously known as the Big Bang.

But noooo.

He means the theory that 'God Did It.' Don't understand something? Who cares–God Did It. Not bright enough to challenge a mathematical genius like Lemaître (a Jesuit priest, no less) and formulate your own theory of the primaeval atom? No worries–God Did It!

While being interviewed on the Nolan Show (BBC Radio Ulster) Nelson McCausland, the aforementioned minister, bolstered his flimsy argument with suggestions that scientists/atheists were arrogant and disrespectful. This from a man who apparently claims to categorically 'know' beyond a doubt the eternal origins of the universe. A little hypocritical maybe?

The traditional mantra of 'let's teach the debate' was clumsily wheeled out and sounded just as flat as ever. There is no debate, not in the scientific community (even Richard Dawkins phoned in to clear that up). The only debate seems to be whether there is a debate or not (and there isn't!).

The real question is exactly where to allow a mention of Creationism. We have to be careful. While being a scientific museum for the most part, the Ulster Museum, in addition to its zoological, botanical, and other scientific exhibits, also provides some historical and cultural displays.

So, if it also houses some kind of interpretive cultural centre where the quirky folk tales and superstitions of unlettered yokels are recorded for posterity, then fine. Let them have their mention, no use in pretending Creationism doesn't exist.

But not in the Minerals, Rocks and Fossils area. Not in the Archaeology department. Not in the New Discovery Centres for children. Religious views are not scientific, how difficult is that to understand?

Those people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and that dinosaur fossils are just God's little prank, are not scientists. They look uncomprehendingly at the big, bad world and make up silly little stories about how things got here. That's fine for six-year olds but it's simply not science.

In a letter to the Belfast Telegraph, the Rev Philip Campbell weighed in on the Creationist side, claiming that it's a view

thoughtfully held by thousands of Christians.

Thoughtful? Did they really put much thought into it? Honestly. Thousands of people believe Elvis is alive too–and there's a lot more evidence for that. He would also like us to

consider the strong scientific evidence for the Christian position according to the Bible.

Seriously? Strong scientific evidence? I must somehow have missed that particular paper when it was published in Unscientific American.

You may think that this is just a storm in a teacup. You may say it's all a little silly but what harm can it do? But visiting a museum is a special activity, especially for the young. It's a place of heightened awareness, that oozes with the authority of a thousand of years of scientific progress.

Do we really want to add elements that are simply untrue? Should we give credence and a veneer of respectability to this dangerous hokum? Do we want our children to learn that facts can change simply because wishing makes it so? Do we want them to grow up without even the slightest curiosity about the world, since all the answers are already known–God Did It?

Well, I can certainly agree with the Reverend Campbell on one point, he demands that the

creation model of human origins be treated with appropriate respect.

Yep. I'm going to give it exactly the amount it deserves.

Banks: Heads They Win, Tails We Lose, As Usual

Darwin — Wed, 26 May 2010 09:45:48 +0000

Throwing good after bad...

I wrote a draft of this post at the start of the year but eventually shelved it because I thought it mightn't hold much interest for the Plain People of Ireland. But now here we are, coming to terms with the horror of impending financial disasters as they spread across the Eurozone–and Bock talking about Armageddon–maybe it's time to catch up on what Uncle Sam has been up to.

You will recall that the U.S. gave as much as twenty-five billion dollars each to companies like Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup, J.P. Morgan, and Bank of America, for no particularly good reason.

This week, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show picked up on CNN's report of how these companies have been faring through the tough times, and highlighted their performance during the last quarter. It seems all of these companies have made a profit. Well, no surprises there.

But that's not all; they each had traded in the black for the previous 61 consecutive days, posting no losses whatsoever at any time, even when the Dow Jones plummeted a thousand points in just twenty minutes last week.

A thousand points, folks.

Meanwhile, J.P.Morgan still averaged profits of $118M per day. Do they know something we don't? Ha ha ha! Of COURSE they do. But here's something you may not know.

The Federal Reserve is currently lending capital to the big banks at the nice round number of 0% interest (Hint: that's free money). And what are they doing with this cash? Well, the banks are buying shedloads of U.S. government treasury securities and reaping the returns.

So this is the nub, the banks are lending the bailout money back to the government to help pay for TARP (which is their version of NAMA, i.e. the bailout). And they're earning money on the interest. Brilliant.

What I had intended to comment on back in January was the state of the treasuries market. For those of you who don't know how it works, here's a quick summary.

Many years ago, the right to print U.S. dollars was handed over to a shadowy private bank with a fake official sounding name (the Federal Reserve). They essentially lend dollar bills to the U.S. government at interest, and that's how inflation comes about^(†).

The system is such that in exchange for the money, the Fed receives U.S. treasury bonds which it then sells for profit. Unfortunately, there were no buyers last year so the Fed purchased 80% of all 2009 bonds themselves–artificially propping up their value. This is known as a Ponzi scheme, and even MSNBC have admitted as much.

So, how bad is it really?

Well, now that the Fed have included the banks in this scheme, by my back-of-the-envelope calculations, this will spiral horribly out of control by, say, next Thursday week when martial law will be declared in Washington and we will finally witness the Rapture and an eventual zombie apocalypse.

It's about time!

Endnotes:† By the way, every single penny paid in U.S. income tax goes to the Federal Reserve in payment for this 'loaned' money, for which the taxpayer receives no benefit whatsoever.

Don't Mention The C-Word (Not That One!)

Darwin — Wed, 19 May 2010 12:49:26 +0000

Casanova - Begins With C, Ends With 'You're Fired'

You've probably heard of the ongoing 'fruit-bat fellatio' case, where a UCC academic is in trouble because of extreme prudery. A behavioural science lecturer mentioned a humorous, but nonetheless scholarly, fruit-bat study to a female colleague and was immediately done for sexual harassment.

By some chance I'd already heard of the fruit-bat paper through Wired magazine's list of the 10 Most Absurd Published Scientific Papers 2009. Just like other enlightened Wired readers, I was amused and also fascinated by the study–and thus horrified by the recent events.

Bock has already taken a lively swing at it over at his place. He has published the original complaint over there too, and it makes for interesting reading. One section in particular caught my eye.

The previous week, he came to my office uninvited [what a weasel word!] to show me a book that he is reading about the life of Casanova. He said he admired Casanova because he had slept with hundreds of women, he was a gambler and that he was able to play different roles in different situations.

Casanova? Is this just written in to bolster her flimsy case?

As it happens, I have several books on Casanova (I've even toyed with writing a musical about his life) and I can tell you he was one of the most fascinating individuals ever to have lived. For a while I was quite the bore on the subject of Casanova, and I can confirm that occasionally, when I mentioned my interest to some closed-minded lady or other, I was subjected to icy stares and the most ignorant of rebukes.

Yes, yes, we all know that Casanova was famous as a lover–and he was a genuine 'lover' of women, not a cruel abuser of them–but there is so much more to the man than is popularly known.

For example, Casanova:

achieved a degree in law at seventeen

studied in the seminary and became an abbé (but abandoned religion for women)

was briefly a military officer

was a concert violinist

became a highly successful playwright and author

introduced the lottery to Paris

co-wrote the libretto for Mozart's Don Giovanni with Da Ponte

was at times an alchemist, a silk dealer, and a financier

was arrested in Venice for blasphemy but escaped over the roof of the Doge's Palace on Halloween night

etc.

That's just from memory, and all before he was thirty! It goes on and on, his memoirs take up 3,700 pages. But alas, some people only hear 'Casanova' => 'sex.' I'm quite sure I'd have been done for sexual harassment (if not mental rape!) if I'd mentioned any of this to the 'delicate flower' who brought the case in UCC.

I can genuinely sympathise with Dr. Evans' (the lecturer's) plight, and can sadly advise that there is simply no way to educate some people on interesting topics that have the unwarranted taint of immorality upon them.

Unsurprisingly, I've been told there is a religious aspect to all this. Well, at least the furore in the blogosphere has granted Evans a new hearing in the case, we can all take a polite bow for that. Internets 1 – Idiots NIL.

But Dr. Evans should be very glad he didn't mention that study about Monkeys Paying For Sexy Pics. If anything is likely to cost you your job, it's references to 'monkey porn' showing up in your online search history.

::

An Evening Of Clairvoyance? I Call Shenanigans!

Darwin — Sun, 09 May 2010 00:43:40 +0000

Acclaimed television psychic Tony Stockwell is coming to UCH, Limerick on Sunday 16th May. Tony is of course a master manipulator and a complete fraud. So why am I advertising his show?

Well here is a video of Tony in action. He's good, he's got genuine talent. I haven't seen such calm, professional cold reading techniques in years. He plays the persona of the medium very well and is much less of an amped-up alpha-male, and thus far more likeable, than John Edward.

Watch the first six minutes of this video and come back for my analysis. I picked this clip practically at random, but more specifically because it's a long unedited read.

Did you count the questions/assertions? Well I did, there were twenty-seven. Wow! Twenty-seven distinct messages from the spirit world. I wonder how many of these were accurate and how many might have been educated guesses?

Well, my educated guess is that when he walked out onto the studio floor he had one scenario in mind: male/killed in an accident. And with approximately one hundred bereaved people in a room, his odds of striking gold were excellent.

Here are the psychic messages Tony received from the dead Subject:

"A man. But it's a much younger man." What could that even mean? His very first statement turns out to be utterly vague to the point of incomprehensibility.

"Very handsome looking fellah, a good looking boy." He's still not certain whether this is a child or a man. But all tragic dead people are probably such good looking boys/men to their families.

"Dimple on his chin, mark upon his chin." Psychics often really on common scar areas to give weight to their guesses, but this one goes unacknowledged and is never mentioned again. So much for its being "reasonably significant." Fail.

"Whichever way he passed he damaged or there was something wrong with the left hand or arm or something here to the shoulder all across here…some degree of impact where he would have fallen against it or been hit somewhere on the left side of his body." This is part of his 'accident' assumption. Surely someone knows a man/boy killed in an accident? Notice the vague progression of this 'impact' from hand, to arm, to shoulder, to the entire left side of the body. At this point he gets a lukewarm admission of recognition from an audience member: the Target. But based on what information exactly? A deceased but handsome man/boy with a dimple who damaged some area on the left of his body. But as we mentioned, the dimple is insignificant and never mentioned again, later we discover that the Subject had pain 'all over,' rather than just on the left side. So, essentially: a dead male. Gee, I know one too.

"Something significant about his eyebrows." No sense of recognition from the Target, a stony reception in fact, and so this is quickly passed over. Fail.

"Hasn't passed recently." Tony estimates that, going by the Target's age (fifty-ish?), this tragedy is a little further in the past. He quickly adds the qualifier 'years' to see the reaction, and is well-rewarded. It's about time he got somewhere!

Subject is "Similar age/generation" to Target. This is a wedge point where Tony takes a calculated leap and guesses that the Subject is the Target's late brother, or less likely a school friend.

"Known you from when you were a little kid, or from day one." This just confirms the childhood connection and Tony is on the home stretch now.

"When he passed he broke his mother's heart. And she was never ever the same." Need we even comment on this one?

"Just before he passed he was so excited…he'd just achieved something…" No reaction. Fail.

"…or he was looking forward to a major thing that happened in his life." No reaction. Fail.

"Something to do with a significant birthday or a significant birthday…twenty-one or something…" No reaction. Fail. Tony was hoping for a win with this one. It's part of the narrative of death that the mourners will say something like '…and he was going to be 18 in another month or so,' Or '…and his sister's birthday was only the week before.' It's always somebody's birthday. Although, his jamming in a hurried reference to 'twenty-one' reeks of desperation. Fail.

"…or the people he connected to. Come on!" This finally elicits a grudging but unconvincing 'possibly' from the Target. Fail.

"…sense of this impact or being squashed. Feeling of damage in his body, it wasn't pretty." This is from Tony's original accident scenario. He had been hoping for a car crash death, but this doesn't seem to be forthcoming. He returns to the 'left side' theory, but is proven wrong on this again–the pain was 'all over.' But to be fair, he scores well on the 'impact or being squashed' suggestion. Then again, if someone is killed in an accident it'll probably cause them significant physical damage.

"Your father knows him." A reasonable guess. The Target's father would know his own sons and/or their friends. However, if you watch carefully, he seems very confused about whose father it is. The Target or the woman to his right. Are they husband and wife? Probably, but Tony was clearly hoping for a brother/sister relationship here.

"He's seen him after he died." Going out on a limb, Tony guesses that the father went to identify the remains of the Subject. He is rewarded with a Gold Star for this one.

"The trauma haunted him…dreams where he could see the body." He harps on about this a little too much with no real reaction from the Target, but my guess is that the woman (out of frame) was giving many more clues than the stoic Target.

"He's apologetic." So the Subject is sorry for dying? This is unverifiable to say the least.

"He looks like you..very similar." Tony is trying to get an admission that this is a brother, or at least someone in the family, perhaps a cousin.

"He's waited a long time to come and speak to you." Really?

"Your mother is alive…" This is correct, but he follows this statement with a very odd trailing qualifier: "…in the world." It seems like a strange thing to say, but if you imagine that Tony was in fact ready to add the weasel phrase '…in the spirit world,' then you can see how this slipped out.

Subject wants "to pick her up and heal her or care for her." Funny, I've also heard that old people often have trouble walking and may even have medical conditions. This isn't exactly brain surgery.

"She doesn't feel brilliant…unwell? Under the weather, tired?" Ditto. I don't mean to be insensitive but he was surely hoping for some form of cancer here.

"Five photographs of him out on show in the lounge." No reaction. Fail. Let's try the other rooms?

"Five photographs of him in the home?" No? Very disappointing reaction here too. In fact, the Target clearly says "I know she hasn't got that many." Oh dear. Fail.

"Lively, jumping up and down…a pillock…happy, dozy." A lively child? Some agreement here. Well done, Tony.

"Your grandmum stands next to him in the spirit world." Shameless.

Well, I've just saved you €35. Although, it's probably worth it to see the real stars of the show–the gullible public–as they lap up this tripe without a moment's reflection.

You may think I'm being too hard on the grieving parents, spouses and siblings who go to these exhibitions hoping for one last connection with their loved ones. But, I'm not the one lying to them and taking their money. It takes a special breed of callous, thieving psychopath to do that, Tony Stockwell.

In addition, I am truly disappointed that UCH is housing this charlatan's circus act. It's worth remembering that it's called the UNIVERSITY Concert Hall for a reason: it's embedded in the centre of Limerick's most prestigious seat of learning, where scientific method, intellect, and rational thought are supposed to hold sway, and perhaps even count for something.

I can forgive them hosting Crystal Swing, but Tony Stockwell? For shame, UCH, for shame.

::

Further To Our Recent Discussion Of Religion Vs. Courts

Darwin — Wed, 05 May 2010 14:08:16 +0000

Mike Ovey, of Oak Hill Theological College, set forth one of religion’s favorite fallacies — “absence of belief is a religion” — and added one I’ve never experienced — “faith is objective because it can be taught.”

Full article: Judge: Christian beliefs have no legal standing. Evangelicals call it persecution | Paliban Daily.

::

Society Finally Realises Christian Values Are Unlawful

Darwin — Mon, 03 May 2010 17:59:44 +0000

What about the right to be Fabulous?

Just let me say up front, I knew this would happen someday. A preacher was arrested in the UK last week for telling people publicly that homosexuality is a sin. He claims that he should have freedom of religious speech.

To begin with, there's no such thing as completely 'free' speech.

Actually, let me row back on that a little: you are free to say absolutely anything you want, as long as you have a tongue in your head and breath in your lungs. But of course there may be consequences arising from that speech.

Shouting FIRE in a crowded auditorium is one of the classic cases where public safety overrides freedom of speech. More recently we've seen the introduction of 'incitement' legislation. This is where you can be prosecuted for egging people to riot or commit crimes.

Opponents of political correctness were worried at the introduction of laws banning 'hate speech,' perhaps because the best way to demonstrate someone's abhorrent folly is to let them open their mouths and express it.

But, like it or not, we have placed limits on our freedom of expression to protect the values of our society. These values now include some that are anathema to strict Christian law; namely, society (at least on paper) now thinks that, rather than being a biblical abomination, gay people are ok.

A Baptist preacher in Cumbria has become one of the first Christians to fall foul of this discrepancy between secular law what is mandated in a certain bronze-age book by Middle-Eastern tribesmen who scribbled down many silly folk tales and ignorant prejudices.

"I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know."

-Dale McAlpine, Daily Telegraph, 2nd May 2010

Would you feel deeply shocked and humiliated if a stranger pointed at you in the street and called you an abomination unto God? Some people consider that kind of behaviour anti-social, and by 'some people' I mean all of the rest of us. And you're not helping your case when you start a sentence with "I am not homophobic but…

…sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”

Well, try finishing some sentences that begin with 'I'm not racist but…' or 'I'm not saying Jews are evil but…' There's no graceful way out of it, Dale.

“My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said"

It's not just 'dislike,' incitement to hatred is a crime.

Still, one doesn't have to look very far to see instances of the religious getting offended by everyone else's free speech (see the South Park controversy), and they seem happy enough with the blasphemy laws.

This case shows that the rubber is finally hitting the road. Modern secular societies have worked out a common system of morality that is acceptable and appropriate, for the most part, to our current era, state of enlightenment, and place in evolution. The Bible remains a static relic of superstition, bigotry, and nescience.^(†)

Of course, Christians will claim that they have been battling against the powerful agents of Satan, in the form of kings and pagan civilizations, for many centuries now, and this is just another test of their devotion to God.

Good luck with all that. I had a crappy boss like that once.

::
Endnotes:† Absence of knowledge or awareness; ignorance. I like the contrast with the word 'science.'

Shocking News About ████ And ████

Darwin — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:55:03 +0000

Guess who?

Censorship seems to be the order of the day.

Carol Coleman, bless her, tried to squeeze the Muhammad Vs. South Park debate into about ten minutes of The Wide Angle on NewsTalk today . While inviting a brash comedian to debate a Dublin Muslim leader might have seemed like a good idea at the time, it would have been perhaps more illuminating to invite someone who had actually seen the episode under discussion.

As it was, we were treated to a breakneck rendition of Abie Philbin Bowman's talking points, with no reference to the issue at hand, and the opportunity to banter with a very accommodating moderate Muslim on the other end of the phone was lost. Neither party addressed the South Park depictions and no new information or critique was offered.

The moderate Muslim mentioned that it was important to consider the intentions of the cartoonists, of which he admitted ignorance. Carol seemed bewildered by this, spluttering 'It's only a cartoon!'

It now appears she has never seen a single episode of South Park. Thankfully Bowman set her straight regarding the very meaning of satire itself: that it always has a point.

Of course, unmentioned in all this went the fascinating crux of Matt and Trey's dangerous depiction of Muhammad (but how could our panel know, not having watched the show?), which was that it was not actually Muhammad in the bear suit at all, but Santa Claus.

This begs the obvious question: Why exactly are these people threatening South Park?

The salient points here are (a) people just get mad for the sake of it (b) no-one knows the exact 'rules' for safe Muhammad-depiction (Is it okay if he speaks? What if he's under a sheet? If we don't know what he looked like, how do you know it's him? If I draw a stapler labelled 'Muhammad' is that blasphemous? etc.).

Mohammed is fast becoming the new 'Rules Of Fight Club':

You do not talk about Muhammad

You do not talk about Muhammad

How ridiculous is the notion that you can tell other people what to draw and what not to draw based on your crazy cult's beliefs? I could start a religion that believes Elvis is God and that depictions of Elvis are punishable by death. I'd have more homes than Santa Claus to visit if I wanted to kill all the infidels. But would anyone acquiesce to my childish demands?

::

Are we going the way of Australia? Every day I read the anguished cries of our upside-down brethren as they bounce endlessly from one blocked website to the next.

Will we one day look back on the first 20 years of the internet as not merely the exciting, and somehow rustic, pioneering dot-com days but as the Golden Age when information was free to all?

The Irish government has had extensive discussions regarding internet censorship, 'without any public consultation or legislative approval,' as noted by Digital Rights Ireland.

It's a frightening nightmarish Orwellian scenario, little minds in little rooms tightening the information spigot with no public oversight.

And I'm sure the list of criteria for blocking sites will grow ever larger as the redacting pen becomes a paint-roller.

…increasingly, governments and law enforcement agencies are pushing for much broader use, ranging from blocking filesharing sites to trying to tackle cybercrime and terrorism…

- The Irish Times – Fri, Apr 16, 2010

Blocking websites as a counter-terrorist move? Has anyone thought this through? Let the hate-mongers have their little playground, it's easier to track them that way. Or are we afraid of the strength of some of their political arguments?

It's a throwback to the days when tackling terrorism meant 'trained actors playing Gerry Adams for fear that his musky charisma and siren song might somehow bewitch the Plain People of Ireland.'^(†)

If we do join North Korea in censoring the internet, it will be yet another example of ill-informed jackanapes making secret decisions, for unfathomable reasons, against the interests and wishes of the majority–just like the idiotic blasphemy legislation and the mysterious licensing laws of this country.

As usual, biting satire says it best.

::
Endnotes:† From: Is It Really A Crime When Somebody Gets Offended

Hungary Is The New 'Holy Land' (It Appears…)

Darwin — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 18:18:42 +0000

As apparitions go, this is a pretty good one. Congrats Jesus. Much better than that silly toasted cheese sandwich.

Or maybe it's Mohammed...? Oops!

::

God Botherers: Read Before Knocking

Darwin — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 01:39:19 +0000

Eminently sensible sentiments

::

Sam Harris, 4mins on Christianity

Darwin — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:41:30 +0000

::

Science Finally Proves 'Benefits Of Religion'?

Darwin — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:29:03 +0000

Increasingly being reported by the media, for example, this Time cover story

The Iona Institute are a group of enlightened souls who generally spend their precious time on Earth opposing gay marriage(pdf) and contraception for teenagers(doc). I recently perused to some more of the Good News they'd like share with us: Religion is good for you(pdf).

Yes, it's science folks! The dynamic and colourful report, complete with stock photos of hands clasped in prayer, begins by linking religiosity and general health, breathlessly informing us that this connection

…is increasingly being reported by the media. For example, the cover story of the Time magazine issue of February 23, 2009 was entitled, ‘How faith can heal’.

Well, they've also featured well-known quack Andrew Weil on their cover on two occasions, a man who thinks that so-called 'evidence-based' medicine is merely one possible reality. Not that this report is based solely on glossy propaganda sheets like Time, but are we to immediately drop reality-based medicine on the say-so of this hysterically biased magazine? Of course not.

But I need only quote from the introduction to give you the real tenor of this pamphlet:

…if religious practice has strong personal benefits, then it obviously has societal benefits as well. If religion is practiced by a large number of people across a population, then its benefits will accrue to society as a whole.

Egregious false logic aside ('obviously'? How scientific!), try telling this to the former inmates of Catholic institutions in this country. Or the subjugated women of Muslim countries, buried alive or stoned to death for the sin of having being raped.

Or maybe try telling the Swedes (up to 85% atheist) that their society is scientifically proven to be less healthy than ours (ha!). I guess they don't got no scientists in Sweden–maybe we should stop letting them decide who gets the Nobel Prize!

The bullet points of the report state baldly that those who practice religion

Live longer

Have lower levels of depressive illness

Have lower rates of relationship breakdown

Are less likely to be involved in crime

Cope better with serious illness

Recover faster from the death of a loved one

Are less likely to suffer marital breakdown

I feel the claims about criminality instantly call for correction.

A similar error is to be found in an article in The Daily Telegraph which points out that in a study of almost 80,000 UK prison inmates, the largest grouping (34%) identify themselves as 'non-religious.' This appears sort of true, until you realise that the corollary is also true, that the remaining 66% (which is actually the largest grouping) self-identify as being part of some religious denomination.

Further examination reveals that those identifying themselves as genuine atheists comprise a minuscule 0.6% of the prison population, a percentage very unrepresentative of the reported 20% found outside the walls. But unlike this report, I'm unwilling to entertain speculation about, say, how many people have 'found religion' while in jail (perhaps to satisfy judges and social workers?).

The report also allows that the

Hell-fire hypothesis promotes pro-social behaviour because of the threat of supernatural
sanction but also the reward for normative behaviour

regardless, naturally, of whether or not it is true–the truth being secondary to social manipulation. Apparently, the religious are incapable of teaching their children simple morality without invoking magic demons and invisible invigilators.

Read more at religiouspractice.ie. I'm sure someone with more time on their hands will provide a point by point rebuttal of each these skewed inferences.

My response to an article about this study in the Kildare and Leighlin Diocese newsletter was worded thus:

The placebo effect of faith healing, the family shunning and loss of community suffered by atheists, the ecstasy of delusional states, all quiet correct.

But is this any proof of the truth of religious claims? Of course not.

As G.B.Shaw pointed out:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

While it may benefit some individuals to enjoy the feeling of superiority in their rich fantasy life, society is much the worse for the divisive and superstitious control mechanism that is organised religion.

To this I might add the example of Sinéad O'Connor, to whom the Washington Post now turns for comment on papal affairs. A great many articles are surfacing to echo Eoin Butler's sentiment Isn’t Sinead O’Connor overdue a massive, grovelling apology from absolutely everybody?

Her antics nearly 20 years ago caused outrage amongst the religious, and amounted to career suicide as

The following day [after ripping up a picture of the pope], steamrollers crushed hundreds of her CDs outside Rockefeller Center to huge cheers from protesters.

These days, given the revelations of recent weeks and months, the pope doesn't warrant a lot of sympathy, in fact the airwaves both national and international are filled with calls for His Holiness' resignation–or worse.

Wait, is that a Star of David? It all makes sense now!

The point here is that Ms. O'Connor's (admittedly provocative) slur against religion had disastrous social and professional consequences. Fortunately, her strong will (and personal fortune) eased the transition from pop star to pariah. It would be unsurprising to find that someone less monied or assertive who went against their own church would suffer depression, alcoholism, and early death.

Perhaps this is not so much a study showing the benefits of religion, as it is a warning to those who dare to step outside it. Maybe it is an indictment of how the religious majority, including friends and family, can crush the souls of courageous freethinkers who seek to stray from the obedient flock.

The evident hypocrisy of this paper trumpets from seemingly innocent paragraphs like this one:

these results show that the more malevolent forms of religious beliefs e.g. religious fanaticism are linked to higher homicide rates while collective beliefs of a benevolent type are associated with lower homicide rates, similar to those found in secular countries.

Apparently, it all depends on how seriously you take your religion. This is the argument of á la carte moderates everywhere: 'our beliefs are tailored to suit our lifestyle and prejudices, naturally we'd don't follow every little rule!'

Let us never forget that the so-called 'fanatics' and extremists are the ones who practise their religions exactly as God originally intended.

::

Bjäggenswämmker Is The New 'Key Party' In Sweden

Darwin — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:49:03 +0000

Demotivational Poster

While the Danish Tourism Marketing Board tries to draw on 'casual sex' as an attraction in its online viral campaigns, Sweden keeps its charms firmly under wraps. According to a recent periodical:

Om du är fascinerad av lokala traditioner i Sverige, då den traditionella kön part kallas Bjäggenswämmker kommer utan tvivel att vara av stort intresse för dig. Det är praxis att täcka någon i honung innan du bjuder in dem för kommunala bad. Det innebär vanligtvis samlag med flera medlemmar av det motsatta könet.

- Svenska Rekord av Tillfälliga Möten (Dec 2009)

This will come as somewhat of a disappointment to anyone who received this hospitality, thinking he was the only one!

::

The No-Fly List Is A Non-Runner

Darwin — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:56:15 +0000

Homeland Security claims that the famous 'no-fly list' has only about 2,500 names on it. The ACLU has estimated that the Terrorist Watch list now has more than 1M names attached. Somewhere in between is the number of people who get hassled at the airport for no good reason–other than their name being, say, 'Robert Johnson' or famously 'T.Kennedy.'

A couple of years ago, the current White House Cheif of Staff Rahm Emanuel made this call during a speech at the Brady Centre. (About a minute in.)

I've never understood the legality of these lists: if you pose a danger to the public, you should be arrested and in jail. If not, you should be allowed to go about your business unimpeded. The mythology of this whole system has been exploded convincingly by security expert Bruce Schneier.

It reeks of Orwell, McCarthyism, and Dick! Philip K. Dick that is, whose Pre-Cogs in the film Minority Report were able to predict murders, thus allowing the police to arrest people who hadn't yet committed any crime.

::