Atheist, With No Artificial Additives

 

 

I’d promised myself that my previous post would be my last on the subject of FreeThoughtBlogs, but they had to go and surpass their already inane nonsense.

It seems that nobody can be a proper atheist unless they are Atheist Plus ®, and agree wholeheartedly with all the dogmatic pronouncements that accrue to that exclusive little club.

I criticised Richard Dawkins for his “Muslima” outburst, and I stand by that criticism. It seems, however, that there was some background to that comment, and that Rebecca Watson isn’t quite the calm and thoughtful person she presented in the “elevatorgate” video. That doesn’t excuse Dawkins outburst of course, but it does serve as mitigation.

Dawkins, along with the other “new atheists”, has been castigated by the FTB/Skepchick crowd for more than his words or actions; his very existence is apparently worthy of blame.

He is described as old (something his critics would presumably aspire to), white (an accident of birth. I blame his parents) and privileged. This last seems to be the most heinous crime, and it doesn’t appear to matter what your background is, nor how much money you have. The easiest way to become privileged, as far as the Atheist Plus ® adherents are concerned, is to disagree with them. That disagreement is profound, even if it’s just a word of caution about the wording of some premise.

I disagree with lots of people. I often disagreed with Christopher Hitchens, somebody I held in high regard. Even so, I felt I could learn something from that disagreement, if only the limit of my own knowledge.

Of course, I now learn, I’m doing it wrong. People I disagree with (so long as they’re not Atheist Plus ® acolytes) are to be treated as pariahs, and drummed out of the movement.

Just as God PZ Myers commanded.

 

The Immortal Hitch

The news that Christopher Hitchens has died today was sad, though not completely unexpected. Many of the kinder religious people have expressed a hope that Hitchens goes to Heaven. Hitchens would almost certainly not have appreciated such an idea, but he would have been pleased, I’m sure, by the compassion that spurs people to say such incongruous things.

I enjoyed “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, but in my opinion Hitchens’ “god is not Great” is the better book. In it he lambasts religion, but he makes time to give full credit to good people who are religious, starting with almost the whole of the first chapter given over to  Mrs. Jean Watts, who taught the young Hitch two subjects, nature and scripture. It was her attempt to combine the two topics that turned young Christopher into an atheist, quite abruptly. Nevertheless, his affection for the kindly Mrs Watts shines through. If Hitch’s critics, who claim he hates anyone religious, were to actually read that chapter, they might change their tune, though given their record most would continue to lie.

“god is not Great” wasn’t his only book, though it is probably now his most famous, even notorious one. His exposé of the “Mother Theresa” worldwide scam, “The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice” was almost a pamphlet, it was so thin, but the words within were so well chosen, it didn’t need to b any bigger.

I’ve also read “Thomas Jefferson: Author of America” and “Hitch 22“, his memoir, and in both his humanity is very obvious, and is a far cry from the reputation foisted on him by the more dishonest of his religious opponents.

I have many more Hitchens books for me to find and catch up on, but his writing was so good, I can happily read the ones I already have again.

The Hitch is dead, long live the Hitch’s works. That, and progeny, are the only kinds of immortality that we know are attainable, and Christopher Hitchens deserves every moment of his.

The Timonen Saga continues….

As some of you may know, Mr Timonen has joined several atheist forums, presumably so he can invoke the rule that most of them have against the personal abuse of other members. Naturally this hasn’t gone down too well, and even those of us who think the rule ought to upheld are annoyed, but not surprised, by his underhand tactic. Some people have been creative though, and while these videos probably don’t abide by the letter of the rule, they seem to have survived on at least one board. I think they were made by the people who put it on Rationalia (using the names Tigger, Bella Fortuna and Paula there), but you need to be a member to see them in that forum.  Here it is for non-members.(In case you don’t know, FUA stands for Forum User Agreement.)

As usual, if you like any of these videos click through and tell the right person.

Cherry-picking for God

I think it was Sam Harris who said that moderate theists cherry pick their scriptures, and that he has more respect for fundamentalists who accept their dogma in its entirety.

I can accept the first part of that statement, but is the second part tenable? Don’t fundamentalists also cherry pick? Bryan Fisher, speaking for the American Family Association, says that firefighters who stood idly by watching a house burn down because the homeowner hadn’t paid a $75 fee were right, and they displayed “muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility” as opposed to the “weakened, feminized version of Christianity” supported by people who actually care about others.

Yet I’m willing to bet that  Fisher is not averse to eating pork or shellfish, wears clothes that contain mixed fibres, and ignores many other of the standing orders in his instruction manual, the bible.

So the question is not whether a theist is a cherry-picker, but what kind of cherries are picked; the kind that reflect kindness, compassion and honesty, or the kind that reflect a desire to bully and control the thoughts and lives of other people.

Bad Religion II – God Hates Phelps

It seems that an argument about free speech is to go before the U.S. Supreme Court. It involves the loathsome Phelps coven, the Westboro Baptist Church and the father of a dead U.S. marine, whose funeral the WBC protested at.
As much as it pains me to say this, I think the WBC are right in their free speech argument. That argument gives everyone, of whatever religion or none, the right to express their views, and if that right is taken away from one group (or even one person) it can be taken away from anyone.
On this side of the pond (UK) we don’t have a written constitution, and it can look to us like a very sharp double-edged sword, so a better way of dealing with scum like Phelps, in my opinion, would be to use that other edge, and protest against him and his “church”. Sadly I’m unlikely ever to get the chance of protesting in person, as the Phelps clan is banned from entering this country, but if the ban is ever lifted I’ve got a picture all ready to display. If anyone who can get near the WBC would like to use it, please do!

Bad Religion?

If you click on the link in my blogroll that has this picture……you may be surprised to see that it isn’t the blog of a godless heathen like me, but of a Christian. You may also be surprised to see a link back here, especially given my sometimes less than charitable opinion of religion.
That link on CJ’s blog is what has prompted me to write today. (He has an annoying habit of making me think!) If you go to that site and let the mouse pointer hover over the link to here, you’ll see the words “Dave gives Bad Religion what it deserves – hard!”
Apart from the undeserved intensity of such praise, I do have a slight quibble with the phrasing of this, mostly because I’m so pedantic! My first thought was “All religions are bad!”
I should say to begin with that I view religion as separate from religious people. I can respect religious people even if I cannot respect the religion or its scriptures. Of course, as I’ve said often before, there are some religious people I can’t respect at all, and a sliding scale of respect for others. CJ is at the top of that scale, in part because he has such a well developed sense of humour that he can link to such a blasphemous site as this!
In fact he is representative of most of the theists I know in real life. It’s only on the internet that he appears to be an oddity, though he’ll deny that last with typical self deprecating humour, and claim to be odd all the time!

In the news media too we see mostly scary theists and the quiet ones who mind their own business and don’t harshly judge those who disagree with them hardly get a look-in.

One who did was Richard Harries who, when he was Bishop of Oxford, appeared on Richard Dawkins‘ programme “Root of All Evil”. It was not so much an interview as a conversation between two old friends, and I still enjoy watching it, especially after encountering some rabidly dishonest fundamentalist on one forum or another. It reminds me that not all theists are nutters, and quite a few are nice, decent, thoughtful and intelligent people. I know I’ve said that before, but with the sheer overkill of the not-so-brights overshadowing them, the decent sorts get tarred with the same brush. Despite broadly agreeing with the idea that “moderates give cover to extremists” espoused by Sam Harris, among others, I think it is manifestly unfair to accuse those who espouse the kindness they see in their scriptures  of the barbaric activities that are indulged in by attention seeking brutes.

P.S. Click here to see a provocativey titled, but excellently written post by CJ, which should show why he is one of the most respected theists on atheist forums.

EU to challenge Vatican’s tax exempt status (via DoctorE)

As usual, DoctorE got there first!

Cool… Insane not to tax the buggers. —- Discounts for the Church ― EU puts Italy on trial Exemptions for two billion € a year. Brussels puts it on the fast track: “This is state aid”. If Italy is sentenced, it must apply for reimbursement of unpaid taxes. The Church has assets of about 100,000 buildings Alberto D’Argenio “Sconto Ici alla Chiesa: la Ue processa l’Italia”, La Repubblica, 24 September 2010. BRUSSELS ― The tax exemptions granted … Read More

via DoctorE

Sound of Science

Absolutely nothing to do with me (unfortunately) but I think it deserves to go viral. If you like it, please click through and tell the guy responsible. (Double click on the video while it’s playing.)

Mythmas is coming!

(Yes, I know it’s still only September, but we need to avoid last minute panic!)

Contrary to what you may have heard, atheists are just as likely to enjoy Christmas as Christians. It’s a midwinter festival that predates Christianity, so why shouldn’t we join in?
Of course we don’t believe in that religious stuff, but Christmas spirit can be enjoyed with or without soda.
One thing that often troubles atheists is what kind of cards to send. There are overtly religious ones,Santa ones, and there are generic snow scenes, but there aren’t many straight out atheist cards. None, in fact, the last time I looked in a card shop. That’s why I make my own, and I’ve decided to collate them on another blog.
If you’d like to use any of my Mythmas pictures in your own cards (printed out or e-cards), feel free to do so. You can find them, and some of my other pictures, at my other blog by clicking on the link below.

This link is also on the right hand side below the blogroll.

“Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”

The morning after Panorama‘s second visit to the subject of Scientology seems an opportune time to revisit a story from a couple of years ago.

The words in the title were written on a sign held up by a 15 year old boy at a protest in London on May 10th 2008. For refusing to take down the sign, he was arrested and the sign was confiscated. This was despite Scientology being called a “corrupt, sinister and dangerous cult” by Mr. Justice Latey. That was in 1985, so the City of London police had plenty of time to read up about it before the demonstration that they knew was to take place. The trouble was Scientologists had already been “grooming” high-ranking police officers with expensive gifts. It is telling that nowhere else in the world was anyone arrested during the co-ordinated protests against Scientology, even in the neighbouring Metropolitan Police area.

The case never got to court.