Category Archives: Reason

Philosophy, Random, Reason, Science, YouTube

The Moon

8 Comments

Look at this video I just dids LOOK AT IT

The glories of space.

You’ll presumably forgive my idealistic ramblings, but the moon was out when I was walking to work this morning and something occurred to me that hadn’t before. As I’ve said in a previous blog, we don’t really look at the moon and sun as anything other than constants in the sky, purely because they’re as ubiquitous as the oceans or the clouds. If we want to look at the wonders of space, we’re trained into thinking that we must seek out photos and videos  – that this is the only way we can see into the universe.

There’s something utterly haunting about a moon in orbit round a distant planet. I did my best to collect the finest space photography I could find in the video, but of course we don’t need to go anywhere near that far.

The half-shadowed moon, in the early morning light in a pale blue sky, looked every bit as beautiful and tantalising as Titan behind Saturn’s rings, or Io transiting Jupiter. It’s up there now. A whole world. Get you outside.

Philosophy, Reason, Religion

The Failbox Of Moral Absolutism

12 Comments

My inspiration for this particular blog is gleaned, unhappily, from a NephilimFree video. For those languishing in sweet ignorance, NephilimFree is a Youtube creationist who closely resembles something you might find hunkered under a stone. And for those about to accuse me of cheap adhom, don’t worry – the man would be as stupid and worrying if he looked like Brad Pitt and AronRa strapped together. It’s just so . . . so classic that he looks like everyone’s stereotypical image of the pale, overweight religious fundamentalist.

He made a brief allusion to moral absolutism whilst en route to some cataclysmically balls conclusion about evolution, offering it as a brief proof of God. His argument, and indeed the arguments of all moral absolutists are similar, went like this:

“We know it is evil to rape a baby. But how do we know? This inherent evilness must come from somewhere, it has to have been provided ERGO GOD DID IT HE BLOODY DID THA KNOWS”

Now, I may often make babyrape jokes, so I just want to assure you that I wasn’t making that example for lulz – his words, not mine.

The basic tenet of moral absolutism, (or moral objectivism\objectivity) henceforth referred to as MA to save me a great deal of tedium, is that certain things are universally known to be good or bad. To everyone. Popular examples are rape and murder. We all KNOW it’s wrong. William Lane Craig, that spectacularly fatuous but annoyingly eloquent apologist, made a similar argument when debating with the then atheist Anthony Flew.

This argument is, I need scarcely point out, the supremest ass.

For a start, NephilimFree fails to take into account that, whilst the majority of people would certainly regard the rape of a baby as morally repugnant, some people would not. Namely the people who go around raping babies in the first place. And this is completely ignoring hypothetical situations where the rape of a baby would save a great many people (I freely confess being unable to think of many such situations, but say you have a man who takes 20 people hostage and demands a baby to rape in exchange for the safe release of his hostages . . . is babyrape then still immutably wrong? How many people would have to die before the rape of one baby is outweighed by multiple murders? And so on.)

The world is not as starkly black and white as MA-ists would have us believe. There are clear trends that show what actions are, by and large, considered to be good or bad by humanity in general – but there is no standard, no consensus, no one list of good and bad that every single person could agree on. The shades of grey number into the practically infinite. The trouble is that MA-ists tend to – in fact, are quite naturally compelled to – see the moral compass from atop their own cultural magnet. Nephilim and WLC, to take my two examples, are both American Christians living in the hallowed grounds of the Western civilised world. I’m sure they would recoil in horror if lectured about the scarification rites of various tribal cultures and groups, which are by my standards barbaric. I’m sure they would be repelled, as I am, by the ritual cutting of Muslim children’s heads during Ashura. I would take such acts to be considered immoral more or less across the board, outside  the cultures that practice them – but there is no absolutism here. The people that perform such ritual incisement and scarification are not isolated sociopaths, they are merely operating from a different perspective that they consider to be entirely justified. Note that I’m not condoning such things in the slightest, just demonstrating that what we may call barbaric child abuse is a way of life to a large number of people.

Of course, I have to wonder how Nephilim and WLC regard circumcision. Personally, I find it abhorrent – the mutilation of a child’s genitals, against their will, in the name of some unprovable deity. I often wonder how the nation (whichever nation, mine is the UK) would react if news surfaced of some religious cult who, inspired by their scriptures, ritualistically cut off the left earlobe of all newborn boys. I imagine there would be outrage. However, circumcision is carried out en masse, every day, every minute – the forced removal of part of someone’s body. The only authority it has is antiquity, and of course that argument would lead us back to treating women like possessions (unless you’re in a religion where you already DO treat them like possessions, which saves time) and enslaving people who have a different skin pigmentation. Authority is no kind of argument, and it seems the only defence circumcision has – claims that it significantly improves health are bogus. The decision should lie with the individual, unforced by external pressure.

If two of the largest religions in the world practice genital mutilation, how can there be moral absolutism?

There can only be moral absolutism in small groups – probably the only way you could get a handful of people who would take identical stances on every single moral issue you could raise. Of course, I’m not talking only about things like rape, murder and mutilation. I’m talking about the little things, decisions on whether or not to lie\go home early from work\not do something you were told to do, and so on. I’m sure Neph would say that only the big issues matter, but if you’re talking about MA then you can’t have it just for the major issues. It’s not as if these absolute morals break down once you get into pettier concerns of lying and cheating. If one thing is absolutely right or wrong, everything has to be. So out of 100 people, 100 might agree that babyrape is wrong – but 26 might think it’s ok to steal to provide money for medicine (and 4 of them think it’s ok to steal just to provide money for themselves). 14 might think it’s ok to cheat on their partner. A further 7 might think homosexuals are sinful. 32 might have no problem with circumcision. And for every person who is ok with such a stance, you might have people who take the opposing view whilst doing something themselves that others consider to be immoral. And so on, and on, and on. The Pope, ensconced within his fortress of deceit, thinks that homosexuality is objectively wrong – and this man is the head of the Catholic church. Nice going, guys.

At best, there are trends. Some of the trends are stronger and more widespread, but none are immutable. I cannot think of a single thing that everyone would agree on as being completely and universally bad, something from which moral absolutism could be derived. I put this question to my girlfriend, and she suggested “Destroying the world?” Sadly I can imagine that you’d easily find someone to do it, if they had the chance.

Censorship, Reason, Science

Conspiracy Theories and Me

23 Comments

The League of Reason has exposed me to quite a few conspiracy theories – some of which I’d heard of (Chemtrails and OMFG THE MAN KNOCKED DOWN THE TOWAZ) and some which I had hitherto been blissfully ignorant of (the infamous “Fluoride in drinking water’ nonsense.)

I don’t believe a word of it, of course. The claims of conspiracy theorists are all too often similar to the claims of the faithful – a distinct lack of evidence, a pre-existing bias, an unwillingness to consider other explanations or refutations. However, as far as some of the biggest theories go – the moon landing, government-captured aliens and 9\11 – I would not be surprised in the least if irrefutable evidence suddenly arose that proved foul play.

I may not believe the theories, you see, but I fully believe that people – mainly in government, in America, the place where so many of these theories either originated or are linked to – are capable of such duplicity for various reasons.

Let’s take Roswell, Area 51 and all that kind of thing. What if the American government really had isolated and confirmed alien life? What would be the options? Either make it public, or hide it.

Can you begin to imagine the uproar if it was announced that aliens walk among us? It would be indescribable. And the public response would probably be unanimous – more money to space exploration and related technologies. Let’s get out there. People would suddenly be more interested in space than petty squabblings over oil and territory. Where would this extra money be diverted from? Probably the military. And an America without a military is not a happy America, at least as far as the government is concerned. So, what to do? You bury the evidence and keep the army that’s made your nation mighty.

Of course, I don’t think that this has happened. But I can’t help but think it’s at the very least possible, should aliens ever be discovered. I’d like to think that such a thing would be shouted to the highest mountains, but a cynical part of me suggests that folk would like to keep their guns.

The moon landing is infamous for claims of fakery, claims which I sadly used to indulge myself in, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was announced that the whole thing really was a big pile of ass. The motivation for such deception is clear; the drive to put a man on the moon was less driven by scientific endeavour and more by the threat of Russian space presence. It was a matter of national pride and security. I can imagine a government faking the moon landing for much smaller reasons – though I don’t believe it WAS fake. I can simply recognise why it would have been faked, if it had been, which it wasn’t. If you follow me.

And, of course, there’s all sorts of reasons put forward to suggest why the WTC might have been planed by their own country.

I guess that if I believed in any conspiracy theory, it’s the one claiming that people really can be as bad as you fear. And that’s not even really a conspiracy theory at all, is it?

Note to all glorious american patriots: I DON’T CARE

Philosophy, Reason, Religion, Science

A Debate With A Vague God Enthusiast

1 Comment

Haven’t blogged for a bit, so I’m storming back with a long one. In addition to that, I have a larger than average blog post for your delectation.

My girlfriend and her friend ended up talking about God, and my name got mentioned – presumably because I’m just that awesome. My GF, as someone who’s pretty much had her faiths eroded by my niggling arguments (“Shall we get some wine? Also, why would an all-powerful God allow evil to occur?”) wanted her friend to talk to me on the subject. She prepared a short argument and I emailed her my response.

Something I wasn’t aware of until after I’d emailed her was that she is, apparently, very stubborn and will never let go of her beliefs. Which renders debate more or less meaningless, but hey – who knows?

 

“What is sense? Why can’t open minded thoughts help you accept a possibility of a greater power/energy source named as god?”

I think my GF gave you the wrong impression of my perspective on this issue. I accept the POSSIBILITY of God, or a higher power, simply because it would be scientifically hypocritical to state with certainty that it could NOT exist. Until every iota of the universe has been catalogued, which is almost certainly something we will never do, we cannot posture with certainty on such matters. To state something CANNOT exist is a faith-based position, albeit anthetical to faith IN a God, and as such is a position not often adopted by intellectuals.

So, I can accept the possibility. But with a complete lack of any positive proof, there is no point considering it further. An inability to disprove something is not adequate proof FOR it, otherwise you would have to give equal credence to absolutely every unfalsifiable hypothesis anyone ever makes. Along with your concept of God, you’d have to grant the equal chance of everyone else’s concept of God, along with all supernatural claims. This is without even going into the logical paradoxii that arguments for God tend to invoke, which I’ll go into a bit later..

“Why can’t there be a god?”

I’d need to know more detail about your concept of God to answer this. However, in general, God creates more questions than it answers. Simply using God as a catch-all answer to the mysteries of the universe is unrealistic, because you then have to explain God. You end up with paradoxii of omnipotence, problems of free will, problems of omnicognisance. So tell me more about your perception of God – is it conscious? Insensate? Does it have a specific purpose? What powers does it possess? Is it immortal/eternal/invincible? Is it limited in any sense?

Until I have more detail, though, the simple answer is there COULD be a God – but it’s so vastly unlikely, so internally inconsistent and contradictory by most human accounts, that there’s no point in pursuing it. As we on the internet say, pictures or it didn’t happen. The onus of proof is ALWAYS on the other side to substantiate God – NOT on me to disprove.

“By opening your mind and thoughts you accept possibilities, by accepting possibilities you become more knowledgeable, and by being more knowledgeable you are naturally more intelligent.”

Accepting possibilities is fine. It’s what drives scientific endeavour and progress. But you don’t actually become more knowledgeable until you have proved these possibilities as something workable. There’s some famous quote, I think from Richard Dawkins, which is more or less “Be open-minded, but not so open that your brain falls out.” Wondering how things work and having a spirit of enquiry keeps discovery constant; however, that is no reason to hang on to the impossible or the unworkable. The historical precedent is that poorly understood natural phenomena attributed to the supernatural (for example, the various cultural pantheons to whom natural forces and processes were attributed via individual deities, as opposed to monotheism where a single entity controls everything – this seems to be what you’re postulating) eventually become explained by scientific means. The age of simply hypothesising something which sounds about right is long gone. The age of empiricism demands proof, repeatable observation, before a possibility becomes workable. Otherwise the whole thing simply collapses in disarray under the weight of countless “possibilities” which can only be accepted because they cannot be completely disproved.

That is the nature of science, of course. It operates on inductive reasoning, on extending an assumption from a necessarily limited sample group. However, deductive reasoning – which begins from an axiomatic statement and is thus considered to be more reliable than inductive logic – is never grounded in the real world. Only logical and mathematical constructs can be axiomatic. A famous deduction is “All are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.” However, this deduction relies on inductive empiricism for its axiom. The only way of looking at the world and the universe is by the scientific method; only abstracts, like logic and maths (human constructions) produce axiomatically true results – and these results are definitionally divorced from the real world.

“Where did the first energy source come from?”

We’re working on it 🙂

We don’t know. The origins of the universe are pretty trippy to consider. However, given the aforementioned historical precedent of supernatural explanations being superceded, it’s reasonable to assume that we will eventually know – and not knowing NOW doesn’t mean we will NEVER know. Also, not knowing the origins of the universe is comparatively simple when compared to using God as an explanation and then trying to work out how God created itself, or all the other attendant problems with using God to explain anything.

“Do humans have any energy source beyond physics? Why? Why not?”

If human beings have an energy source beyond physics it’s pointless to even speculate as it necessarily wouldn’t be something we could even detect. If we could detect it, it would be an aspect of known physical laws and not metaphysical or supernatural in nature. So, no, humans do not have an energy source beyond physics because the question doesn’t have any actual meaning – you’re asking to verify something which definitionally, as soon as it is verified, STOPS being beyond physics.

“Bear in mind that without self-evidence there is none. With no evidence, you rely on belief. Therefore proof is belief. If belief is your source of proof why can’t you believe in god and use belief as proof.” (I nearly pooped myself when I read that argument.)

That’s a little too much of a logical leap though. Proof is NOT belief. Proof is proof. Belief implies some kind of dependence on the believer for continuation, and gravity doesn’t care if you believe in it or not. Scientists don’t rely on belief or faith, and neither do the things the scientific method discovers.
Your argument dictates that, if belief is a proof, EVERYTHING is real and possible. Jeremy, the unicorn inside Jupiter who controls gravity (but only in this solar system) is real because I have belief in him – and thus proof. And, of course, the concept of God that I believe in that forces all possible Gods to NOT exist (including yours) must be real, because I have belief.

Belief is not the source of proof for scientists, or for me. Repeatable, observable testing and evidence is proof. Proof that is consistent with all previously gathered research. Using belief as proof not only invites a great deal of confusion, it’s demonstrably untrue, and it indicates a lack of any REAL proof for claims. If your proof is belief, you are admitting that you have no concrete evidence on which to go on.

 

So now, we wait . . .

Censorship, Reason

Freedom from Offence?

10 Comments

When I was 12 years old and in the seventh grade I received my first formal education in the Theory of Evolution.  While Biology was never my primary interest, I have always loved science and I soaked it all up.

There was a girl in my class named Danielle.  She came from, what I now understand, a Creationist family.  She had frequently displayed annoyance at the discussion of evolution since we started studying the theory.  I learned of her attitude when I, and a few others were sitting in the school’s resource center during the lunch period during which I had been working on a Biology assignment.  I asked Danielle (not knowing about her family’s convictions at the time) if she had completed the assignment.

She replied, “I don’t have to do it!  My parents called the school.  We don’t believe in Evolution.  We’re Christians.”

I’ll summarize the ensuing discussion.  I was not sure what to make of this.  I had never heard of someone getting out of school work for being Christian.  I tried to ask why she could not be a Christian and study evolution, since I was pretty sure that most of our classmates were doing both.  However, she was adamant.  She said with certainty, “We did not.  Evolve.  From.  Monkeys!”

I had never experienced such an attitude to science before.  I told her that she was really missing out and that such a stance would harm her in the long run.She objected, citing her faith as well as her personal disgust with the idea of being a monkey.I tired to explain that she should really follow what is taught in school and that there is no reason she can not also be a Christian, but one of the aides in that room suddenly snatched the simple taxonomic chart I was pointing at and crumpled it into a ball.She then moved me to the other side of the room and told me to leave Danielle alone.

Later that week, I was sitting at one of the picnic tables with two of my friends during lunch.I was talking about one of our recent lessons in evolution because they did not understand it as well as I did and asked me to clarify.

During the next period, I was pulled out of class and reported to the front office where I was addressed privately by both the principal and the vice-principal.They said that Danielle had lodged a complaint about me that day.Apparently, she had been sitting nearby and overheard my conversation regarding evolution.They told me I that I needed to be “more aware of the differing opinions around me’ and to not talk about certain things if it might upset someone.

I was twelve-years-old, I was just relieved that the faculty was not going to call my parents or give me detention.It was not until several years later upon reflection that I realized the hypocrisy of their actions.Anything can be viewed as offensive if your criteria of what constitutes offensive material is that which you perceive as contrary to your religion or culture.Are we supposed to walk on eggshells around each other unless we all have the same views?Or maybe it is better if we don’t associate with others at all.

Philosophy, Reason, Science, YouTube

Radio debate “Evolution”: djarm67 vs Dr Steve Kumar

6 Comments

A couple of days ago, Mrs djarm67 was told that a local radio station was going to host a speaker who would confront the “New atheism” movement and evolution. I took the info on board and began listening to the station to get some more info, e.g. when and who. This proved to be a mildly irritating experience within itself as my musical tastes are stimulated far more easily by a combination of prog-rock and hybrids of grunge, psychedelia or various brands of metallic funk with at least a short term residence in the Phrygian mode. This exercise was made somewhat more pleasant with the lubrication of a blend of Hunter Valley Cabernet Merlot. Eventually, it was revealed that the event was to occur not just on the Sunday night but would utilise frequency modulation of the VHF electromagnetic spectrum. The proponent gracing the airwaves at that time to “confront” this new atheism and evolution would be Dr Steve Kumar.

Heard of him?

Neither had I.

So began the extension of my love affair with all things online. I began to investigate the “who” behind the scheduled event. Who is this Dr? A Dr of what? Where did he get his doctorate? Was it legitimate or Hovindesque?

I found many examples of duplicates of his bio (marketing brochure) which attested to an awesomeness clearly in excess of anything I could hope to muster. Finding out what he was a doctor of or where he got it proved difficult and I actually had to rely on his introduction on the radio programme itself to educate my ignorance that I would be dealing with a “Doctor of Philosophical Theology” if I chose to enter the field of battle.

Here is Dr Steve Kumar

Dr Steve Kumar
Dr Steve Kumar

I did find a reference which indicated he had received his doctorate from the same “California diploma mill” as disgraced NZ MP Bernie Ogilvy (who I believe claimed to possess a law degree from an institute which did not even have a law programme). A brochure promoting the “Eleventh annual European summer study session of the International Academy of apologetics, evangelism and human rights” lists Dr Kumar as “Faculty and Advisory” alongside a conspicuous William A Demski. Post-interaction with Dr Kumar, I found another reference which indicated that the institute in question is the “California Graduate School Of Theology” (a worthy member of the Wikipedia “List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning”)

So here I was. An anonymous YouTuber with dreams of “League of Reason” blogging prowess about to confront some (apparently) world renowned Christian apologist who was a doctor no less. I had never been involved in a live radio debate previously. When responding to those on forums or my YouTube channel, I have the luxury of being able to research an answer prior to responding (a luxury not present in the heat of the battle which is talk back radio). I set up my tape recorder, turned on the radio and reached nervously for the phone. Here is the result.

This debate is split across two YouTube videos. Please watch both as I am a blatant video view whore. Oops, I mean I think you will enjoy them both. I’ve included accompanying images and video footage which I hope you will find humourous.

Evolution debate: djarm67 vs Dr Steve Kumar Part 1

Evolution debate: djarm67 vs Dr Steve Kumar Part 2

In addition, for those who frequent PZ Myers blog; Pharangula, I have included a Cephalopod treat for you.

DJ

Reason, Science

The Argument From Design Is Pretty Bad

6 Comments

You’ve probably come across this one a lot. Variations on the theme of “Everything is really super complex\the universe is obviously custom made for our please\life is designed, it couldn’t have happened by chance ERGO GOD” crop up all the time.

When you think about it, it’s pretty disgusting. It reveals a shallowness of intellect and reasoning that’s staggering.

The evolution of the eye is the most oft-quoted piece of “evidence” for intelligent design. “Look at this thing,” they’ll bluster, spit rolling down their chins. “Look at it! It’s really super complex! How could it possible have happened by chance? It’s perfect! Can you lend me a nickel?”

Ignoring the fact that the eye’s evolution has been pretty well covered by a number of people, the eye is NOT perfect. Not by any means. It is our most important sensory apparatus, far more so than hearing or smell, and yet this apparently God-patented design can be rendered inoperative by simply poking at it a bit too hard.

The eye manages to be one of the most important and most fragile parts of our body at the same time. Get a piece of grit in it and you’ve pretty much lost the rest of your day. Expose it to minimal pressure and it’s gone. A lot of people don’t even have eyes that work properly in the first place; I wear contacts to correct the flaw that God must have deliberately inflicted on me.

How could anyone look at the eye and think it could be designed? How hard would it have been for God to cover it in a thick protective layer instead of leaving it moist and vulnerable to the world? If people are going to appropriate natural evolution as proof for intelligent design, they MUST take into account all the flaws and room for improvement. Except they don’t, of course. The standard response is something like “Everything was perfect until SIN (even though God knew it was going to happen and could have stopped it and therefore we should be absolved of all responsibility but shut up SHUT UP don’t tell anyone) and then everything started to degrade.”

It’s pretty bad.

Worse still are the tactics used to support this “evidence”. Probably the most famous quote mine of all is the one that seems to have Darwin saying “I freely admit that the eye happening by itself seems impossible” (to paraphrase.) This quote is launched by IDists the world over. However, the full quote doesn’t end there; Darwin goes on to say “oh wait, I was trolling. It’s entirely possible in small steps. See how I talk in detail for a few pages.”

To quote mine in this way, the miner MUST have read it in context and then decided which bit best supported his cause. This tactic goes beyond cunning, sly and underhand – it enters the realm of reprehensible duplicity. It’s really not cricket. And yet this tactic attends creationist arguments constantly; misquotes from Einstein, Hawking and even Dawkins pepper the creationist world.

Sensible people can see this as simply more proof for the shaky foundations of intelligent design, but it’s still pretty annoying.

News, Reason, Science

Life Could Easily Have Survived Meteor Bombardment 3.9 Billion Years Ago

6 Comments

One of the more annoying battle cries of creationists, or indeed anyone who seeks to disprove the workability of the abiogenesis model, is “But 3.9 billion years ago all life would have been wiped out by an epic meteor bombardment NOT LEAVING ENOUGH TIME FOR US TO EVOLVE TO THE STATE WE ARE NOW THEREFORE GOD DID IT.”

Now, from my perspective a meteor bombardment would have had to be sustained and concentrated enough to vaporise the seas and turn the entire surface of the earth to molten slag before you could make an assertion like “All life would have died.” We’re not even talking life as we know it, just single or maybe multi-celled organisms – organisms which are numerous, resiliant and extremely quick to reproduce. If only one was left alive, life would have continued.

So it’s nice to see my untutored assumptions backed up by science. A study from the University of Colorado shows that life could easily have survived the bombardment, thus potentially increasing the age of life on earth by several hundreds of millions of years.

And if life can survive a meteor strike of such intensity, it could have survived it on other planets as well. I’m waiting with impatience for news of Mars.

News, Reason

Catering Manager Outraged At Expectation To Handle Pork

14 Comments

Hasanali Khoja, an Islamic chef for the Metropolitan Police, is sueing for religious discrimination after being expected to handle pork in his new job.

He’d previously arrived at an informal arrangement whereby he wasn’t expected to handle pork products, but his new placement has no such leniency.

And why should it? It’s just his belief, unauthorised and unjustified. Quite why an expectation for a chef to handle pork is religious discrimination is, I freely admit, beyond me. Oh, I can see why – but I don’t get how such a case is even allowed to get as far as the news.

Fine, if you have a delusional belief that prohibits you from handling certain foods and your bosses allow you – in your job as a catering manager, remember – to not touch such food, then lucky you. Someone else has been the man that you couldn’t be. But when you get transferred and are suddenly outside this umbrella of leniency and you view an expectation to handle pork products (remember – your job is a catering manager) as religious discrimination? Hell, you’re not going to leave your job. Why should you? You’re a catering manager who has decided they can’t touch pork. Your will should be done.

Seriously. Let’s apply this to something else. I’m working in an office, and I don’t like to touch paper because I have a personal belief that this isn’t right. Not a physiological issue, not a phobia – some mythical being has commanded that I do not touch paper.

Let’s assume for a moment that I would even get a job after saying “By the way, I can’t touch paper” in the interview. If I have a lenient boss who allows me to work without the requirement to touch paper, I’m very lucky. But why should I take such luck and generosity for granted? When my boss is replaced and I’m expected to touch paper just as everyone else is, why should I take umbrage?

It would be too much to ask that I wear gloves. Then surely I could touch the paper and save myself from hell.

Mr Khoja said: “The Met has shown no sensitivity towards my religion. Their response has been ill-thought and discriminatory.”

ULTRA FACEPALM

Philosophy, Reason

Kicked Out For Saying “There Is No God”

6 Comments

Here’s a funny thing.

I say funny . . . it’s actually only funny in the sense that a really fat guy trying to get down some stairs is funny. Granted, it’s pretty funny, but there’s an undercurrent of pathos.

My girlfriend got kicked out of her maths class a couple of days ago for saying God didn’t exist. When people expressed righteous anger at this perspective, she challenged them to prove God did exist. Some people got angry and her tutor sent her out – not only because she was “offending” students but the tutor as well.

My only suggestion to her was not to state “God doesn’t exist”, as then we occupy that dangerous faith-based stance; but to state “There is a chance, but it’s merely a logical necessity dictated by the deductive nature of empirical observation.” Although it didn’t sound as if anyone in her class was aware of such subtleties. No, they were simply offended that someone had disrespected their faith.

As my GF said, she’s just as offended by assertions that man should not lie with man, or that a rapist could go to heaven if he repents. In fact there was a whole bunch of stuff she only thought of saying afterwards, as is often the case with impromptu debates. Her tutor actually used the “prove God doesn’t exist” argument, which is sort of like punching a kitten in the face. As we all know, the correct response is “Oh, so you are granting equal probability to Ra, Thor, Neptune, trolls and djinn then? You can’t completely disprove them, do you believe in them? Do you believe in Allah? I hear he’s very popular.”

There often isn’t a very good answer to that question. When some street preacher said I was accountable to God, I asked him why he wasn’t accountable to Allah. His answer? Sidestep.

Magnificent.

The annoying thing is that when Christians get removed from classrooms for telling children they will go to hell, it gets in the papers and the poor child is raised on the shoulders of giants. It’s religious intolerance, apparently, to stop someone inflicting mental bullying on someone else.
If my GF complained, I can’t see it getting too far. It is the believers of the world who hold some kind of nebulous high ground, and I don’t know why.

The thing that made me especially sick were the intimations of violence to my GF from other classmates, which frankly makes me want to fly down there and beat them like naughty puppies. Can no-one see that as soon as a position has to be protected from debate by violence and censorship, it’s lost the game?