You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Religion’ category.
If you have not noticed religion tends to get the short end of the stick here at DWR. Whether it is being put to philosophical test or really just being mocked. This post much more in the later than the former category. You really just have to stand back in awe of the stupid that is out there.
Today’s flavour is Turkish stupidity. Religion is the great equalizer when it comes to being absofrackinglutely retarded. I quote…
Dr. Oktar Babuna and Cihat Gündoğdu tried to “disprove” arguments of the scientists through harunyahya.tv. Supposedly Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) would participate in the program, but he did not.
“Babuna and Gündoğdu presented same arguments as in last week’s TV program and referred to Koran to try disprove evolution, as well as they maintained an aggressive attitude. Followers of Harun Yahya, mostly remarkable for their finery and calm attitude, depicted Darwin as “wine addict, diseased personality, who wrote book and loafed around the ship with yelling”. The creationists described evolutionists as “so called scientists” and they “criticized” concepts of evolution with certain words such as “comedy, fiction, ridiculous absurdity”. “
Okay, well besmirch Darwin all you would like. I’m sure those with the allah/jeebus complex do not mind if similar standards or arguing are applied to their godhead. I’m sure their response would be measured… The evidence that supports evolution is mountainous. Refuting evolution would require conclusive evidence that evolution is wrong as a theory. And no, your magic book that says evolution isn’t fact won’t cut it.
“The creationist claimed that evolution theory relies on certain coincidences, and they applied to Koran to disprove the theory. The creationists argued that God need no reasons and consequently God created the universe “at that moment” saying “be”, not through evolution, nevertheless they did not slow down. They called in the question which evolution created angel and daemon, how felicities in the heaven evolved, how the snake came into existence out of the baton as well as the bird out of mud. The creationists tried to disprove evolution theory with these questions.”
You really cannot lose when you have magic on your side can you? I’m in awe of the fact they would mention ‘angels and demons’ in the same breath as evolution. It’s like wow….just wow…
“Babuna and Gündoğdu did not refer to evolution as a “theory” and they were insistent on inexistence of any intermediate forms. Babuna and Gündoğdu, who claimed that evolution theory has been falsified through 250 million fossils”
Take that evidence! Checkmate! We can just say it doesn’t work and it is good enough!
You know, Hitchens was right, religion really does poison everything.
I’m tired of people saying that one cannot prove the non-existence of their god. Not only can one do it, but its already been done. I’m referring to the problem of evil. The fact that evil exists negates the possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent deity. Those are very important qualifiers, the problem of evil does not disprove the existence of any deity that is not completely perfect or is lacking in someway. I admit that the existence of any deity lacking, even slightly, in any perfection, in any way, cannot be disproven. On the other hand, any such deity would then be in the category of leprechauns, the boogey man, the tooth fairy, and the large invisible pink bunny that “actually” created everything, but only reveals this to asylum patients. And while this category, filled with an infinite amount of characters limited only by our imagination, cannot be disproven, no rational person would ever believe in such entities, as there is no evidence to support their existence. Or, if you prefer, they all have equal evidence in their favor, so each has a 1 in infinity chance of being correct. Not exactly zero, but close enough for any one with the cognitive capabilities of a codfish.
Get the full story at the CBC.
The amazingly cogent world of religion strikes once again with timeless wisdom, His Popiness said: 
“You can’t resolve it [the problem of AIDS] with the distribution of condoms.”
The Unctuous High Holy Pope of Vapidity then added:
“On the contrary, it increases the problem.”
It would seem to me, the lowly heathen that I am, that condom use is a good thing. It is a inexpensive way to curtail the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (obvious bastions of Satan) that said, “The male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV [the virus that causes AIDS].”
Hmmm…. a religious edict, basking in the filthy crud of relgious dogmatism, is causing grevious harm to millions of people. Not particularly surprising, (given the religious track record) but disheartening all the same. The “god is love” bunch really have their work cut out for them in this instance.
Religion is a dangerous delusional pursuit; why people continue to propigate such an abberation, given all the evidence, boggles the mind.
|
Can you even fathom the stupid coming out of Ireland these days? The pious seem to have hijacked rationality, sprinkled it with magic jebus dust and cranked out this perfidious little gem of proposed legislation.
What is outrageous is the lengths so called rational legislators go to ‘make happy’ with the delusional segments of their constituencies.
I am regularly humbled by the brilliance that is out there on the ‘Net but the eloquence of this post deserves a repost. The article in question is about Palin and her somewhat unjust treatment. The section on the pro-life movement was particularly interesting to me and I will quote that section.
The entire article can be found at madamab’s the Widdershins blog.
Thank you madamab. She says:
[…] “Legislatively speaking, the pro-life movement has done its very best to make it impossible for women to control their own reproductive organs, and they continue to do so at every opportunity. From attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade and return us to the days of the coathangers and back-alley abortions, to their latest crusade against contraception (falsely conflating it with abortion) and pushing abstinence-only education (which, ironically, has led to more unwanted pregnancies and STD’s), to the heartless lies the Pope recently told about condoms and AIDs, to the senseless murder of Dr. Tiller (which the lovely Ann Coulter has characterized as “termination in the 203rd trimester“), the pro-life community has been utterly consistent in its refusal to see the massive amounts of harm it is doing to its own sisters and brothers; real, fully adult sisters and brothers who have to live with the consequences of their moral myopia.
I honestly do not see how in the world a woman can call herself a feminist, and still reserve the right to meddle in and ruin the lives of other women (and the men who love and support them). Bearing an unwanted child can be immeasurably harmful to a woman, especially if it is a child of rape. (One in every six women will be raped in her lifetime in America, so please do not tell me this is a rare occurrence.) By contrast, despite the pro-life community’s attempts to “prove” that abortion causes mental and physical harm to women, no scientific study has actually done so. I am very sorry that the pro-life movement sees abortion as murder, but it’s not. I am very sorry that the pro-life movement values the potential life of the baby over the life of the mother; however, to say I think this is ethically wrong would be an understatement.”
I am humbled by the concision of the article and particulary this passage. The internal links will be jumping off points for further discussion I am sure.
There is a prevailing view within the “progressive” community that religious tolerance (RT) is a virtue necessary for a just, egalitarian society. This is preposterous. Not only does RT have horrific implications, it is an “ideal” that I seriously doubt is actually held by its proponents. To begin with, lets take a look at what its advocates would like you to think RT means. RT means people are allowed to have whatever faith they want without fear of prosecution, persecution, or any other undesirable ‘ution’ and thus, RT would result in less hate crimes, violence, and a whole bunch of other nasty stuff we would rather be without.
The very first thing I’d like to point out is that all that nasty stuff that RT proponents say they’re trying to reduce can be dealt with much more efficiently. Instead of saying, “You’re not allowed to lynch someone or burn down their house just because they hold to a faith that differs from yours,” it would be much better to simply say, “You’re not allowed to lynch someone or burn down their house at all, for any reason”. The former of these maxims can be interpreted to mean that there are some circumstances which would allow one to lynch another, its just that differences in faith isn’t one of them. The second, however, makes things pretty clear. So this first short bit is just to show that basic protection laws make the common perception of RT irrelevant; if not a markedly inferior approach and a step in the wrong direction. That is just examining the possible benefits of RT. Let us analyze the completely ignored and adverse ramifications of RT.
RT would be a restriction on society, but not on individuals. This is very different from other egalitarian movements and why RT is dangerous. For example, tolerance of alternative sexual orientations is a two way street. Simply speaking, straight people are OK with gay people and gay people are OK with straight people. If it was only a one way street, then the ideal of the freedom to be with the consenting adult of your choice, regardless of their physiology, would be undermined.
RT, however, can only be one way. The community must accommodate the beliefs of the individual, but not the other way around. If one is allowed to adhere to any faith one wants to (as RT says one is) then if someones faith does not include RT, then that feature must be allowed and respected as well. Because RT is presented as a freedom of beliefs/values, and RT is itself a belief/value, proponents of RT cannot enforce RT on anyone without going back on the basic principles of RT.
So lets look at three people, each with very different faiths…
The things people do to avoid the secular school system.
|
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…