You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Religion’ tag.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
I get this one, or variations on it on many discussion threads. The confounding of religion and science is all to common as methods used to criticize one are not necessarily suitable for critiquing the other.
Enjoy!
[2] Science is NOT a branch of apologetics.
Science is as far removed from apologetics as it is possible to be. Science exists to subject erected postulates to empirical test with respect to whether or not those postulates are in accord with observational reality. As a consequence, science is in the business of testing assertions and presuppositions to destruction, Those that fail the requisite tests are discarded. Science modifies its theories to fit reality. Apologetics, on the other hand, consists of erecting convoluted semantic fabrications for the purpose of trying to prop up presuppositions and blind assertions, involves NO empirical testing, and seeks to force-fit reality to the aforementioned presuppositions and blind assertions. Therefore, treating science as if it constitutes a branch of apologetics is dishonest, and those who engage in this pursuit will be regarded with due scorn and derision.
Among the more duplicitous examples of such dishonesty, all too frequently seen here in the past, is quote mining of scientific papers or scientific publications. There are entire websites devoted to the exposure of this particular brand of dishonesty, and anyone making the mistake of erecting quote mines here will have their buttocks handed to them in a sling.
Religion is dangerous.
One can arrive at that conclusion just by reading the sundry magic books and see the horror that they proscribe. Rape, slavery, torture and genocide round out biblical and koranical ‘solutions’ for societies problems. A rational being must question the veracity and utility of texts written some two thousand years ago. How does bronze age wisdom ‘fit’ with modern times and the challenges we face? Put simply, there is no fit, yet these fictive texts possess remarkable traction with many people. One must credit the church’s programs of propaganda and the institutional indoctrination of the young for religions’ unfortunate longevity.
I think the problem that religions are facing today is that the mendacious rosewater the major religions have been using to mask the river of shit routinely fed to the devout masses now simply fails to hide the intrinsic cruelty and barbarity that is inherent in religious belief. The one thing that religions cannot tolerate is careful rational examination. The Internet allows for the safe uncensored debate of almost any religious issue; and subsequent analysis is then generally free from religious reprisal. People can freely discuss the merits of the magic books openly and are not meekly accepting any particular religion’s claims at face value.
The Internet is where Religions come to die, because their rotten structures can be exposed for the malicious structures that they are. One of the more diabolical religious practices comes from the ‘religion of peace’ otherwise known as Islam is the so called honour killing of women who bring shame to their families. To expunge this shame, women who are raped, violate arranged marriages or even dress inappropriately can be killed to restore ‘family honour’.
People who say that Feminism has ‘achieved its goal’ really need to open their eyes and take a look at the world around them. Patriarchy thrives within the suppuratingly rotten edifice of religious belief. The struggle for women’s rights in far from over because things like this still happen within our supposedly civilized society.
“The father and brother of Aqsa Parvez, 16, have pleaded guilty to killing the Mississauga, Ont., teenager in 2007.
Muhammad Parvez and Waqas Parvez pleaded guilty to second-degree murder Tuesday and now face automatic life sentences.”
Father and son, both religiously frakking deluded embark upon the grizzly task of cleaning their families’ honour by killing Aqsa Parvez. It make perfect sense after all, she went against her Father’s wishes. And what were the great stains against the Father and the Son?
“Aqsa Parvez wanted to get a part-time job and be allowed to dress and act like other teenage girls in her neighbourhood… [Furthermore Aqsa] “did not have a door on her bedroom, her freedom to talk on the phone with friends was restricted, she was required to come straight home from school and expected to spend her evenings and weekends at home as well.”
Wow, just like in the Old Country where Men were people and Women were slaves. And we do know the consequences for habitually disobedient chattel women:
“On Dec. 10, 2007, Aqsa was taken from the school bus stop by her brother at approximately 7:20 a.m. It was just 36 minutes later that her father called 911 and told police he had “killed his daughter.”
Police arrived and found Aqsa on her bed.
“She was fully clothed and had her jacket on. She had no vital signs. There was blood coming from her nose,” according to the statement. She was pronounced dead later that evening.”
Aqsa had been staying away from home, she had known before that her life was in jeopardy, and had taken refuge at friends houses and a shelter. Her demise was hastened by religiously addled relatives who convinced her to go home again.
“In an interview with police, she says her husband told her he killed his youngest child because “this is my insult. My community will say, ‘You have not been able to control your daughter.’ This is my insult. She is making me naked.”
A big hat tip to Islam for being so frakking rational. Religion enables this sort of gross violation of human rights, and needs to extirpated from rational secular democracies such as ours.
How do we frame arguments? What context do we use to determine what is a bad argument versus what is a good argument. The Liberal Viewer uses an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali to put forth the argument that once religious thought touches the public policy sphere, it must be evaluated on rational grounds.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
[1] Parroting blind assertions does not constitute “evidence”.
Let’s make this explicit, just so that even the most casual of observers of this thread cannot avoid having noticed it.
Mythology (and I don’t care how precious you consider your “holy books” to be, that is what they contain – mythology) merely erects unsupported blind assertions about the world, and presents those blind assertions as if they constituted “axioms” about the world, to be regarded uncritically as eternally true, and never to be questioned. Well, those who wish to adopt this view will find that they are given short shrift here. Because one of the fundamental rules of proper discourse is that whenever an assertion is erected, no one is obliged to regard it as valid unless proper, critically robust supporting evidence is provided for that assertion. Which means independent corroboration from an outside source, or a direct, methodologically rigorous, repeatable empirical demonstration of the validity of that assertion. Without this, any blind assertions, particularly those erected from mythology or mythology-based doctrines, can be dismissed in the same casual manner in which they are tossed into the thread. Failure to provide proper evidential support for blind assertions will result in a poster being regarded as an inconsequential lightweight. Just because you think that mythological blind assertions constitute “axioms” about the world doesn’t mean that everyone else does, and you’ll soon discover the hard way how much firepower is directed toward those who come here expecting the rest of the forum to genuflect before said blind assertions uncritically. Plus, in the case of supernaturalist blind assertions, parroting these and expecting everyone else to accept them uncritically as established fact in the same way that you did, constitutes preaching, and is a violation of forum rules. Learn quickly to qualify assertions properly when erecting them, unless you wish to be regarded as tediously sanctimonious, boring, and boorishly ill-educated into the bargain.
Oh, and while we’re at it, don’t bother trying to assert that your favourite invisible magic man is “necessary” for the biosphere or some other observed entity, until you can provide proper, critically robust evidential support for the postulate that your magic man actually exists. Given that 300 years of continuous scientific endeavour has established that the universe is not only comprehensible without needing magic, but is thus comprehensible in precise quantitative terms, you will be well advised to devote some serious time to providing methodologically rigorous support for all assertions concerning magic supernatural entities, because without it, you’re fucked from the start.
A fantastic start. Just the basics for any rational discussion, you need to back up your assumptions and arguments with verifiable fact. If not, you may as well be asserting that Unicorns and Dragons really DO exist just because you say so.
Religion deserves only one thing… er two things. The first being relegated to the dustbin of history, secondly ridicule. A nice helping of that from a gentlemen named Marcus Brigstock.
I’ve been on a bit of a roll as of late with how mind numbingly moronic religion is. The Draw Mohammad silliness, assorted catholic inanity and christianity in general. This is a take down video about a dude name ‘truthful christian’ who has an amazing tendency to get even the most basic of concepts wrong. TC uses his ignorance like a shield, warping arguments and facts to fit his own particularly deluded universe.
Consider yourself warned, the stupid upcoming is nuclear grade.
It is a video week here at DWR for better or worse. Sometimes you just want to share cool stuff with people, the Rationalist Anthem fits nicely into that category.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…