Sanal Edamaruku

So often we get to focus on christianity or islam in either the USA or Middle Eastern countries. I believe this is due to the great news coverage in these areas, however there are other stories out there and today I would like to bring some attention to Sanal Edamaruku form India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanal_Edamaruku

Sanal is the head of Rationalist International (http://www.rationalistinternational.net/), and is a skeptic that needs our help these days. So let me briefly explain why he needs our help.

In 2012, Sanal was invited to investigate a so called miracle of the leaking cross in a Catholic Church in Mumbai. It did not take a long time for him to show that the so called leaking cross "miracle" was actually caused by a blocked drainage system which was leading to water soaking through the wall and then subsequently the water was dripping of the cross.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/sanal-edamaruku-indian-rationalist-weeping-christ-miracle-hoax-faces-jail_n_2201897.html

One would think this would be the end of the story, after all he showed the public that there was a leaky pipe... but no, as it turns out he got Blasphemy charges filed against him. In India you can get charged if you hurt someones religious feelings even when they lie to people apparently.
" u/s 295 of Indian Penal Code states that persons can be arrested and charged on the allegations of hurting the religious sentiments of a particular community."

At present Sanal is in exile in Europe, but the blasphemy charges remain. we have the voice to support Sanal and then hopefully at some point reason will win over insanity and the blasphemy charges will be dropped against a man that was just doing the rational and correct thing. sign the petition here.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/drop-blasphemy-charges-against-sanal-edamaruku

Shame on India, shame on the catholic church, shame on religious irrational thought.

All praise Helium :)

Too good not to share.

Is The American Family Association A Hate Group?

Bryan Fisher of the American Family Association has been at it again. He has recently said that gay people should be discriminated against in jobs. He said we should discriminate against gay people as we do against shop lifters, and this is acceptable as he deems that gay sexual behaviour is wrong.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-gays-should-face-job-discrimination-just-we-discriminate-against-shoplifters

And just in case you think this is an isolated incident.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bryan-fischer-reclaim-d-word-promote-anti-gay-discrimination

Now my  question is..... does the American Family Association  qualify as a hate group? And the simple answer is yes, as "a hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group

So why is this ok, why is this group allowed to exist, when clearly it is promoting the discrimination and hate of a specific group of people. My guess would be is because they are affiliated to christianity and this makes everything all right. It may be said that the group cannot claim responsibility for the thoughts and views of Fishcer, but the fact is he is there official spokesperson so they cannot distance themselves.

If they have to fire him now, I still believe it is too late, he has been there for a long time now and has been promoting there agenda of hate.
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr/2013/03/bryan-fischer.html
I think it is right to call the American Family Association a hate group, if not why should we call any group a hate group?

Godandscience V

 I will now respond to the final part of the three part series on godscience that says they will provide evidence for god.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_christianity_true.html

For part 2 see here.
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr/2013/04/godandscience-iv.html

It all starts with the most important question on can ask "how does one test religious claims?"
And guess what the question is dodged, all the author talks about Carl Sagan, but never answers the question "how do we test religious claims".  Is this the author saying there is no way to test the claims? Is the existence of a god null and void then?

The author then gets into a discussion as to why the bible is more reliable than the koran, by showing examples form the books. However he fails to show that if different verses were quoted then the koran would be more reliable. So we have a bit of dishonesty or favouritism here. Never mind the fact that we still have no evidence for a god.

We hear then how we can discard the church of latter day saints and other modern religions as
"When dealing with more modern religious traditions, tests of scientific accuracy are more difficult to deploy, since those religions have the advantage of scientific revelation since the Enlightenment. " 
Finally something intelligent, you are admitting that science will determine how accurate a so called divinely inspired text is. Wait science determines accuracy?

Then we learn all about how awesome the bible is and how it has made really important scientific discoveries for example.

"The Bible refuted steady-state theory (saying that the creation of matter and energy has ended) long before science made that determination"
This we learn comes from Genesis 2: 3-4.
"Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the account  of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven."
Uhmm......no this does not say that matter is no longer being created! Which is what it would have to say if it was refuting steady-state theory.

Or how about
"the Bible describes several properties of the earth that were not confirmed by science until hundreds of years after the Bible first  made the claim. Examples include the claim that air has weight,"
Which we learn comes from Job 28:25
"When He imparted weight to the wind, And meted out the waters by measure"
Uhmmm..... no seems to me he made wind have weight. Now wind is the movement of air, so wind does not have weight if anything it has momentum.

Then the author goes into how the religious worldview is better than a materialistic worldview. Well maybe I can say fine its true, but you are now assuming everyone adheres to these principles you have defined and we all know that is not true. So you are dishonest.

But I will raise one more point before I throw this garbage in the trash. The author says
"The largest problem for naturalism is a failure to provide for the existential needs of human beings. People have a need for meaning, a purpose for living, and a hope for the future." 
Well do people really have a purpose, this is based on your assumption that god created us for a purpose. So maybe humans don't have a purpose, but if you fear your mortality then I suppose you will always need a purpose to have a meaningful life... and that's why you believe in fairy tales. I think the desire for a purpose comes from a point of view that you think you are more important than others....but that's just my opinion

Saying atheism is bad for society is denying what religion is doing to society, and all the good done by  atheists. Again if these parts are meant to be coherent, then you still need to provide the proof for god in part 1.

Religious bias is socially and morally disgusting

The news that a second Schaible's child has died was shocking to hear. What really gets to me is why are these people not in jail after the first instance of child neglect that left a son dead?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/herbert-catherine-schaible_n_3138001.html

Is this an instance of religious bias, the so called religious freedom? These are horrible people whose other children are now thankfully in foster care. I say thankfully not because its good for children to be taken away from their parents, but thankful that they have been taken away from these psychopaths! Honestly, if you did not learn your lesson the first time around, and then let it happen again, I seriously doubt that you are a normal human. You have very big mental problems!

I hope these two so called "loving parents" get sent to jail for a very long time. Yes that is what there defence lawyer said..... I mean if they did nothing wrong why do they need a defence lawyer?
"Nobody argues that these aren't very loving, nurturing parents," she said Tuesday. "Whether their religion had anything to do with the death of their baby, we don't know."

 I am sickened by this, as it seems to me a clear case of bias that they were not in jail the first time.

For more bias you can read about burqas below.
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr/2013/01/burqas-are-biased.html

The science of why we don't believe

I received a brilliant article about science and disbelief in science from a friend recently. It was published back in 2011, but is every bit relevant if not more so now days as their is more and more backlash against scientific fact.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

What is really interesting about this article is that there is now evidence available which shows why people don’t believe. However, if you had to show these disbelievers this evidence they would still disbelieve! How entrenched in a belief or how brainwashed do you have to be to not be able to change your mind when faced with hard facts?

It is a problem that a lot of religious people face. When they hear evidence (that proves their belief wrong) they deny it and try find problems with it so that they can stick to their wrong view. This is sad, as it means there is no hope for a lot of people until they can see the truth for themselves, as there is no way to convince them.

It makes me think of addiction, where you have to realise you have a problem before you can get help for it. This is why atheism is relevant, we as atheists should be trying to help people stuck in religion in the same way we would help a friend who was addicted to a incapacitating drug.

There is only one question.

I was watching the recent debate between David Silverman and Frank Turek, and yes it was one of these debates that made me wonder......why?

http://www.theaunicornist.com/2013/04/im-totally-skipping-this-debate.html

Honestly, there is only one question any religious believer needs to answer. Straight and simple what scientific provable evidence do you have for the existence of a god? And the simple and straight answer is this, there is no evidence for the existence for god.

I lay down my challenge again for any evidence.

Here is the video if you want to give it a look. Its long......

Evolution of Creationism

Brilliant article published last year by the Geological Society of America dealing with the evolution of creationism. Its peer reviewed and in stark contrast to the rubbish that I have been exposing by godandscience.org.

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm

Highlights include.

Getting shown how creationists can interpret the bible to make their theories stick to the "holy" book. Things like the gap theory, where god remodelled the world just for humans a few thousand years ago, even though god created it previously and was just playing re modeller for a few thousand millennia.

Fundamentalists scientists calling a book by an amateur geologist a  “great and monumental” work of an “up-to-date scientist”—“a masterpiece of real science” by one of “the world’s leading Geologists,” and “the sanest, clearest and most irrefutable presentation of the Science of Geology from the standpoint of Creation and the Deluge, ever to see the light of day”. At a time when the Noah's global flood theory had already been rejected by mainstream science. Can somebody say denial.

learn that young earth creationism only started again in 1961 (after rejection by the major religions from around the 18th century). This theory was based on misinterpretation of scientific fact, as well as omission of scientific knowledge that did not support their theory. We see how they went to find evidence to fit their theory, and how they didn’t let the evidence develop their theory.

In conclusions I have a question to ask.
Are creationists reliable sources of information, when they go looking for data to fit their theories and ignore scientific evidence that opposes their theories?

Suppose integrity died along with the "great global flood".

Godandscience IV

For part 1 see here.
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr/2013/04/godandscience-iii.html

I apologize in advance for the length of this article, but there was just way to many lies to let go.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html#n07

Ok, so when I clicked the link it said “Part 2: Is God Real: The Evidence for God's Existence”, but then in the introduction the author says he will “provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe”. Hang on I thought this was evidence?

There is then a discussion about detecting the non-physical. Here we get told that love is something we cant measure, but we can see the effect this love has on someone. This is the rationale on which god will be proved….just one problem. Love has a chemical basis, so there is direct proof for love and not indirect as the author claims. Hmm, so why is there no direct evidence for god?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17531984?dopt=Abstract

http://www.scq.ubc.ca/is-there-a-neurochemical-basis-for-falling-in-love/

So now the author gets into the evidence for design, and I will try keep my replies to one short paragraph regarding the 10 sets of evidence.

1) The Big Bang – Not sure how this is evidence for design? Really, I am stumped any comments will be appreciated, I have no idea how the Big Bang can be used as evidence for design.

2) Excess Quarks – So the fact that the universe exists is proof for god? No its just proof that the universe exists, and its not fine tuning by a designer.

3) Large, just right-sized universe - So the fact that the universe exists is proof for god? No its just proof that the universe exists, and its not fine tuning by a designer.

4) Early evolution of the universe - So the fact that the universe exists is proof for god? No its just proof that the universe exists, and its not fine tuning by a designer.

And when a scientist uses the word miraculous, they do not mean god. Miraculous, could just mean something outstanding.

5) Just right laws of physics - So the fact that the universe exists is proof for god? No its just proof that the universe exists, and its not fine tuning by a designer.

6) Universal probability bounds – Ok, I am calling godandscience out on the lie here. I have never heard of a “absolute physical limit for improbable events”. Please what is this? The reference given here is to Planks constant, and nothing about published data on absolute physical limits can be found in a Google search. Oh and again

So the fact that the universe exists is proof for god? No its just proof that the universe exists, and its not fine tuning by a designer.

7) What do cosmologists say? -  Some Cosmologists saying they believe in a god is not evidence! And Let me say I am not even sure if these statements are endorsing god or just the use of a word that the author deems godly.

8) Speculative "solutions" to the design "problem" – Okay here is something that is scientific, it’s a criticism of the multi-universe theory. So this is a scientific criticism, but still not proof for god. If ever criticism was proof for god, well there would be way to many proofs.

9) Theistic solution - measurable design – Occam’s razor and what others believe is not evidence for god. I refrain from getting into Occam’s razor here, as it’s a philosophical argument, and we are just looking for the evidence.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor

10) Who created God? – Here we get the god excuse. God exists outside the bounds of physics etc etc etc….. in other words we can never prove the existence of god. Well done, you just said you can’t prove gods existence.

As I said in the last sentence, there has been no evidence presented for the existence of god, so well done godandscience you lied to us…..again.

Vatican stuck in reverse

The news that the Vatican would be sticking to its stance against the American Nuns group LCWR is not surprising after all that the Vatican stands for. You know those great tenants like no condoms in HIV regions, Anti-abortion in cases of rape (http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html), support of pedophilia, or how about plain old chauvinism. In short the Vatican is calling them feminists with liberal stances towards contraception and homosexuality.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/15/pope-criticises-us-nuns-group
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/us/pope-upholds-reprimand-of-nuns-group.html

It seems the Vatican is stuck in reverse and progressing backwards. This institution is so out of touch with what is happening in the world, that they remind me of North Korea in a way. Isolated and out of touch while preaching lies to all their loyal (read brainwashed) followers. But then again they are only following the bible.

I wish these nuns from the LCWR would all just quit and keep doing there good work without religion in a secular way. Maybe that would wake the Vatican up to the 21st century.

Saudi Arabian Stupidity

Sometimes things are just too good not to share.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/10000341/Saudi-Arabia-deports-irresistible-men-deemed-too-handsome-to-women.html

I am hoping that the Telegraph is making a huge joke, but knowing Saudi Arabia and their moral police I doubt it. So this lady luckily got saved from the handsomeness that was before her, before she could run rapidly through this crowd and rape these men in front of the assembled crowd. Yes I used crowd in the previous sentence twice for a reason.

Get real you stupid people, as if this scenario I just painted would ever become a reality. Actually, I would love to see what these handsome men actually looked like that they think this response would be awakened in someone. After all I am thinking this must be on a level that makes George Clooney look like the ugliest person alive.

As my friend pointed out to me...."I suppose its time for men to start wearing Burqa's, after all it will keep the women at bay."

Go Saudi Arabia, long live Chauvinism.... all irony intended.

Godandscience III

I am gearing up for a new godscience bonanza with replies to a three part article. The first part is aptly titled "
General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview?"
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html

So you can skip part  the introduction which is after all just telling you how your worldview is incompatible with your beliefs. So lets skip to the section entitled "Do sceptic's have beliefs?" Okay I am going to go here with the author and say yes we sceptics do have beliefs, after all I believe my mum will love me forever. But that aside, the author cites the book " Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth"as proof of our beliefs. Maybe not the best idea as this books shows that it is a biological need to have belief not some imaginary god.

Then after laying out the sceptical worldview, which not all sceptics will agree with, we get into the deceitful part of the article.

The author states
"So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists" (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview."

Uhmm no,  things can spring into existence from nothing. This is been shown using quantum mechanics as well as being observed experimentally.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light

Also physicists have shown that the other erroneous message by the author is also not true.

"The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang."

In fact this is possible, but I guess when you used old references to support your hypothesis these things can happen.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm

Godandscience or should we say godandpseudo-science?

 

godandscience.org II

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html

This post on godandscience.com is a very interesting post, and I am not sure why it is on this website in the first place. The whole premise of this website is to offer proof (scientific proof) for the existence of god, and in that this article fails horribly.

It has all the right links to journal titles showing that actually scientists are not more atheistic than the rest of the population in the USA. But, and this is a big but, nowhere in the article is there any evidence for god. This is surely important as the whole point of the website is to provide evidence for the existence of god. This whole article comes down to the simple fact that people believe in god due to marital and family status and family of origin.

I believe this is what atheists have been saying all along. So here you have it an article on a website that says there is proof for god in science and the only reason that people believe in god is for unscientific reasons.  Should I be congratulating the website?

 For more godandscience
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr/2013/04/godandscienceorg-and-lies-i.html

Evolution infographic

Creationists argument destroyed in one picture.

What religion has contributed to the world (a video from youtube)

 A friend passed this link along to me. Watch it, subscribe to it and stay informed of what religion is really about.
 

I was blown away by the mass of criminal activity that could be included in such a small video clip.

How is your religion different?

I have been hesitant to talk about this news article as it may seem I am cashing in on the whole North Korea hype. But hey I live in South Korea and no one is worried so I will do it.

This video and article comes from CNN, and its about a defector from North Korea and her reaction to watching a North Korean propaganda film. (I highly recommend you watch this video in the link)
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/12/world/asia/north-korea-brainwashing-propaganda-lah/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

So this is what I have to ask you to seriously think about if you are religious. How is you religion any different to what North Koreans feel about the Kim family? When the citizens see these dictators they cry and weep... its like people when they are caught up in the moment at church or while praying.

How does this happen? Its pure and simple in the case of North Korea everyone agrees that it is brainwashing and that the Kim family is not gods. However in religions we say that it is faith, why faith? I think that a form of brainwashing would be something like "Hey, if you sin you will go to hell and get punished for eternity."

So North Korea and religions use fear to get people to do what they want.So is there a difference between a god and the Kims. Yes there is one difference the Kims are real.

Turkey shows their stupidity

Turkey has become a new country entry to this atheist blog for countries that have shown extreme stupidity. I have to clarify this blog as they have done a lot of stupid religious stuff in the past to warrant title of fundamentalist Islamic state.

This time they have handed a 10 month sentence to the Turkish pianist Fazil Say for blasphemy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22151212
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-04-15/turkish-pianist-say-sentenced-for-insulting-islam-on-twitter

Apparently he did not get sentenced to the full extent of the law as he suffers from autism. Regardless of why he didn't get punished to the full extent of the law. Why was he punished in the first place? Why can someone not criticise a religion? Why can this same someone not criticise a god that does not exist on which a religion is based.

I respect someones right to religion, and I respect a racists right to be a racist. But for both of these categories respect my right to say you are an idiot!

Paedophilia and Catholic Church (Very strong language)

If you are not aware of the paedophilia charges against the catholic church.... maybe you need to watch the new more. Anyway the point I want to bring up is a point that Jim Jeffries makes in this youtube video. Please be cautioned it contains strong language.

Simple is it not. As soon as you are powerful enough you are able to do anything you want. And guess what with god on your side you can do anything you want after all he is omnipotent and all caring and all forgiving and and and.....

Watch Jim Jeffries on Atheism or should I say against religion. (again very strong language)

Atheist Churches

Got this link from a friend the other day about the rise of the so called atheist church.

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/atheist-church-set-to-go-global-130308.htm

Not sure how I feel about this really. I understand why these meetings are taking place as I have lived in London and really its not the friendliest city in the world. So any opportunity to meet like minded people is great, but still not sure what to make of this.

I must say I did enjoy the part that these meetings take part in a former church. this means that the numbers of religious people is decreasing. Even if this is only in a limited area, its good that the numbers are decreasing.

Now lets hope that the British can get rid of their muslim problem.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/these-misguided-muslim-sharia-squads-are-playing-right-into-the-edls-hands-8461901.html
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/November/Islamic-Sharia-Law-Comes-to-Great-Britain/

Evolution (beautiful Australopithecus sediba)

We always hear from creationists (intelligent design) proponents that there are never intermediate fossils. And like Kirk Cameron they like to ask for things like the crocoduck.

The fact is however, that there are a large variety of intermediate fossils. Excitingly now the most complete fossil of Australopithecus sediba has now been displayed after reconstruction. These results  have also been published in Science magazine, so no one with any credibility can deny its authenticity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22108784
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/extra/sediba/index.xhtml

Sadly, we know all what comes next. The creationists ask for the next gap and then the next gap to be filled. Pointing out that clearly god was needed. Until that is the next fossil gets found and then they move the goal posts all over again. This shows a distinct dishonesty and lack of credibility.

You can take a horse to water, but you cant make it drink.

You can show a creationist evidence, yet they will still believe their own lies.

godandscience.org and the lies I

I cam across what is surely one of the most horrifying websites on the internet godandscience.org A website that claims to show scientific evidence for the existence of god. So I thought I would do the favour and point out some of the very blatant lies that exist on these pages. It should be evident that most of it is not scientific, but there are also very deceptive parts.

The second page that made my blood boil, was also the second page I read on their sight. It has to deal with prayer and the evidence for it actually working.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html#coronary1

 So lets look at some of this evidence that is claimed to be so strong. Most of the time the author is honest and says there is no link that shows prayer works, but then goes into statistics all through the paper showing that statistically it does. Herein in lies problem 1, and it is simple the author does not tell us what p is. Let me enlighten you, p is a randomly chosen value of what you deem significant! So when the author claims its significant, it mean its significant to the author, not statistically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

In the 2nd study, there is the claim that "However, the overall effect was statistically significant, with a P value of 0.04, meaning that the result was likely to occur by chance in only 1 out of 25 times the experiment was repeated." But this is not true as when we look at the only statistic that should count, that is does prayer work (read does no patient die) we see a different statistic.
Prayer deaths: 42/466 =9.01%
Control deaths: 46/524 = 8.78%
So should we be saying prayer is worse for you?

The last study claims that no significant effect is observed with prayer or the control group. The author then goes on to say  
"The prayers were given to them by the study coordinators to "standardize" the prayers. The discussion section of the paper suggested that at least some of the intercessors were dissatisfied with the canned nature of the prayers. In attempting to standardize prayer, I believe the study introduced a serious flaw, since most intercessors tend to pray as they are led by the Spirit, instead of praying prepared scripts. Jesus told His followers not to pray repetitiously, since God would not hear those kinds of prayers"
However the author forgets to mention that even in this case the only group that actually did worse was the group that got told they were being prayed for! So again should we come to the conclusion that prayer does not work?

This is dishonesty on a massive scale, and trying to sell pseudo science. But that’s what we expect from religion. Lets keep them honest.

Scientology

I had to smile when I saw this infographic about scientology....or Is it science-not-ology, science-nu-tology.

Things You Don't Know About Scientology infographic

Who said christians are peaceful

I like to point out the fact that islam is a religion that is not peaceful, but let this not mislead you into thinking that I only dislike islam. Here is a classic example of christianity promoting violence.

Thanks to the people at Right Wing Watch
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-america-asking-wrath-almighty-god-pursuing-mideast-peace-plan

So how are christians going to counter this argument? After all what Pat is saying is really simple to decipher. And her is it decoded, if you believe that promoting peace in the Middle East is a bad thing then you are promoting war. So now I want to see how some christian is going to say, no that is not what Pat was saying, what he meant was......

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc all come from belief in imaginary beings. Belief in imaginary beings is what children do, is it not time to grow up and start being adults and making adult choices. Maybe Pat an adult choice would be to promote peace and not war. And no, you have not been taken out of context, you have said this kind of thing before.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/01/05/robertson-blamed-sharon-stroke-on-policy-of-div/134559

Maybe its time for Pat to listen to his best advice ever.
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr/2013/03/pat-robertsons-best-advice-ever.html

Blasphemy laws

Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina rejects blasphemy law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22058462

When I first read the title to to this news story, I was really excited that a  islamic country was making a stand against ridiculous blasphemy laws. But how deceived I was by a fancy title. All that the PM is saying is that the current law of arresting and imprisoning people for disrespecting religion is enough, and they do not need to have the death penalty for blasphemy.

Ok so I agree having the death penalty would be ridiculous for blasphemy. But even imprisonment for being disrespectful towards a religion is ridiculous, and this has happened with some bloggers being arrested over remarks they have made.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22030388

If I say I do not believe in Santa, I am making children around the world very sad. Should I go to jail for it as i am disrespecting their beliefs? Why on earth then should anyone get into trouble for disrespecting an imaginary god. I suppose belief in god can then be related to a child like mind, one who throws their toys and acts like a brat!

Take the blasphemy challenege.
http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/

Drawing Muhammed

It seems an age ago that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a few cartoons of muhammed  that insulted everyone in the islamic world so badly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/02/attacker-of-danish-mohammed-cartoonist-sentenced-to-10-years-in-prison/

Have you seen the cartoons that actually created the problem? Here they are for you and yes you may be surprised as they are really not bad. But please feel insulted and that you want to attempt to murder someone or burn an embassy, basically feel that you need to act like a savage with no moral principles and respect for others rights.







http://www.aina.org/releases/20060201143237.htm

The great thing about this is that since this happened, and the riots etc etc that followed it around the world. There have been a lot of new drawings of muhammed that disrespect  the so called prophet. This pleases me as it is making people realise that hey maybe there is nothing to this whole religion thing except absolute lunacy. Below are some new muhammed pictures.

http://www.drawingmuhammad.com/2010/05/free-speech-and-drawing-muhammad/

The drawings by the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hedbo, please be warned there is nudity.

Remember Draw Muhammmed Day as well is you want to see some more pictures.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

Top 6 atheist scientists

A lot of great scientists do not believe in god, here is a list that will help you overcome your fear of god and head along the rational road of atheism.

1) Richard Dawkins

http://www.richarddawkins.net/

http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/

2) Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1387478/Stephen-Hawking-Heaven-fairy-story-people-afraid-dark.html

3) Sam Harris

http://www.samharris.org/

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Why-Religion-Must-End-Interview-With-Sam-Harris.aspx

4) Peter Atkins

http://humanism.org.uk/about/our-people/distinguished-supporters/peter-atkins/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssq-S5M8wsY

5) Lawrence Krauss

http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5zHXIlX0EU

6) Daniel Dennett

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTjHf77FqTI

Maybe one of the best quotes ever has to be by Peter Atkins.

“When asked by Rod Liddle in the documentary The Trouble with Atheism "Give me your views on the existence, or otherwise, of God",Peter Atkins replied "Well it's fairly straightforward: there isn't one. And there's no evidence for one, no reason to believe that there is one, and so I don't believe that there is one. And I think that it is rather foolish that people do think that there is one.”

Tolerant....maybe you don’t understand what tolerant means

I came across this on the internet, where a muslim was debating as to why islam is not as bad as people think. Its interesting as this is the politically correct answer a lot of muslims give when asked about terrorism....

"Please don’t be so naive as to assume that all Muslims are evil. A lot of what you’re seeing is genuine extremism that is frowned upon by a lot of Arabs too. No where in our religion does it say it is OK to kill.
Also keep in mind that a Muslim is someone who follows the four pillars
a) believes in god
b) prays
c) fasts on ramadan
d) goes on a pilgrimage"

So lets break this down.
No where in our religion does it say it is OK to kill.
No, this is definitely not true. It clearly states in the koran that you should kill believe if they do not believe in your god. the only time you can stop is if they take on your beliefs.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm

 A lot of what you’re seeing is genuine extremism that is frowned upon by a lot of Arabs too.
But as shown above this sentence now clearly is also a load of horse manure.


Also keep in mind that a Muslim is someone who follows the four pillars
a) believes in god
b) prays
c) fasts on ramadan
d) goes on a pilgrimage"
So, you don’t even know your religion very well. 4 pillars? depends if you are Sunni or Shia and either way its not 4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam

But then again what do you expect, when this comment was left behind by someone who believes islam is a religion of peace?

  

Islamic Chauvinism or Mental Illness

The story of the 15 year old girl in the Maldives sentences to 100 lashes for pre-marital sex (read rape) has become a big issue. Rightfully so and I back any decision to make sure that the Maldives does not get any of my money, just for the same reason that I will not work in most Arabic countries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/01/maldives-girl-100-lashes-fornication
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/teenage-rape-victim-sentenced-to-100-lashes-in-maldives-29165507.html

But the question I want to ask today is a simple one. How can any man, or even more so father allow their daughter to be treated in this way. It amounts to mental illness not the normal chauvinism that is rife in islam. I have blogged about the chauvinism rife in islam before.

http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr/2013/01/burqas-are-biased.html
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr/2012/12/random-chats-with-believers-ii.html

What defines a mental illness? It is something that is not normal behaviour.

So how could you not defend your daughter while she was getting raped by her uncle? How could you not defend your daughter in court as she was getting prosecuted? Is this normal behaviour?


We live in a civilised world, where mental illness can be cured.Its time to call islam what it is.... a mental illness.

xxxxxxxxx

This just in male mice have more integrity than the father of the 15 year old girl. They will show paternal behavior similar to maternal behavior towards their offspring.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/12/5120