Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
The Skinny on Naturopathy
I saw an ad on TV today for CAND, the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors. It invited the viewer to go to their website, so I did (www.cand.ca).
The ad specifically said it had "science-based" medicine. After going to the website, I found their section on Research. Here is the research that CAND provides, in its entirety (emphasis mine):
That's it.
So, the collaboration between naturopaths and real doctors is in its infancy and naturopaths do their own research - that's reassuring!
As well, the 'profession' values research and science but is looking for an 'appropriate use' of it and needs to 'find research methodologies'. In other words, real science doesn't work with naturopathic therapies because it keeps coming up with -FAIL-.
If the tests come up wrong, it's not the treatment that's broken, it's the science. Reminds me of the people who think that if science contradicts the bible, it's the science that must be wrong (ya, YOU Ken Ham).
Because I'm feeling like a prick today, I've emailed the people at CAND asking for 'independent, scientific research from a leading university in the U.S. or Canada' that will back up their ad's claim of 'science-based medicine'.
This might be fun.
The ad specifically said it had "science-based" medicine. After going to the website, I found their section on Research. Here is the research that CAND provides, in its entirety (emphasis mine):
The burgeoning interest in natural medicine has initiated an important trend of increasing collaboration between naturopathic medicine and conventional medical schools and research institutions. This cooperative relationship is still in its infancy, but steady progress is being made. Naturopathic doctors have been invited to sit on various committees organized under Health Canada. NDs also work as individual researchers in institutions and in their private practice.
The naturopathic profession in Canada recognizes the value of research and seeks to make appropriate use of science to further the understanding and advancement of naturopathic medicine. As professional health care providers, it is part of our responsibility to our patients that we are critical thinkers regarding the known limitations of conventional medical research. The challenge is to find research methodologies that understand and are equipped to evaluate multi-factorial and individualized naturopathic treatments.
That's it.
So, the collaboration between naturopaths and real doctors is in its infancy and naturopaths do their own research - that's reassuring!
As well, the 'profession' values research and science but is looking for an 'appropriate use' of it and needs to 'find research methodologies'. In other words, real science doesn't work with naturopathic therapies because it keeps coming up with -FAIL-.
If the tests come up wrong, it's not the treatment that's broken, it's the science. Reminds me of the people who think that if science contradicts the bible, it's the science that must be wrong (ya, YOU Ken Ham).
Because I'm feeling like a prick today, I've emailed the people at CAND asking for 'independent, scientific research from a leading university in the U.S. or Canada' that will back up their ad's claim of 'science-based medicine'.
This might be fun.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
-sigh-
From the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/558529):
Why did I suspect this guy was a church-goer as I scanned the article? No Virginia, being religious doesn't automatically mean you are moral.
COVINA, Calif.– A man who killed nine people in a Christmas Eve massacre dressed as Santa apparently intended to flee to Canada, but his plans were dashed when the inferno he created melted his red costume onto his body, police said yesterday.
...
Pardo, 45, fired a shot into the face of an 8-year-old girl who answered the door...
Police said Pardo had no criminal record or history of violence, and
neighbours and others knew him as a friendly man who was a volunteer usher at his parish church.
...
The 8-year-old girl was released from hospital yesterday, officials said.
Why did I suspect this guy was a church-goer as I scanned the article? No Virginia, being religious doesn't automatically mean you are moral.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
No Muhammed?
In today's Toronto Star, Tom Harpur (yes, the author of 'The Pagan Christ'!) is reporting that a Muslim scholar has decided that Muhammed probably didn't exist:
Once again, the default position on any belief needs to be, "I don't believe until you provide evidence to back up your claims."
It doesn't really matter whether Muhammed, Jesus, Socrates or Einstein ever existed. We only need evaluate what they said or did. It seems that religious people only connect historical figures to a god to justify the absurdity of what they want to believe.
Questioning of Prophet's existence stirs outcry
Muslim academic says research leads him to believe Muhammad is a mythical figure
Dec 23, 2008 04:30 AM
Tom Harpur
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
A noted Muslim scholar has provoked a huge controversy in Europe by openly questioning the existence of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Islamist at the centre of the storm in Germany over whether Muhammad ever existed as an historical figure says he is simply following the conclusions of many years of rigorous research.
Muhammad Sven Kalisch, 42, the chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Muenster and whose duties include training teachers for the rising number of Muslim students in German high schools, has created a furor by stating that in all probability Muhammad was a mythical creation.
He told the Star in a recent phone interview that his research leads him to believe that the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have mythical origins.
German police worried about a possible violent backlash have told the professor to move his offices to more secure premises. But Kalisch says there have been no specific threats and he is far from being "in hiding" as some bloggers and other rumour-mongers have claimed.
However, the Central Council of Muslims in Germany to which the four largest organizations of the country's 3 million-strong Muslim community belong, has stopped its co-operation with the university's Centre for Religious Studies over the professor's stand.
A spokesperson for the council, Ali Kizilkaya, has said if the Prophet Muhammad didn't exist then the Qur'an doesn't exist.
"This would mean that we would have to abolish the religion altogether," Kizilkaya said. "We are convinced the Prophet did indeed exist and that the Qur'an is the word of God."
Michael Marx, a Qur'an specialist at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, has warned his colleagues that Kalisch's views will "make it difficult" for German scholars to work in Muslim lands.
The traditional view of Muhammad is that he was born in Mecca in Arabia, about AD 570 and died in Medina around AD 632. The Qur'an, Islam's holy book, is composed of revelations believed to have been given to him by God through the archangel Gabriel. There are about one billion Muslims in the world today.
"My position with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven," Kalisch said in a statement. "I, however, lean toward the non-existence."
He told the Star he holds the same position regarding Abraham, Moses and the other Jewish patriarchs, as well as Jesus Christ.
There have been threats, campaigns for his dismissal from his post, and dozens of media interviews, commentaries and editorials. According to Der Spiegel magazine, a group of more than 30 German academics have signed a petition supporting Kalisch's right to scholarly freedom of expression.
Kalisch studied and practised law before returning to college to take a Ph.D. in religious studies. He speaks fluent English, Turkish and Arabic as well as German.
He was born in Hamburg of a German father and a mother of Mongolian descent. They were nominal Protestants and when he began early in his teens to follow up on the Asian line of his heritage he decided to learn Turkish.
That led directly to an exposure to Islamic teaching and at 15 he decided to convert. "I was attracted by the emphasis on one God instead of a trinity," he says. "It seemed in many ways a very rational religion."
But, he differed from typical religious converts to a new faith in that he never stopped questioning. "Religion should never contradict reason," he says. "I could never accept any doctrine or belief that goes against my rational mind."
Kalisch said he realized early in 2001 that when the same scientific methods are applied to investigate Muslim claims of historicity as are used on Jewish and Christian origins, similar problems arise at once. He found that traditional theological positions soon collapse once hard evidence is sought. He discovered there is as much "myth-making" in Islam as in Judaism and Christianity. And so his current process of "rethinking Islam" was begun.
Asked whether he thought his public airings of his findings will destroy peoples' faith, he said: "It will destroy a literalist faith, a faith no longer reliable because of reason. But, the God I believe in is not a god of literalists. He is the Ultimate One. God doesn't write books. All the various sacred books are the product of human minds and experiences. They can be helpful but they must be interpreted for today."
Kalisch maintains non-Muslim scholars who agree with his hypothesis but keep silent out of "respect" for Muslims are in fact treating them as though they can't handle the truth.
"That's not respect, it's putting Muslims on the same level as small children who can't think and decide for themselves and whose illusions of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny one doesn't want to destroy."
Once again, the default position on any belief needs to be, "I don't believe until you provide evidence to back up your claims."
It doesn't really matter whether Muhammed, Jesus, Socrates or Einstein ever existed. We only need evaluate what they said or did. It seems that religious people only connect historical figures to a god to justify the absurdity of what they want to believe.
Friday, December 19, 2008
The Obsessions of Adam Savage
Here's a fun video by Adam Savage of MythBusters as he explains his obsessions with Dodos and the Maltese Falcon:
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Growing Earth Conspiracy
I don't get it.
Neal Adams, a comic book artist, created an animation to promote the idea of a 'growing earth'. This idea proposes that all the continents were once all together and then pushed apart - not by plate tectonics, but by an expanding earth! Of course, he blames a scientific conspiracy for suppressing the truth which automatically sets off my 'bullshit detector'.
What I don't understand is, why get so worked up about it? I was looking for clues that this idea has some connection to religion but I didn't find any. The earth is still billions of years old in this idea and the proposed mechanism for an expansion sounds like science. Global warming conspiratists likely want to continue living the way they want without worrying about future consequences but I don't see how believing in 'plate tectonics' is a social threat. So, why is Adams and geologist Dr. James Maxlow so keen to present their ideas?
Is it a simple case of hard feelings because 'the establishment' has refuted them?
Here's the Adams video:
I also found a speech by Dr. James Maxlow at the 'Nexus Conference' which appears to be supported by Nexus Magazine. According to its website, Nexus Magazine is,
Oh. Kay.
Here's part 1 of Maxlow's speech (I couldn't be bothered to watch the other 13!):
Anyone have any ideas on why they're trying to promote this idea?
Neal Adams, a comic book artist, created an animation to promote the idea of a 'growing earth'. This idea proposes that all the continents were once all together and then pushed apart - not by plate tectonics, but by an expanding earth! Of course, he blames a scientific conspiracy for suppressing the truth which automatically sets off my 'bullshit detector'.
What I don't understand is, why get so worked up about it? I was looking for clues that this idea has some connection to religion but I didn't find any. The earth is still billions of years old in this idea and the proposed mechanism for an expansion sounds like science. Global warming conspiratists likely want to continue living the way they want without worrying about future consequences but I don't see how believing in 'plate tectonics' is a social threat. So, why is Adams and geologist Dr. James Maxlow so keen to present their ideas?
Is it a simple case of hard feelings because 'the establishment' has refuted them?
Here's the Adams video:
I also found a speech by Dr. James Maxlow at the 'Nexus Conference' which appears to be supported by Nexus Magazine. According to its website, Nexus Magazine is,
a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained.
Oh. Kay.
Here's part 1 of Maxlow's speech (I couldn't be bothered to watch the other 13!):
Anyone have any ideas on why they're trying to promote this idea?
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
"What Is The Purpose Of Life?"
Again I hear a theist ask the question about life and purposes. But they just don't get it. The problem is that their question is wrong.
What is the purpose of life?
The question itself presupposes that there IS a purpose but that needs to be established first. Therefore the first question to ask is:
Is there a purpose to life?
When we look at the evidence it becomes apparent that there isn't a purpose to life. It just is.
Although most of us create a purpose for our lives, I can't say what is the best purpose to have. It's safe to say the starting point for a purpose is to keep living!
What is the purpose of life?
The question itself presupposes that there IS a purpose but that needs to be established first. Therefore the first question to ask is:
Is there a purpose to life?
When we look at the evidence it becomes apparent that there isn't a purpose to life. It just is.
Although most of us create a purpose for our lives, I can't say what is the best purpose to have. It's safe to say the starting point for a purpose is to keep living!
Monday, December 15, 2008
Jesus: The Real Stories
First, Jesus gets protection from The Terminator:
Explaining Jesus in ways so simple, even a baby could understand it:
Finally, who could resist one more look at Jesus, The Musical:
Explaining Jesus in ways so simple, even a baby could understand it:
Finally, who could resist one more look at Jesus, The Musical:
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
What Does 'Offensive' Mean?
(Warning! Today's post may be offensive ;) )
Pedro Timoteo wants to know which of the following two signs are offensive:
I replied to his post stating that both are offensive. They are both false statements and I believe false statements are offensive.
However, many other statements are true but can be offensive to many people. Consider this sign:
Here is a statement that is not false, but yet offensive. I'm uncomfortable with my children reading statements like this but I have difficulty explaining why. For most people, swearing is considered to have a time and place. In general, we don't swear in public places (at least, we're not supposed to). We don't swear at work, in school, around children or the elderly or in church. I threw in church because I think that we unconciously consider some places (or people) 'sacred'.
Jonathon Haidt discusses this in 'The Happiness Hypothesis'. Even 'liberals' who claim that the sacred is a myth find certain places near and dear to them. Consider your loved ones, where you got engaged, that first car, or that place in nature that you once stood and contemplated the universe - now imagine someone is urinating on them. Perhaps this is offensive to you.
Haidt writes that it's part of our psychology to be offended by things that disgust us. All swear words refer to things that we find disgusting - bodily fluids and waste materials, corpses, sexual impulses, etc. We also swear to attack the sacred to elicit an emotion of disgust. The French say "Tabernacle!", we might yell, "Motherfucker!" both of which are meant to bring up negative images of traditional sacred objects.
I agree with Haidt when he says, "...conservatives have a better understanding of moral development." (Pg. 178, The Happiness Hypothesis) We don't want children growing up in a world that allows the humiliation of our sacred objects in the public sphere. It's important that children learn that there are things worth holding as sacred (parents, teddy bears, home, etc). We want them to respect people and places that hold significance and not destroy those things that others hold sacred. To do this, children need to know what sacred things 'are' and have a chance to build their own. Swearing in public is offensive because it elicits the same emotions as watching someone humiliate a loved one (albeit, not as severe). And, in public or in our homes, we deserve the right to not have our sacred objects attacked.
Thus, I think I can safely propose two comments about offensive behaviour:
1. We will not allow the promotion of untruths as this is offensive.
2. When we feel we want to be offensive (swear, sell Baby Jesus Butt Plugs, criticize religions, etc.) we'll be careful to keep it out of public places.
Pedro Timoteo wants to know which of the following two signs are offensive:
Sign A: There is a God.
Sign B: There is no God.
I replied to his post stating that both are offensive. They are both false statements and I believe false statements are offensive.
However, many other statements are true but can be offensive to many people. Consider this sign:
Fuck, I don't like paying my taxes.
Here is a statement that is not false, but yet offensive. I'm uncomfortable with my children reading statements like this but I have difficulty explaining why. For most people, swearing is considered to have a time and place. In general, we don't swear in public places (at least, we're not supposed to). We don't swear at work, in school, around children or the elderly or in church. I threw in church because I think that we unconciously consider some places (or people) 'sacred'.
Jonathon Haidt discusses this in 'The Happiness Hypothesis'. Even 'liberals' who claim that the sacred is a myth find certain places near and dear to them. Consider your loved ones, where you got engaged, that first car, or that place in nature that you once stood and contemplated the universe - now imagine someone is urinating on them. Perhaps this is offensive to you.
Haidt writes that it's part of our psychology to be offended by things that disgust us. All swear words refer to things that we find disgusting - bodily fluids and waste materials, corpses, sexual impulses, etc. We also swear to attack the sacred to elicit an emotion of disgust. The French say "Tabernacle!", we might yell, "Motherfucker!" both of which are meant to bring up negative images of traditional sacred objects.
I agree with Haidt when he says, "...conservatives have a better understanding of moral development." (Pg. 178, The Happiness Hypothesis) We don't want children growing up in a world that allows the humiliation of our sacred objects in the public sphere. It's important that children learn that there are things worth holding as sacred (parents, teddy bears, home, etc). We want them to respect people and places that hold significance and not destroy those things that others hold sacred. To do this, children need to know what sacred things 'are' and have a chance to build their own. Swearing in public is offensive because it elicits the same emotions as watching someone humiliate a loved one (albeit, not as severe). And, in public or in our homes, we deserve the right to not have our sacred objects attacked.
Thus, I think I can safely propose two comments about offensive behaviour:
1. We will not allow the promotion of untruths as this is offensive.
2. When we feel we want to be offensive (swear, sell Baby Jesus Butt Plugs, criticize religions, etc.) we'll be careful to keep it out of public places.
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Offense Defence
"No, no, no! You mustn't criticize my religion, it's offensive!"
Critics of the FFRF sign are complaining that it was too offensive to religious people. Well, too. damn. bad! Theists don't get defend their faith by claiming it is offensive to do so.
If I criticize your faith and then you go out and riot - it's your fault! It reminds me of people who blame the rape victim. "You shouldn't have been outside alone," "You shouldn't have been wearing a skirt," "This wouldn't have happened if you had on a burqa."
Bullshit.
Religious people have the right to fill their houses and churches with all kinds of religious nonsense but they don't get to advertise it free in the public square. And if they do, I sincerely hope the FFRF (and the rest of us too!) fight this injustice with protests. Until religion retreats to the domain it belongs, may the secular side continue to offend.
Critics of the FFRF sign are complaining that it was too offensive to religious people. Well, too. damn. bad! Theists don't get defend their faith by claiming it is offensive to do so.
If I criticize your faith and then you go out and riot - it's your fault! It reminds me of people who blame the rape victim. "You shouldn't have been outside alone," "You shouldn't have been wearing a skirt," "This wouldn't have happened if you had on a burqa."
Bullshit.
Religious people have the right to fill their houses and churches with all kinds of religious nonsense but they don't get to advertise it free in the public square. And if they do, I sincerely hope the FFRF (and the rest of us too!) fight this injustice with protests. Until religion retreats to the domain it belongs, may the secular side continue to offend.
FFRF Sign: Hate Speech?
Bill Donohue and Bill O'Reilly (is there a correlation between Right-Wing blowhards and the name 'Bill'? Just kidding, sorry Mr. Maher) have both called the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) sign 'Hate Speech'!
Hate speech. I though hate speech had to be against a person, not an idea. Can you have hate speech against an idea? Bill O'Reilly compared the sign to the KKK putting up an anti-black sign beside a monument to Martin Luther King. But the FFRF sign criticized religion, not religious people. The foundation of Freedom of Speech demands that ideas be criticized and discussed.
But, Bill Donohue inadvertently let the cat out of the bag! While O'Reilly was making non-sequitors, Donohue told us exactly what the problem was with the sign in the eyes of the religious: "...this is designed to neuter our message." Gotcha Donohue! The purpose of your nativity display is to promote the message of Christianity using a public forum. Strictly forbidden by your constitution! Put the display on the lawn of a church or believer's property but not in a secular, public arena. Microsoft and Coke can't do it and neither can you!
It just doesn't matter if the religious really, really beleive their message is so important. It applies only to the religious and not on public display. Secular messages are likely more important and apply to everyone.
The good news is that controveries like this can only benefit secularists and atheists. Ignorant people likely already side with the religious but the educated, informed and enlightened religious people will understand what is going on and begin to support 'our' side. This can only swell our ranks and truly allow our secular societies to emerge.
Donohue with Dan Barker:
Bill O'Reilly spouting emotional nonsense to keep the money coming in:
Hate speech. I though hate speech had to be against a person, not an idea. Can you have hate speech against an idea? Bill O'Reilly compared the sign to the KKK putting up an anti-black sign beside a monument to Martin Luther King. But the FFRF sign criticized religion, not religious people. The foundation of Freedom of Speech demands that ideas be criticized and discussed.
But, Bill Donohue inadvertently let the cat out of the bag! While O'Reilly was making non-sequitors, Donohue told us exactly what the problem was with the sign in the eyes of the religious: "...this is designed to neuter our message." Gotcha Donohue! The purpose of your nativity display is to promote the message of Christianity using a public forum. Strictly forbidden by your constitution! Put the display on the lawn of a church or believer's property but not in a secular, public arena. Microsoft and Coke can't do it and neither can you!
It just doesn't matter if the religious really, really beleive their message is so important. It applies only to the religious and not on public display. Secular messages are likely more important and apply to everyone.
The good news is that controveries like this can only benefit secularists and atheists. Ignorant people likely already side with the religious but the educated, informed and enlightened religious people will understand what is going on and begin to support 'our' side. This can only swell our ranks and truly allow our secular societies to emerge.
Donohue with Dan Barker:
Bill O'Reilly spouting emotional nonsense to keep the money coming in:
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Theism vs. Deism
Maybe I'm wrong. I've always thought of Deism being a separate category from Theism but after an IRC with a couple people on http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-atheist-experience I'm starting to wonder if my understanding is wrong.
I've never considered Deism as a subset of Theism (or the inverse) but as both being a separate branch of god-belief in general. Deism, as I understood it, is a belief in a god (or gods) that created the world and no longer interferes with it. Theism is a belief in a god (or gods) that created the world but also actively fiddles with it and interferes with people's lives (a 'personal' god). Under these definitions it is possible to be an atheist and a deist. However, if Deism is a subset of Theism then an atheist cannot be a deist.
Atheism is simply the non-belief (or non-acceptance) of Theism. So, is it possible to be an Atheist and a Deist?
I've never considered Deism as a subset of Theism (or the inverse) but as both being a separate branch of god-belief in general. Deism, as I understood it, is a belief in a god (or gods) that created the world and no longer interferes with it. Theism is a belief in a god (or gods) that created the world but also actively fiddles with it and interferes with people's lives (a 'personal' god). Under these definitions it is possible to be an atheist and a deist. However, if Deism is a subset of Theism then an atheist cannot be a deist.
Atheism is simply the non-belief (or non-acceptance) of Theism. So, is it possible to be an Atheist and a Deist?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Michael Shermer discusses god
Shermer and Phillips talk about god. This isn't a formal debate; more like a armchair discussion:
Part 1
The other parts are here at Alecs DeLarge on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AlecsDeLarge&view=videos
Part 1
The other parts are here at Alecs DeLarge on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AlecsDeLarge&view=videos
The Catholic Empire
Via Pharyngula, (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/im_sure_it_was_a_very_solemn_c.php)
Darth Vader joins the Catholics:
That one reminded me of this parody on the New Pope:
Darth Vader joins the Catholics:
That one reminded me of this parody on the New Pope:
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
- insert religion here -
Ironically, this video is a speech on 'Peace TV'. The message is that we have two choices: be a Muslim that obeys Allah whether you like it or not (since Allah dictates what is good) or choose to go to hell and be tortured in unspeakable ways for all eternity. This is a 'peaceful' choice?
Even though the speaker is a Muslim it doesn't really matter. Whenever he speaks of Islam try substituting 'Christianity' and see how the message stays the same. No Christian can denounce the immoral lunacy this man preaches without pointing their finger back on themselves. As an atheist though, I get to point at all of them!
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Responding to his idiotic points:
1. His description of Hell - How can he know any of this? Which is more probable: Hell is as he says or he is spouting out a giddy, pornographic view of torturing people that he hates?
2. Moral Selectivism - He claims one person's idea of good is another's idea of bad. However, he enjoys using attacks against Islam as an example of what 'others' think is good but doesn't apply the same logic to Muslims who think they are doing 'good' to others through terrorism, decaptitations, genital mutilation, riots over cartoons, etc. Oh, I forgot, god is on their side so they know what is good. Silly me, why can't I just understand this simple concept?
3. Should you fire an employee that you pay, who is secretly working for someone else? Allah, of course, is paying us by providing food and clothing and we're either worshipping something else, or even worse, no one! Ok god, I'm still waiting for my check...
4. A new manager informs employees of new rules but some prefer to follow the old ones - Oh, so Muhammed was god's new 'Dick Cheney', I get it. So, either follow the new rules or go straight to a tortuous hell for all eternity. You're not allowed to quit the company or have any say in the changes - just follow with a smile or have your skin ripped off your body over and over again. Have a nice day!
5. Secular Humanists think they are the centre of the universe - Ok, so if I do something that makes other people happy and I feel good then I'm a SELFISH BASTARD that must be SENT TO HELL TO DRINK PUSS THAT HAS LEAKED FROM OTHER PEOPLE'S WOUNDS! But, if I do something because I think the Easter Bunny approves of it, I get to be multi-orgasmic in heaven. I realize I could be wrong about that last sentence.
6. Do what god says whether you like it or not - Yikes! How can I be sure god said it and I'm not being tricked? I really need to know because something is telling me to poison the water supply and I certainly don't want to go to hell, so, umm, ..... ?
7. Pay some of your wages back to the company's pension plan - You can refuse (smile!) but then you don't get the benefits from the company and we have to send you to hell to have your brain boiled, drink boiling water that burns your insides and wear fiery sandals (I like sandals, wouldn't hell make you wear fiery uncomfortable shoes like the ones children wear to church?). But what if the company takes the pension money, buys luxurious jets and makes large deposits into offshore bank accounts then runs away? Nah, that could never happen...
Even though the speaker is a Muslim it doesn't really matter. Whenever he speaks of Islam try substituting 'Christianity' and see how the message stays the same. No Christian can denounce the immoral lunacy this man preaches without pointing their finger back on themselves. As an atheist though, I get to point at all of them!
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Responding to his idiotic points:
1. His description of Hell - How can he know any of this? Which is more probable: Hell is as he says or he is spouting out a giddy, pornographic view of torturing people that he hates?
2. Moral Selectivism - He claims one person's idea of good is another's idea of bad. However, he enjoys using attacks against Islam as an example of what 'others' think is good but doesn't apply the same logic to Muslims who think they are doing 'good' to others through terrorism, decaptitations, genital mutilation, riots over cartoons, etc. Oh, I forgot, god is on their side so they know what is good. Silly me, why can't I just understand this simple concept?
3. Should you fire an employee that you pay, who is secretly working for someone else? Allah, of course, is paying us by providing food and clothing and we're either worshipping something else, or even worse, no one! Ok god, I'm still waiting for my check...
4. A new manager informs employees of new rules but some prefer to follow the old ones - Oh, so Muhammed was god's new 'Dick Cheney', I get it. So, either follow the new rules or go straight to a tortuous hell for all eternity. You're not allowed to quit the company or have any say in the changes - just follow with a smile or have your skin ripped off your body over and over again. Have a nice day!
5. Secular Humanists think they are the centre of the universe - Ok, so if I do something that makes other people happy and I feel good then I'm a SELFISH BASTARD that must be SENT TO HELL TO DRINK PUSS THAT HAS LEAKED FROM OTHER PEOPLE'S WOUNDS! But, if I do something because I think the Easter Bunny approves of it, I get to be multi-orgasmic in heaven. I realize I could be wrong about that last sentence.
6. Do what god says whether you like it or not - Yikes! How can I be sure god said it and I'm not being tricked? I really need to know because something is telling me to poison the water supply and I certainly don't want to go to hell, so, umm, ..... ?
7. Pay some of your wages back to the company's pension plan - You can refuse (smile!) but then you don't get the benefits from the company and we have to send you to hell to have your brain boiled, drink boiling water that burns your insides and wear fiery sandals (I like sandals, wouldn't hell make you wear fiery uncomfortable shoes like the ones children wear to church?). But what if the company takes the pension money, buys luxurious jets and makes large deposits into offshore bank accounts then runs away? Nah, that could never happen...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
