Theists actually believe this stuff!

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Religious love in action in Northern Ireland

Protestant football fans beat a random Catholic to death. This is the love that Jesus inspires.

Strike Force Bell lays more charges in the ongoing Bathurst Christian School sex scandle.

An 8th man is charged. They just keep coming... so to speak...


Scientology is being taken to court by French authorities for fraud.

"The Paris court was hearing the complaint of a woman who alleges she was manipulated into handing over 20,000 euro ($36,000) for costly Scientology products, such as an "electrometer" to measure mental energy."

Go France!!

But what I want to know is why they are limiting themselves to Scientology? Why not Catholicism? They offer outcomes they cannot prove and take a fee for the "service". I don't see any difference.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Parenting without religion.

These parents are meeting on Sundays in a park or at a member's home to replace the community of church. People do this for the benefit of themselves and their kids. There are plenty of dumb comments if you want to get pissed off.

How does prayer work?

How does prayer work?

It's very scientific, you know. :))

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Who'd be female under Islamic law?

Why would a person stick with a religion which hates them? Why wouldn't a woman just leave? I just don't get this.

Independent UK article:

Sagan's 'Dragon in my garage'.

The Dragon In My Garage
Carl Sagan

“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”

Suppose (I’m following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle–but no dragon.

“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

“Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floates in the air.”

Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”

You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

“Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.”

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don’t outright reject the notion that there’s a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you’re prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it’s unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative– merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of “not proved.”

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons–to say nothing about invisible ones–you must now acknowledge that there’s something here, and that in a preliminary way it’s consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it’s not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you’re pretty sure don’t know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages–but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we’re disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I’d rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren’t myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they’re never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon’s fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such “evidence”–no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it–is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
-Carl Sagan

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Muslim chef wont cook pork.

A Muslim chef refuses to cook pork in England. He picked the wrong job now he wants to sue them.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Russian mayor bans gay parade

Mayor Yuri Luzhkov says gay parades were "a satanic act" and will be stopped by police forse.

He's been the mayor since 1992. Moscowians, look at who you are voting for. You are voting for someone who believes in the ultimate bogeyman, satan, and, presumably, the ultimate tooth fairy, god. Shouldn't you have someone in charge who believes in you. Someone who believes that people are fundementally good.