Orthodox Jewish man photographed covering himself in plastic bag during flight because faith forbids him to fly over cemeteries

[source]

Stupid, simply stupid! In case of the emergency, he cannot get oxygen or put on the life jacket. That's a violation of air safety requirement!

Maddness

The blackman was insane, but the Catholic Priest was no better. Where is all the science, where is our understanding of our position in the Solar System and the Universe?

"According to biblical record...." the worse evidence for believing in such nonsense.

Free speech and from religious influence

I wrote about this (teacher's name was Jerry Buell) previously.

My position was that the board has over stepped the line when a private face book post was the reason for suspension. I also posited that no one should bring his/her private belief into a classroom. Friendly Atheist got hold of a syllabus from Buell. Man, he should be banned from any teaching at any school for as long as he still subjects his students to his private belief.

Epic creationist fails of our time #3

What can I say?

The cross was a torture instrument at the barbaric times. The alleged Jesus was not the only one who was condemned to die on this horrible torture instrument. The cross IS a man-made object. Dude!

Circumcision

Those taking part in this madness should be prosecuted. Those advocating this madness should be prosecuted too.

Eat Jesus receive Hepatitis A

Again, the god they worship cannot protect them. But Science can.javascript:void(0)

Stupidity illustrated

Stupidity and clear thinking compared

Rabbitpirate said...Let's play 'One of these things is not like the others'. Ok here we go: 1. Trust in Doctors, 2. Trust in Banks, 3. Trust in Pilots, 4. Trust in Mechanics, 5. Trust in God. Which of those things is not like the others? And the answer is....Number 5, Trust in God. All the others are based upon some form of evidence that allows them to demonstrate that they are trustworthy. A untrustworthy Bank would not get much business. An untrustworthy doctor would not get a lot of patients. However with God the trust is not based upon evidence but upon faith. You have faith that God is worthy of trust.
Ray Comfort:

RabbitPirate...I ask respectfully--what planet do you live on? You said that "an untrustworthy doctor would not get a lot of patients." Don't you know that doctors bury their mistakes? Medical mistakes are the eighth leading cause of death in the U.S.

You said that an untrustworthy bank would not get much business. They don't need it. They get bailouts.

Do you trust pilots? Did you know that most plane crashes are caused by “pilot error”?

Then there's your faith in car mechanics and manufacturers. Do you have faith in Toyota's mechanics?

You trust everyone but God, and yet He has never let one person down, ever. He is utterly faithful. If you don’t trust Him, that is a flaw in your character, not His.

However, I can think of no greater example of misplaced trust than the faith that believers have in the theory of evolution. They are an example of "blind" faith, with no need for any empirical evidence. The only "evidence" they have is a belief that what they have read or have been told, is true.

Rabbitpirate:

Cool, Ray used one of my comments for his post on my birthday, awesome.

Ok that aside. I never claimed that doctors, banks, pilots etc were perfect. I know that they are flawed and makes mistakes, that was in no way the point I was trying to make.

My point was, however badly I may have made it, that there is a big difference between trusting your doctor and trusting God.

For a start I have no doubt what so ever that my doctor actually exists. I have met him, shaken his hand, spoken to him. I have seen his medical licence and I could, if I wanted, research his career. I can do all of this first hand and get an actual response to my questions.

Also a doctor who constantly failed to do his job would have to account for their failures. In the UK, where I am, a doctor who constantly harms people is held accountable for those actions. If others believe him to be in the wrong then he is made to explain his actions, to justify why he did x instead of y and made to provide evidence that his action was the right one and that the negative outcome was neither intentional or the result of a failure on his part. Again evidence, and not just faith, is required.

This is NOT the same with God. For a start I can not, in any meaningful way, even prove that God exists. Now I know you "know" he does but as of yet you have provided no reason why we should just take you at your word on this. Millions of people all over the planet "know" that other Gods exist and yet you do not see this as evidence for their existence, so why should we see the same argument as valid just because the God in question is the one you believe in?

To even believe in God in order to trust him requires faith. I do not need faith to believe that my doctor exists.

You trust everyone but God, and yet He has never let one person down, ever. He is utterly faithful.

Seriously? Can you say Haiti? Oh sorry I forgot they were in league with the devil so it doesn't count.

How about all the people who have prayed to God for rescue from some terrible situation and have been given death as a reply? When two or more are gathered and all that. Anyone who asks in my name, ring a bell. The Bible seems very clear that if you ask in Jesus' name then your prayers will be answered. No where does it say that the answers might be yes, no or wait as Christians often claim. Heck my bedside lamp can answer prayers like that.

How about all those people born into other religions who have never heard the gospel and so die without repenting and finding Jesus and so go to hell? Did God not let them down by not getting the gospel to them?

But you know what, I will accept your claim at face value. Your God has never failed anyone, but then neither has Zeus for the exact same reason.

Who is thinking logically and clearly and who is not? You judge!

Guess What’s Wrong

Makarios asked what was wrong with the following statement:

Natural sciences are completely evidence-based. Natural sciences demonstrate their conclusions only by appealing to that evidence. Evidence and evidence alone is what natural science uses to determine “truth.

He continued to give some clues... which eventually led to the great reveal. OHG (Oh his god), the above statement was wrong BECAUSE Richard Dawkins made it.

A statement is true if it is true no matter who said it. A statement is wrong if it is wrong no matter who said it. A statement which is wrong is wrong no matter how many times the statement may have been repeated - although the perception of *some* people may have changed due to the repetitions. I feel sorry for those who were influenced by repetition.

Sciences are evidence-based. Period. Yes, some less than honourable people may distort/create evidences to support their claims. The spirit of science is evidence and about the physical realm, no imaginary god or magic. Human advances have been powered by scientific discoveries - despite continuous hindering from the religious establishments.

If one does not understand science, say so. One may be laughed at, but at least one is honest. The best approach is to put in the effort and learn. The power is in knowledge - real useful evidence-based repeatable demonstrable solid knowledge. Falling prey to superstitions is a sad state. Spreading falsehood and unsupported claim is a stupidity. Deliberately and intentionally spreading falsehood and unsupported claims is a crime to humanity. If there were a god, the god should be the first to condemn these people to "finite" punishment in hell proportional to the damage that have been made due to the deliberate act.

Why there is so much intellectual dishonesty from the religious?

The header of Ray Comfort's (aka the Banana Man) Atheist Central is a quote from Einstein. When challenged, he responded:

Notice that although Einstein didn’t believe in a personal God (as revealed in the Bible), he wanted to know "His" thoughts, referred to God as "He," acknowledged that He reveals "Himself," asks how God "created this world," and refers to "His" thoughts. In other words, it is clear that he wasn’t a pantheist (that God and nature are one in the same--see his below quote: "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."): [source]

Now, the christian god is a personal god. That's a fact.
Einstein, as quoted, said he did not believe in a personal god. I.E. He is NOT a christian.

Comfort is either unable to think logically or deliberately deceptive.

A caller has proof of Creationism

The caller cannot think nor argue! Is that the result of too many blessings from his god?

Analysis of Comfort's Intro in Origin of Species

Comfort's confused polemic, disguised as an informational Introduction but full of mistakes, half truths, untruths, muddled logic, old creationist arguments, misleadingly excerpted quotations, and ill-framed analogies — plus a good dose of fire and brimstone at the end — will do a severe disservice to anyone who takes it for an entryway to Darwin's great book. [source]

Is Yahweh moral?

No, definitely.

But the broader question is "Does religion provide morality?" Unfortunately, the answer is also no.

One frequent defense made on behalf of religion and theism is the claim that they are necessary for morality. This claim takes a variety of forms: people wouldn't behave morally if it weren't for religion or fear of gods, some god or gods are the authors of morality so we can't be moral without following their commands, religion and gods provide reasons to be moral, the absence of religion or gods encourages immorality, a moral person is simply assumed to be religious, and so forth. [source]

Austin Cline makes it very clear here: One example would be all the killings which the Jewish god orders throughout the Old Testament — pretty standard stuff for that time period, but not exactly appropriate for a perfectly good and just deity. Another example would be the very principle of salvation behind Christianity: people who deserve some sort of punishment are let off the hook by punishing a completely innocent individual, and if people don't accept this then they are destined for an eternity of torment regardless of the scope or seriousness of their misdeeds. Neither side of that equation is the least bit moral.

The saddest things are actually that the society is allowing the stupid parents denying necessary medication on the basis of religious faith, and that the society is tolerating such stupidity to further propagate to the young unprepared minds. While I respect people's right to be stupid, I do hope we have advanced to a stage that we know what is real and what is imaginary.

When will this stop?

House excludes spiritual care from Health Care Reform bill

The Secular Coalition for America is thrilled that the House of Representatives has decided to remove language found in all three draft bills that would require private and public plans to cover the spiritual care of individuals with religious objections to medical care.
...
If this language had been included, tax payers would be forced to help foot the bill for this religion-based “care” – “care” offering no scientific evidence of effectiveness. "Care" which, in fact, endangers lives by placing government approval on non-scientific practices.

WOW. We must applaud the House of Representatives to right the wrong in the bill.

What is worrying is WHY such wording would have been in the bill in the first place. Given USA is one of the most "advanced" civilisation with massive quantity of weapon of mass destruction, should we not expect the law makers be of a higher standard than others? The fact that BS such as prayers be included as a tax-payer subsidized care plan in the first place sends chills down my spine? What this is telling me is than we are living in a very dangerous world. With so many apocalyptic wishful thinking religious fools, some even managed to put such BS into a bill for passing into law, one would wonder the chance of someone stupid enough to push the red button which will spell the end of the world as we know it today. That chance is obviously non-zero!

"I don't know."

It takes a lot of courage to be able to say "I don't know" in public. Great scientists have learnt to say that, but not the religious.

Jesse Galef from Friendly Atheist put it nicely by refering to a clip about UFO by Neil deGrasse Tyson :

Somebody sees lights flashing in the sky. They’ve never seen it before; they don’t understand what it is. They say, “A UFO!” The ‘U’ stands for ‘unidentified’. So they say: “I don’t know what it is… It must be aliens from outer space visiting from another planet!”

Well… if you don’t know what it is, that’s where your conversation should stop! You don’t then say it MUST be anything! Ok?

That’s what argument from ignorance is. It’s common; I’m not blaming anybody. Psychologists know all about it.

As PZ Myers summaries:

Complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, ... therefore by design.

If we don't know something, we don't know something. Period. Putting god as a certainty as an answer to something we don't know is just ignorance. That's not how human has progressed.

We don't know the origin of the universe. Fine! We don't know the origin of the universe. Period. Some books written 2000 years ago do not have better knowledge than we have today. So those authors dont know the answer too. Saying that god created universe is just --- ignorance. Believing in something like this is just --- ignorance.

We don't know the origin of life. Fine! We don't know the origin of the life. Period. Some books written 2000 years ago do not have better knowledge than we have today. So those authors dont know the answer too. Saying that god gave us life is just --- ignorance. Believing in something like this is just --- ignorance.

Evolution Vs Creation

Bill O'Reilly makes it clear that he is a religious fool. He does not understand logic.


In the interview of Richard Dawkins, he made three obvious logical fallacies.

1. There is no logical linkage between moral and the origin of Universe, be it via a Big Bang or god created in 7 days. They are totally separate issue. Granted part of the teaching of religion is about absolute morality, still raising two separate issues in the same breadth is a demonstration of the lack of clear thinking ability. Furthermore, Christopher Hitchens has, in his book "God is not great", demonstrated clearly how religion has poisoned everything.

2. Science is a discipline based on evidence, logic and repeatable observations. If science does not explain something at this point in time, there is no reason to throw in another substitute which is NOT based on the same principles into science classes. Creationism has been rejected in USA court already. Still insisting on teaching creationism in USA classroom is both morally corrupt and lawfully guilty.

3. Bill accused Richard of fascism because Dawkins opposed the teaching of religious BS in science class. That's absurd! Even me, someone with no knowledge in political science understand that is an authoritarian ideology. The USA court has ruled against teaching of creationism. If anyone is "fascist" according to Bill, it would be his own country's judges. BTW, it is NOT true that christian is a major. And majority view is NOT necessarily the true and correct view either.

Jail terms for faith healing pair

From BBC

A US couple who prayed rather than seeking medical attention for their dying daughter have been sentenced to six months in jail.

Dale and Leilani Neumann, of Wisconsin, could have received up to 25 years in prison over the 2008 death of Madeline Neumann, who was known as Kara.

What I found really disturbing is what the judge reportedly said to the couple:

The judge told the Neumanns this would give them time to "think about Kara and what God wants you to learn from this".

He added that they were "very good people, raising their family, who made a bad decision, a reckless decision".

He added: "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors."

This is appalling. While the reduced term showed the judge's mercy on the couple, his remarks did not help the couple to learn the lesson. Their mistake is that their belief is not based on science and caused the unnecessary suffering and death of their daughter. The error of judgement on the part of the couple is huge - therefore they need to spend time in the prison. However, the people surrounding the couple, those prayed with them at the dying moment of the poor girl should be punished as well. They would have helped to save the girl's life if anyone of them suggested to seek medical help.

The couple are appealing against their convictions and still claim to have trust in god. Did they learn anything? Obviously not!

This is so wrong

Stuffing non-sense through the throat of her thinking son - so so wrong!

The power of prayer

From Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 934-942 (April 2006)

Result section of the abstract below:

In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups.

If you have problem interpreting the data above, watch the first video linked here. The rest of the videos are entertaining and informative too.

You Can Lead a Christain to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think

I was reading the Excerpt on Amazon on a book titled similar to this post. [Big mistake on my part for wasting my time.] Here is part of one paragraph.

But it's more miraculous than the air just being there. It was fortunate the air was made up of 78.09 percent nitrogen and 20.95 percent oxygen - the exact mixture that his lungs and blood needed to survive. Without that oxygen Adam would have gasped, and his first breath would have been his last. What a miracle of chance that oxygen existed in just the right percentage to maintain Adam's life, and the life of his wide, whom we will ....

WOW, the author is completely uneducated on the concepts of evolution. By the way, 80-20 mix of N₂ and O₂ is not the necessary mixture to support life. Fish swim and breathe in water, which is obviously not that miraculous ratio! Recent deep sea discovery has found living organism based on Sulphur instead of oxygen.

We have evolved to live in this miraculous ratio!

Interesting question to ponder: Why deep sea diver breathe a mixture of Helium and Oxygen?