|
|
||
   |
 Maybe the Tories are doing something right, originally uploaded by spinneyhead. If they can annoy the unholy self-righteous brigade, that is. Then again, this lot are probably offended by their own reflections. Link to this post! The Magic of Reality will be out next month in the US. At present Amazon UK doesn’t know when it will be available here. Link to this post!  I support the Quakers, originally uploaded by spinneyhead. With all the hate filled people out there using religion to justify their ignorance and bile it’s nice to be reminded that some denominations are grown ups. The history of the Quakers is filled with decisions which are good examples to us all, whether we believe or not. Link to this post! Harun Yahya, something of a name amongst Creationists, is touring the UK, with a stop off at the Manchester Metropolitan University on Wednesday. The question is, could I bear to put up with them if I went along to find out how convoluted their arguments are? Link to this post! So an American pastor with the same name as the short Welsh one from Monty Python, whose childish attention seeking ways included threats to burn the Koran, was invited to Britain by a bunch of racist idiots. The Government has decided not to let him in, and instantly given him even more of the publicity he craves than he’d have received if he had turned up. The preacher and the neanderthals who’ve invited him over have tiny constituencies. In his church of the poisoned mind the man who isn’t a Python preaches to fewer than 50 people. The reactionaries who wooed him “expected about 100 people to attend events [...], including about 30 members [of the group]“. Those are tiny numbers. In my time I’ve organised, and helped to organise, events which have had attendances many times those numbers- where’s my national news coverage? They’re just courting controversy to get coverage, and it’s worked. We shouldn’t ignore them ,but we should give them the amount of attention they deserve- something along the lines of a shrug and turning away. Of course, by writing about this so I can make my point, I have become another person who’s giving the preacher and his English friends more attention than they deserve. Hopefully by refraining from using their names in teh post I have mitigated that a little. Link to this post! A creationist writes, without any indication that he recognises the irony-
The only “science” put out for political reasons in the debate between creationism and reality (sorry, evolution) is that made up by the creationists. The word science always has implicit quote marks around it when used by creationists to describe what they think is evidence for their beliefs. Creationists are the ones who want people to remain uninformed and unquestioning- just keep believing the lines they’re fed so their would be leaders can keep taking advantage of them. Also, there’s no need to “believe” in evolution. Believing is what the creationists have to fall back on because they don’t have any evidence or a coherent theory. You understand evolution rather than believe in it. It’s been coherently explained by a large number of people. Understanding evolution is harder for some than believing in Creationism, because they can’t accept the freedom of no longer being told what to do. Which is a shame, because they then go on to tie themselves in knots as they try to explain all the logical inconsistencies thrown up by saying “God made it!” I’ve participated in online debates with creationists, and read through others, and it’s always the creationists who don’t want to talk about whether the science backs their beliefs. Faced with evidence that just keeps piling up, they’re the ones who will steer the conversation to why people “believe” in evolution, as they desperately try to run away from the realisation that they’re wrong. There’s no science behind creationism, just a desire to manipulate people, anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Link to this post! During a conversation a few weeks ago I suggested there would be merit in going through The Da Vinci Code Over the weekend I got thinking about other possible ….for Smatys books. The idea could lend itself to so many better uses than improving Dan Brown’s prose. The series title, obviously, is a play on the ….for Dummies books, and they would serve a similar purpose. Despite their name, the ….for Dummies books don’t assume you’re some sort of idiot. I’ve got Blender For Dummies Yes, …..for Smartys would mostly cover tabloid fodder and stuff which attracts loud and dissembling deniers. The books would look at claims made around a controversial subject and fact check them, much like blogs such as Five Chinese Crackers do. They would also present the data in cool infographics, just because I’m a fan of cool infographics. Weight would be given to data based upon how many times it had been corroborated, rather than by how much it appealed to the readers presumed prejudices. Immigration for Smartys would trace the population of the country back through many censuses as well as using Freedom of Information requests to get councils to reveal who gets to live in council houses (just a hunch, but I doubt “newly arrived immigrants” will top the list, no matter what the Daily Mail may say). Climate Change for Smartys would look at the scientific evidence for and against man-made climate change. It would examine the more outlandish claims made for global warming as well as the those that it’s not happening at all. It would also run a side by side projection for a do-nothing family and a make-a-change family to see who is better off, even if all the evidence is wrong and there is no climate change. The no-changers would keep their car, not bother insulating their house etc. The make-a-changes would trade in for a smaller, more efficient vehicle, which they used less, upgrade insulation, upgrade their heating, install solar panels etc. There would be a comparison of expenditure, which would be easy enough, and a less scientific look at quality of life. I don’t know if an Evolution for Smartys would be necessary. I’d mostly point people at The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution Religion for Smartys would be a tricky one, because some people can’t help but get violent over their choice of deity. I imagine it as a timeline from the earliest known religions through to the present day with pullouts for similarity of themes and recurring motifs. There’d also be a “Who do you hate and who do you love?” section which would list the various things and peoples considered evil or divine across several holy books. All I need now is a publisher willing to put up the money needed to fund me whilst I do the research and design the graphics. Link to this post! There are a number of good reasons why this country should no longer allow halal and kosher butchery of animals. Johann Hari wrote a detailed piece on them recently. However, this is not a valid reason-
Yes, it’s Richard Carvath, Salford funny mentalist, being an uninformed bigot again. I’d sign a petition calling for the stunning of all animals before they’re slaughtered- effectively banning the objectionable part of halal and kosher butchery, but not their right to pray to their chosen version of God over the dead animal- but it seems that everyone who puts one up forgets about the Jewish practice and is concentrating on being anti-Islam not pro-animal rights. Link to this post! Not satisfied with simply being homophobic and mysoginist, would be holy warrior Richard Carvath is branching out into racism*. He’s terrified that Mohammed was the 16th most popular name for baby boys in 2009. 16th! All the good white Christian folk are going to be ground under the heels of the Allah chanting brown hordes! Except that there were 15 more popular names (here’s the top 100). Oliver was most popular- we’re in danger of being overrun by urchins! Harry was third- prepare for the speccy wizard apocalypse! Alfie was fourth- fear the coming wave of cockney lotharios! Etc.** I know what Carvath thinks he’s saying- the muslim community is growing fast enough for one of their most popular boy’s names to slot into the list amongst all the properly Christian christian names. Something should be done! Because we all know that every single muslim is only one halal burger away from exploding and killing himself and everyone around him. This fear of a brown neighbour is really weak and quite cowardly. People like Carvath who talk tough about fighting the “evil Mohammedan cult” reveal a lack of faith in the strength of their own beliefs. If they were so sure they were right they’d just go out there and sell their own religion. The only long term solution to religious extremism is secularism and humanism. Politicians need to stop pandering to those who whine loudest about the rights they demand because of their imaginary friend. *I know that prejudice against Islam isn’t strictly racist, but it’s a fair bet that when Carvath says “Muslim” he’s thinking of brown men with beards, often wearing non Western styles of clothing. **Jack was second. I can’t think of a cliche associated with Jack. Sorry. Link to this post! Two of the leaders of the three main parties in the UK are now on record as not believing in God. Ed Miliband admitted his atheism in a Radio Five interview earlier this week. I’ve said before that religion doesn’t mix well with making decisions which affect the running of the country. You only have to look at Blair and his cowardly cop-out about how God would judge his decision to go ahead with an illegal invasion to see the sort of arrogance and blindness it can cause. Link to this post! Not Ashamed is a campaign which would like to sideline anyone who doesn’t adhere to a narrowly defined version of Christianity. I found out about it because Salford’s wannabe holy politico Richard Carvath signed up to the campaign, which was an automatic black mark against it. On December 1st the Not Ashamed crew are going to present a petition to ‘leading figures in public life’ which will say-
In other words they don’t think the opinion of anyone who doesn’t namecheck Jesus is valid and they want the right to be law breaking hypocrites. The freedom they seek will be to do whatever they can to restrict the freedoms of others, even when those freedoms are legally protected. One or two bigoted registrars refusing to perform civil partnership ceremonies isn’t going to stop them happening, but when they feel empowered to spit the dummy every time the subject comes up they will add unnecessary stress to the proceedings. And the suffering inflicted upon children awaiting adoption but denied perfectly capable parents because they didn’t conform to an agency’s ideal would be even worse. No metaphysical entity should be used as the foundation for our society. The people behind this campaign should be ashamed for pretending that their beliefs automatically make them better than followers of other, or no, religions. Link to this post! So, it’s been the first day of the Pope’s long weekend in Britain. He got off to a good start by implying that Nazism arose from atheism and modern secular society is headed down a similar path. It’s basically that old unfounded Christian lament that the belief system which still holds an unwarranted influence over the country’s politics is being discriminated against, but with added “unbelievers are evil!”. Hitler’s beliefs are open to debate, as they are in this comment thread on Richard Dawkins’ site, but a great many Nazis professed to be Christians, the Catholic church’s record during WW2 was less than perfect and it was the godless hordes of Soviet Russia who sacrificed the most to put an end to the evil. Pope Rat should sack his speech writers and any advisers who thought that spouting this sort of nonsense was a good idea. A selection of eminent humanists wrote a letter to the Guardian attacking the elevation of the Pope’s visit to that of a state visit, pointing out some of the crimes the Vatican “state” is guilty of and questioning its right to be given the same recognition as real countries. Stephen Fry is justifiably proud of being vilified by the Daily Mail for his signing of the letter. I’m jealous, I’ve long wanted to be hated by the Daily Mail. It’s been one of my ambitions for several years. Sadly I am not as eloquent as Mr Fry, nor yet known, let alone as well known as he. Maybe one day. The letter also attracted the attention of Stewart Cowan, one of the less enlightened bloggers I follow for entertainment value. Cowan throws around some stupid insults, but makes no intelligent or coherent points and no doubt, in his head, thinks he’s won the argument. In Cowan’s bizarro world family planning, disease prevention, compassion and education are all greater evils than child abuse. Thinking like Cowan’s and the Pope’s is the cause of far more harm than anything done by the people they want to blame. Link to this post! So a senior Catholic cardinal thinks that Great Britain is like a Third World country, and suddenly he isn’t accompanying the Pope here after coming down with gout. There’s been an outcry about the comment, and people are all offended. Personally I’m more amused by the deep insecurity Walter Kasper’s remarks reveal. Religious attendance is dropping in this country, and the Church can’t bully government as easily (though comments by Baroness Warsi may give them hope). I can’t help but think these are good things. If anyone, Kasper should be apologising to people in the Third World, not so much for his comments as for the damage his church, and other religions, has done to their countries. As part of a church which gives out deadly advice to poor believers he should give up all his privileges and go and help the people whose lives have been blighted by Catholic doctrine rather than living the high life which, no doubt, contributed to his gout. I like it here in the “Third World”. I’m able to make informed decisions and nobody’s telling me to hate other people because of biased interpretations of old books. Everyone’s welcome to join me. Link to this post! It’s an important question. And now you can find out which Pope you’d be (if you could travel back in time and replace them) with this simple quiz. Link to this post! Wannabe Scottish holy warrior Stewart Cowan has started what may be an ongoing series on “The Myths and Hoaxes of the 20th Century”. That he’s started with a weak swing at evolution should come as no surprise, neither should the fact that he fails to put forward a coherent argument. Cowan bases his argument on a wilfull or genuine failure to understand an 18th century theory called uniformitarianism. (It’s doubly amusing that he links to the wikipedia page about it because whenever he or his cronies are presented with a wikipedia page which proves them wrong or shows up a weakness in their arguments they fall over themselves to claim the site is a liberal conspiracy.) He then ignores centuries of research, discoveries and advances and implies that this one theory is the only thing scientists have ever used to figure anything out. From this nonsensical conceit he wanders off into a bunch of Creationist talking points and fails to prove anything. He cites research with blind cavefish which he thinks proves his point, completely failing to see that it does the opposite. Stewart Cowan’s never presented a coherent or convincing argument against evolution, but this one’s even weaker than normal. As the only people who can be bothered to continually comment on his blog are equally uninformed and blinkered he has no need to improve his arguments, so they seem to be devolving. Link to this post! |
 |
|
Copyright © 2012 Spinneyhead - All Rights Reserved Powered by eShop v.5 |
||
and editing out all the bits where Dan Brown treats his readers like idiots. Stuff like the horrendous flashback used to explain 
and it’s a great resource. It presumes the reader is an intelligent person who simply hasn’t used the software before and can grasp the concepts providing they’re explained well. The …..for Smartys books would expect intelligent readers and cover areas where the main, or at least loudest, people talking about them assume their audience are morons and can be lied to with impunity.
. Dawkins can be strident, but he knows his subject and explains it well.
Highly commented posts