WorldNutDaily hack takes Hitchens’ challenge
Do you remember the challenge that Christopher Hitchens apparently mentions in his new book Portable Atheist (which I haven’t yet read) and put to theists everywhere while touring with God Is Not Great? I’ll remind you:
Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.
It turns out that someone called Tom Flannery of that inimitable organ, WorldNetDaily, has taken it upon himself to take up the gauntlet and try to answer it.
And Flannery’s answer is (drumroll, please)…
In the case of Christianity, if its claims are true, then the greatest moral law of all is to love the Lord God with all of one’s heart, mind and strength. That’s something an unbeliever, by self-definition, could never do.
Emphasis as original, for whatever that’s worth, although it seems to me, from the general tone of the whole piece, that this emphasis has a pronounced sneering tone.
With mind-bending sophistry, Flannery argues that Hitchens, to then refute this answer, has to prove that christianity is not true. If he doesn’t, then he’s not engaging in the proper rules of philosophical debate and, I expect by default, must have failed to refute it.
He knows that in a philosophical debate of any kind, the skeptic (in this case Hitchens) must give the presumption of truth to his adversary. He must presume that the philosophy or worldview he is opposing (in this case the Christian faith) is in fact true, and then debunk it on that basis (on the basis of its own claims) if he is to cast any doubts upon its veracity.
…
The Bible tells us that it is impossible for a person to even say “Jesus is Lord” in spirit and in truth unless the Holy Spirit is the motivating force behind it, in which case the person has already accepted God and received the Spirit.
In arguing this, he makes note of The War Against Terror (TWAT™) and then claims that islam is not a true religion, and therefore doesn’t count.
Hitchens would point to the homicidal use of those hijacked airliners and say: “That’s religion for you.” To which true believers like myself would respond: “No, Christopher, that’s false religion for you.” He doesn’t seem to understand there’s a difference
Somehow I doubt that Flannery has subjected himself to the same standard that he puts on Hitchens: to prove that islam is wrong before dismissing it. Of course, with the theist logic at work, an assumption on his part that his belief is true automagically makes every other religious belief necessarily false. But to do this, he would have to prove christianity true which, of course, he doesn’t.
And, there’s the obligatory dig at his (obviously idiotic) idea of evolution, or — as the fundies like to call it — “Darwinism”:
Everything from child rape to murder to genocide would be justifiable as “survival of the fittest” or a modified version of it (say, “desire of the strongest”).
I’m sure I don’t need to point out the multiple levels of stupid in this single statement.
The funniest (and I use the term ironically) thing about this piece of “journalism”, though, is the anecdote at the end of the piece:
Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias tells of a time he spoke at a university in defense of truth and was accosted afterward by a group of angry students who insisted there is no such thing as absolute truth. Zacharias challenged the leader of the group by asking him, “If instead of giving a speech today, I came out and cut a newborn baby into pieces on the stage, would that have been wrong for me to do?”
The young man thought for a moment, realizing that if he said it was wrong he would be acknowledging the existence of truth. Then he tellingly replied: “I may not have liked watching you do it, but at the same time I can’t say that it would have been wrong.”
I’ll answer that: yes, it would have been wrong. At the same time, it should be noted that his bible shows his god happily duplicating this scenario on a scale that can only boggle the mind (Exodus 12:29-30, Psalms 137:9) and therefore, by Flannery’s own argument (God by nature … is perfectly holy and therefore perfectly just.
) it’s not wrong, is it?
Teacher found guilty in Sudan
BBC News 24 has just reported that Gillian Gibbons, the teacher at the centre of the Sudanese Mohammed Teddy stupidity, has been found guilty of “insulting religion”, and sentenced to 15 days in prison and is then to be deported, hopefully, for her sake, to a country not run by those who cling to their backwards bronze age mythologies.
The bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, calls it a “deep disappointment”, which sounds like a rather weak sentiment, but one needs to consider that he’s of the same bent, just of a different flavour.
He also calls the crime “a mistake” although, oddly enough, he has exactly the same law on the UK’s statute “protecting” his god-belief.
Fucking morons, the lot of them.
Guardian: Woman arrested for naming teddy-bear “Mohammed”
Yeah, you read that right…
I really have no comment to make on this story, apart from a great big
What The Fuck?
A British teacher has been arrested in Sudan for letting her children name a teddy bear Mohammed, the British Embassy said.
Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was detained on Sunday on suspicion of insulting Islam’s prophet.
The teacher let her class of seven year olds choose the name as part of a school project.
A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: “We can confirm a British national was arrested by police in Sudan yesterday. We are providing consular assistance.”
A spokesman for the British Embassy in Khartoum said Ms Gibbons taught at Unity High School in central Khartoum.
He said: “The children chose the name because it is very common here.
No shit. Every other man in the islamic world, it seems, has one part or other of their name that’s a variation on Mohammed. Hell, even in the UK (variations on spelling aside) it’s now the second most common name for boys (after Jack).
I think a nice, slow round of applause for islam is deserved.
Yahoo!: Springer blasphemy hearing closes
As reported by Reuters in this Yahoo! News article, the hearing for the privately brought blasphemy case against the BBC for its screening of Jerry Springer: The Opera has wound-up, with a ruling expected at a later date.
The Yahoo! article writes about the arguments used to bring the case:
[Jon] Thoday is the producer of musical “Jerry Springer-The Opera,” which the BBC aired in 2005. [Stephen "dogshit"] Green argues that the show is blasphemous, likening Jesus to “the perv in a nappy.”
Based on U.S. television host Jerry Springer’s brash talk show, the musical depicts Jesus being referred to as “a little bit gay” and features Eve attempting to fondle his genitals.
Green’s lawyer Michael Gledhill [QC], speaking on Tuesday at the opening of the two-day hearing, argued that “Jerry Springer-The Opera” would never have been staged or aired in Britain had it been a satire about Islam, not Christianity.
“No theatre would have produced it. Neither would the BBC have broadcast it,” he said.
So, instead of the expected evidence, which would normally come in the form of actually showing that the alleged “crime” took place (i.e. Jesus was actually offended) nor that the offendee actually exists (as claimed by christians the world over, “Jesus is risen”, etc.), the legal team has resorted to the “you wouldn’t say that about Mohammed” argument.
Of course, this argument has absolutely nothing to do with blasphemy and is merely a pathetically executed argumentum ad baculum, which really gives me the shivers when one understand that this is coming from a QC, ostensibly a very experienced (and successful) arguer.
Of course, should a successful prosecution be brought, this can surely be seen as the UK legal system validating the existence of a god, and specifically the christian god (seeing as the UK’s blasphemy laws are strictly applied to anglicanism). Given such validation, I wouldn’t be surprised if Green were to instruct his lawyers to push for the appropriate punishment. For those that don’t know, christian scripture proscribes being put to death (Leviticus 24:16).
Does Islam have a sense of humour?
Apparently it does, according to this magazine article over on the BBC.
Let’s see if this is true:
I’d like to see some muslim opinion on whether this doctored image could be considered amusing.
Christian Voice launches new bid for blasphemy ruling
Stephen “Dogshit” Green of Christian Voice is launching a private prosecution in the High Court in an attempt to sue the BBC for blasphemy for it’s screening of Jerry Springer: The Opera.
Green first launched his legal application for special treatment for supposed offence caused in 2005, but it was turned down at the time by City of Westminster magistrates court. Now Green seeks to have this ruling overturned.
The BBC reports:
Michael Gledhill QC, appearing for Mr Green, argued the district judge had made a mistake in refusing to issue the summonses as the show had clearly “crossed the blasphemy threshold”.
He said the show was “an offensive, spiteful, systematic mockery and wilful denigration of Christian belief”, and one that would never have been staged or aired in Britain had it been a satire about Islam, not Christianity.
No theatre would have produced it. Neither would the BBC have broadcast it,” he said.
As I’ve mentioned before, it seems that christians are not averse to riding on the coat-tails of islamists who might actually make good on their threats of violence. It seems that they’re content to equate the consequences of insulting christianity with those of insulting islam, yet they’re not so keen as to actually make any overt threats of violence, and even less keen to carry out those that they do make.
Instead, they make shallow comparisons and appeal to completely backwards and anachronistic laws that have no place in any modern society that values rationality, evidence and reality.
It seems to me that now is as good a time as any to promote the petition to get the UK’s blasphemy laws put onto the dog-pile of history where it belongs.
Full article over at on BBC News.
BBC: Scientist/priest says teachers are scared to teach evolution
Professor Michael Reiss, scientist, priest and head of science at London’s Institute of Education, has written a new book aimed at encouraging teachers, who it seems are avoiding the teaching of evolution in schools for fear of the “controversy” and not wanting to dismiss creationist pupils’ beliefs out of hand.
This could leave pupils with gaps in their scientific knowledge, he says.
Prof Reiss says the rise of creationism is partly down to the large increase in Muslim pupils in UK schools.
He said: “The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families.
“That’s one reason why it’s more of an issue in schools.”
The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins
said Reiss.
Reiss’s book, Teaching About Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, argues that there is an educational value in comparing creationist ideas with scientific theories like Darwin’s theory of evolution because they demonstrate how science, unlike religious beliefs, can be tested.
(BBC)
While I admire Reiss’s efforts to help get science where it belongs, I wonder if he also thinks that these other ideas should be considered in science lessons, so that they can be summarily dismissed also:
- the “stork” hypothesis of reproduction
- the “intelligent falling” hypothesis of gravity
- the “to test our faith” hypothesis of palaeontology
- the “pirates” hypothesis of global climate change
There’s just as much evidence for these as there are for creationism (i.e. none whatsoever).
Read the full article over at the BBC.
Pat Condell on islam in Europe
Another thought provoking (and otherwise, if you’re a theist) video from carbon-based bipedal lifeform comedian Pat Condell, this time on the islamification of Europe.
/hattip to Lady Monchhichi over at Velocity Inversion Read more
BBC: Headscarves and toothache
A muslim dentist has been admonished by a disciplinary committee of the General Dental Council for demanding that a female (non-practicing) muslim patient wear a headscarf before receiving treatment, in a case dating back to April 2005.
Dr Omer Butt was found guilty of discriminating against the woman, known as Ms A, by a disciplinary panel of the General Dental Council (GDC).
The patient said she was “humiliated and upset” after the encounter at the surgery in Bury, Greater Manchester.
Dr Butt received an admonition at the end of the three-day GDC hearing.
Stewart Goulding, chairman of the GDC professional conduct committee, told Dr Butt that his conduct had fallen short of the standard expected.
But he said the committee had noted testimonials from other patients in reaching their conclusion.
He said: “The committee is satisfied that the appropriate decision is to conclude the case today with this admonition.
Butt claimed that it was unlawful
(according to his own interpretation of sharia) to look at the patient, because she was a muslim woman and not covered. It is also recorded that Butt later quoted sharia dogma on how men and women should comport themselves.
A dental nurse at Butt’s surgery is reported to have told the patient inside the surgery it’s Dr Butt’s world and his rules apply
.
Complete article over at the BBC
Out of the frying pan…
Dispatches: Unholy War (Channel 4, Monday 17 September, 8pm)
Tonight sees yet another Channel 4 Dispatches treatment of religion, this time in the context of the intimidation and threats faced by ex-muslims who have swapped one unlikely fairy tale for another converted to christianity.
Dispatches investigates the violence and intimidation facing Muslims who convert to Christianity in Britain. Dispatches reporter Antony Barnett meets former Muslims who now live under the threat of reprisals from their former communities. Many are still living in fear. He interviews a family who have been driven out of their home and a convert whose brother was beaten close to death.
The investigation uncovers a network of churches supporting converts from Islam who have to worship under a veil of secrecy. It is estimated there are as many as 3,000 Muslims who have converted to Christianity living in Britain.
I don’t know why I insist on watching this kind of car-crash tv.
Faith based healthcare for muslims
As I joked the other day about the ridiculousness of “faith hospitals“, the BBC is running an article written by University of Edinburgh Professor Aziz Sheikh who is arguing for faith based medical support for muslims.
“Male infant circumcision should be available throughout the NHS. Although a handful of NHS trusts provide it, most parents are forced into the poorly regulated private sector,” Professor Sheikh said.
No way! If you want to mutilate your children (which should be illegal), then you pay the price yourself — you do it yourself! Don’t expect the British tax payer to pick up the tab to support this barbaric act of abuse of your children.
If you want special treatment, you pay for it: go private.
Daily Mail: Muslim leaving UK after “racist abuse”
A white Muslim mother who was spat at and abused by drunken football fans in front of her children today told of her humiliation at the hands of the “racist cowards”.
Mother-of-five Michelle Idrees, 27, from Luton, said she had been too scared to travel to London or use public transport since the ordeal.
Apparently, she was was called a “f***ing Muslim slag” and told her son, then aged four, would be the “next suicide bomber” by a family of Arsenal supporters
.
Aside from the obvious rudeness and ad hominems, these (I assume) football “supporters” are just plain obnoxious. However, this isn’t a race issue, this is a religion issue. Unless the Arsenoids were non-white, of course, in which case they may have been “motivated” to act like asshats for race reasons, and makes most of this post pointless, but I seriously doubt that they were non-white.
She also claimed that real Muslims did not support terrorism
. Just like “real” muslims don’t wander through the streets of London carrying placards bearing such notices as “behead those who call Islam violent”, nor take trips to Afghanistan to join militant outfits, nor wear explosive laden knapsacks on their backs and take trips on the Underground.
Apparently, though, they also called a black woman on the train a nigger
, so they were quite obviously racist (I think it unlikely that they used ‘nigger’ in it’s familiar sense). However, the fact is that they were not racist to her, they were intolerant and agressive to her religion, but not her race.
Mrs Idrees and her children are moving to Pakistan, where her third husband Mohammed Arif’s family are from, next month. “My kids will all be able to choose if they want to be Muslims,” she said. “But I want them to live somewhere they feel accepted and where they don’t have to suffer abuse.”
While I commend Mrs Idrees’ ideals for not forcing her choice of non-thinking on her children at present, she’s obviously not throught this through very much, as her intended move to Pakisan will likely involve these children not having a choice about the indoctrination that they will undoubtedly have to put up with.
And I seriously doubt that they will feel accepted
in Pakistan, and will likely indeed suffer abuse
. It’s not just whites who can be racist.
BBC: School sacks woman after veil row
A Muslim classroom assistant suspended by a school for wearing a veil in lessons has been sacked.
Aishah Azmi, 23, was asked to remove the veil after the Church of England school in Dewsbury, West Yorks, said pupils found it hard to understand her.
-
Twitter
nullifidian @almightygod: probably reprogrammable, with lasers, and lots and lots of flashing lights
-
Chat
Join nullifidian on IRC in #atheism at blitzed.org or use the chat right here
Or head on over to Secular Chat.
-
Feeds
-
Current readers
-
Recently played
-
Recent Comments
-
Recent Posts
-
Tags
- advertising
- anti-science
- argument
- atheism
- bad argument
- BBC
- BBC News
- bible
- bigotry
- blasphemy
- blog
- books
- cartoon
- catholic
- Charles Darwin
- chart
- christian
- christianity
- Christian Voice
- Christopher Hitchens
- complete and utter stupidity
- creationism
- culture
- dogma
- Edinburgh
- education
- employment
- entertainment
- evidence
- evolution
- evolution denial
- faith
- fallacy
- finance
- funny
- government
- healthcare
- history
- homophobia
- humanism
- humour
- image
- intelligent design
- islam
- Jerry Springer:The Opera
- Kent Hovind
- legal
- literalism
- LOL
- London
- lying for Jesus
- magical thinking
- media
- medicine
- meetup
- Mohammed
- muslim
- news
- nullifidian.net
- offense
- opinion
- parody
- personal
- petition
- photo
- Photoshop
- politics
- question
- quote
- reality
- reality check
- religion
- respect
- response
- Richard Dawkins
- Sam Harris
- satire
- science
- Scotland
- scripture
- secularism
- special treatment
- Stephen "Dogshit" Green
- superstition
- taking the piss
- technology
- television
- The Guardian
- The Independent
- theocracy
- The Telegraph
- The Times
- thought
- UK
- USA
- video
- web
- wingnut
- woo
- wow
-
Archives
