Now you might think that the media would just ignore what an individual with no significant public standing might spout on youtube. Nope: the goal was to manufacture outrage by doing a bit of a ring around to firstly the police, then the guy’s work, then the professional group for his job title then the usual suspects of a priest and Muslim leader (who have devoted their lives to peddling misinformation and fibs as gospel truth).

Now the only one that mattered was the police: and they told the paper to politely get stuffed as there was no crime committed (this is a modern, secular democracy, not a dictatorship enforcing bronze age supernatural dictatorships). That really should have been end of story. If we’re going to ask religious leaders who put ordaining women priests in the same category of crime as paedophile priests or who blame rape victims as asking to be raped because they refuse to dress up in what Professor Richard Dawkins referred to as a “bin liner”.

I have absolutely no idea what Dawkins was getting at!

Anyone asking these twits what they think about anything is quite often going to get a load of rubbish. It’s like asking the pope (an elderly virgin who wears frocks) for sex advice.

So in light of all this: I’d like to put forward the idea that religions don’t have rights, only people have rights. Ideas don’t get to claim rights or make demands of people to not offend or question those ideas.

Suddenly the idea morphs into unquestionable religious idea.

Humanity had a very hard time making what limited progress it has made with respect to science triumphing over whatever some desert dwelling possibly mentally ill prophets have said happened. World not flat: blasphemy! Slavery not fair? Blasphemy! Sun not orbiting Earth? Blasphemy! Only trouble is that back then questioning what was written in those books meant you got tortured and killed. Still does in many places in the world sadly.

So I think Alex quite accurately said:

“It’s just a f—ing book,” he says.

“Who cares? It’s your beliefs that matter. Quite frankly, if you are going to get upset about a book, you’re taking life way too seriously.”

But it seems we have at least two organisations (his work and his professional organisation, both which should be defending him against such blatant blasphemy driven censoring efforts.

Letter to Chancellery at QUT
Showing how not to be a secular, sensible organisation: QUT.

To the Chancellery,

I was just wondering why you have taken the extraordinary step of placing on leave one of your staff exercising their free speech and freedom FROM religion? It appears the vice-chancellor hasn’t made the effort to stand up for their employee or our freedom of religion anti-discrimination laws, but hopefully someone will have some sense.

In an article in Brisbane times today:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-atheist-burns-koran-and-bible-20100913-157ao.html

QUT Vice-Chancellor Peter Coaldrake moved to distance the university from its employee.

‘‘QUT does not condone the destruction of any religious artifacts. This was a personal view and action expressed in the person’s own time,’’ Professor Coaldrake said.

‘‘[Mr Stewart] does not associate himself with QUT in the clip.

‘‘QUT is tolerant of all religions and welcomes staff and students from many countries to our university and regularly celebrates their cultures and religions.

Your opinion should have been that a member of your staff was acting within the law and within the realm of his freedom of religion that you have no position on the matter. If you’re going to shuffle people off for distasteful beliefs: can I suggest you exclude anyone holding Christian or Islamic beliefs as a priority over someone demanding rational/proof for their beliefs.

That you seem to regard blasphemy as a matter worthy of condemnation and forcing them to take leave is pretty poor. I would have hoped freedom FROM religion would rate more highly in the grand scheme of things in an educational institution in our secular democracy.

Would you care to comment on the content of the books in question as to whether you approve of their message (since you seem to be delving into matters well outside the scope of your duties). In particular:

• Qur’an 4:34 sanctions domestic violence (“beating”) for disobedient women. Do you have a position on this? I might direct you to the various campaigns in Australia (such as the “Australia says no”) which indicate a strong government/legal preference towards eliminating domestic violence.
• Scattered throughout the Qur’an and bible are references to slavery (“that which your right hand possesses”): do you have a position on slavery? I couldn’t find one on your website.. perhaps I assumed that like in any modern society: the position would be condemnation of any text which advocates such a horrible concept.
• Bible (and Qur’an) puts forward the concept of blood sacrifice (Isaac/Abraham), genocide (various times by an authoritarian dictator figure “God”), infanticide (again a vengeful god kills all the first born children of an entire nation). Can I infer from your stance that you are supportive of the notion of killing children as a way to pay the debts of some small number of adults. Perhaps that is standard practice in the HR department of QUT?
• Incest appears in both books with a man (Lot) having sex with his two daughters (in the bible there’s alcohol involved, not in the Qur’an). Both books later refer to the incestuous father as a good and just man. What is QUT’s position on incest? Would you shuffle someone off on leave if they advocated a pro-incest stance? Or just those who light up a few pages containing pro-incest stories like the bible/qur’an?
• A complete intolerance for other religious viewpoints (including stories of murder/torture of those with different religion). If you’re not going to demand every Christian/Muslim take leave for their religious beliefs that Atheists or other religions are evil etc then you aren’t in a position to single out a person who does not have a religious viewpoint.

So could you please tell me what your stance on those items, as you seem mortified by the possibility that someone may have, in their own time, burnt pages containing those stories/concepts (which are by our modern, secular society’s standards: completely and utterly abhorrent).

I’d suggest that as blasphemy is not a crime under Australian law: you re-instate Mr Stewart to full duties and perhaps show some defence of the freedoms we enjoy in this country as a secular, democratic and civilised society (very far removed from that described in those two books Mr Stewart used as cigarette paper).

As it currently stands QUT is taking a pro-censorship, anti-freedom from religion viewpoint and discriminating directly on the grounds of a person’s religion (which is a violation of your duties under federal law I might add). If I was Mr Stewart I’d be considering my legal options as you are well out of line in your actions as an employer subject to the anti-discrimination laws.

Regards,
Nathan Lee

Yet another "put to death" lesson from the Bible.

So on to the other target for a letter! Now if only I were able to rustle up a mob with pitchforks, these protests would be a lot less intellectual and a lot more bloodbath-like.. Just like the more superstition run parts of the world do it.

Letter to Queensland Law Society

The other, quite similar letter to the society that decided to distance themselves from his actions and from our secular legal system it appears:

To the CEO Noela L’Estrange or other,

I was just wondering why you would be unsupportive of one of your members exercising free speech and freedom FROM religion?
In an article in Brisbane times today:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-atheist-burns-koran-and-bible-20100913-157ao.html

The Queensland Law Society condemned the clip but has not commented on Mr Stewart’s status as a registered lawyer.
“The Queensland Law Society does not support or condone Mr Stewart’s recent actions or views,” CEO Noela L’Estrange said.

Your opinion should have been that while ever a member of your profession was acting within the law and within the realm of his freedom of religion that you have no position on the matter.

That you seem to regard blasphemy as a matter worthy of condemnation is pretty poor.

Would you care to comment on the content of the books in question as to whether you approve of their message (since you seem to be delving into matters well outside the scope of your duties). In particular:

• Qur’an 4:34 sanctions domestic violence (“beating”) for disobedient women. Do you have a position on this? I might direct you to the various campaigns in Australia (such as the “Australia says no”) which indicate a strong government/legal preference towards eliminating domestic violence.
• Scattered throughout the Qur’an and bible are references to slavery (“that which your right hand possesses”): do you have a position on slavery? I couldn’t find one on your website.
• Bible (and Qur’an) puts forward the concept of blood sacrifice (Isaac/Abraham), genocide (various times by an authoritarian dictator figure “God”), infanticide (again a vengeful god kills all the first born children of an entire nation). Can I infer from your stance that you are supportive of the notion of killing children as a way to pay the debts of some small number of adults. It’s a little outside the legal system in this secular democracy, but..
• Incest appears in both books with a man (Lot) having sex with his two daughters (in the bible there’s alcohol involved, not in the Qur’an). Both books later refer to the incestuous father as a good and just man. What is the society’s view on incest?

So could you please tell me what your stance on those is, as you seem mortified by the possibility that someone may have, in their own time, burnt pages containing those stories/concepts which are by our modern, secular society’s standards: completely and utterly abhorrent.

Perhaps while considering answers to my questions you can refer to our democratic, secular legal system for inspiration for an appropriate response.

Regards,
Nathan Lee

Now you’d think that a group charged with looking after a bunch of legal types would be more interested in Earthly legal matters. Sadly no. This isn’t unique I might add: if you look at what happened to Rushdie. Instead of defenders of freedom, there were any number of people clamouring to defend the indefensible: a death threat which lead to him having to uproot his life and hide from the nutcases. The pope also joined in on that too, so the Catholic mob can share some of the blame for not standing up for freedom (continuing their clean record of campaigning against the rights of individuals over the rights of religion).

Excercising your rights may piss off ignorant barbarians. That they get offended while hiding behind the same rights offends me. Well, as much as I tend to get offended.

Atheist outrage?
Let’s look at what would happen if someone burnt a copy of say, “Origin of species” or “The god delusion”. Would there be rioting? Murders? Riot squats and burning buildings?

Atheist inspired crimes throughout history.

Nope. That’s because if you aren’t driven by superstition then a book is just a book and certainly not worth killing someone over. That the immediate thought from the muslim leader was to ask his brothers (I guess the sisters are all so nicely divinely repressed and subservient that they don’t rate a mention) to remain calm. At what point do we stop trying to overlook the ease at which vile acts, vile viewpoints etc can find a solid divine justification in these most horribly outdated books. Until they get a major overhaul to incorporate the advances in the last thousand or so years. The Qur’an and Bible could do with an upgrade to include such things as equality for women, freedom of religion, gays as people, democracy rather than authoritarian dictatorship (would have to be able to vote in God however), geological record of the universe, the elimination of blood debts, no stoning, no beatings, no death penalty.. free acceptance of the marvels of bacon!

Not quite cooked enough yet though.

Until then, if someone wants to buy a book: they can do what they please with it (like any other book).

I wouldn’t mind staging an atheist/science book burning just to show the twits how sane people handle books getting a BBQ. It isn’t like the books vanish in these days of e-readers and amazon.com stockpiles.

High priest of the Atheists? More like word warrior..

The picture at top starts with a dig at Richard Dawkins:

Richard Dawkins – High Priest of the Atheists, and one of only two people to ever appear on the ABC’s “Q & A” who were more smug than host Tony Jones

I actually felt embarrassed that Richard was plonked amongst the group he was. Some slippery worms of politicians who had the most childish elusive answers and comebacks.
Sounds like Anthony’s just pissed that on his side of the religious the Jewish representative on the show that night was pretty vague and the Christian representative(s) downright embarrassing. Fielding certainly couldn’t give a straight answer as to whether he thought the world was less than 10,000 years old.

Family Guy on Creationists vs retarded intelligence.

But back to Anthony’s rant (I appreciate a good rant, especially when it’s in disagreement):

When people point out Nazis, Soviets, etc, then people like Richard Dawkins say that those atheists didn’t commit their atrocities in the name of atheism.

Dawkins is right in that atheism  “an absence of belief” does not provide any justification for atrocities. It’s like saying not believing in the Easter bunny would give me the arguments to justify me killing those that do believe in Easter Bunnies or justification for jumping off a building. Any justification for that has to come from somewhere else (either self made reasons or in the teachings of a political/religious viewpoint). I would also argue that without a belief in an afterlife: atheism provides a disincentive to lay down your life or jump into violence lest someone snuff out the one and only provable life we have.

God might tell you though
Not believing in a god doesn’t imply you have to kill those that do. Nor does it demand you force others to not believe (or kill if they refuse).
Let me think whether I could find justification for that sort of thing somewhere? Hmm…

Another swing and a miss for Biblical morality

Belief in another god might however provide reasons/justification if that god has supposedly told you in some book (or via some prophet) that non-believers need to die. There’s no book, list of sins, directives, moral suggestions or any such thing involved in simply “not believing in the fairy tales”.

Combining Atheism with Ideology to justify

There could be an atheistic viewpoint that the damage to society caused by religion was worth killing believers, but that would be justification found in utilitarian (greater good) philosophy, not atheism/not believing in itself.

The magic card from magic skygod religious book. Justify anything you want!

History lesson for Anthony
Anthony is also quite ignorant (or glossing over the realities) of history by the sounds of it (like most religious types who spend far too long reading bibles/torahs/qur’ans rather than anything useful).

Put it down, pick up another book, any book will do!

Atheism most definitely wasn’t the driving theology/philosophy of the Nazis, it was very much a Christian inspired thing if we want to get down to it.

Hitler the Christian

Hitler thought he was the chosen leader and was not an Atheist. The ever wise Vatican didn’t think he was an atheist either when it gave support back in the 1930s (oh, don’t worry, they realised that god’s first contact on earth wasn’t so faultless later.. but hey, it helped get rid of a bunch of their long despised Jewish followers).

From http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm we get an idea of Hitler’s religious views:

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people…. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.”
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

Yep, ever the rampant Atheist there in old Adolf.. That’s how I identify myself as an atheist: by spouting on like a bible thumper about how much of a Christian I am. Although I guess maybe he was Atheist in private and a huge hypocrite like Mother Theresa (who did not buy the theology she was peddling to the poor and desperate).

The “Hitler was an atheist” and “nazis were atheists” is a Christian cop out because he was not only a very publicly declared Christian, but he used Christian theology to strengthen his own ideology (nothing adds that bit of marketing “wow!” like throwing God’s name around a bit). He also got approval from the church while he was doing his evil romp around the world. I’d go further and point out that god bears a lot of similarities with Hitler (authoritarian, genocidal dictator) except that Hitler only got to torture people up to the point when they die; God gets to extend that to “all eternity” if you fall on his wrong side.

Stalin and Mao the Atheist-ideologist butchers
Stalin/Mao however were more what you’d call atheists. But the justification for doing what they did was most definitely from something else (the old “Stalin had a moustache too (and Hitler too!!), was that to blame for killing people?” argument).

Socialism/communism which in effect created a living deity out of its heads of state (ask Chinese about the miracles and reverence toward Mao.. or go see their tombs) or an unquestioning belief in some prime directives a la “commandments of the party” type stuff.
Stalin and Mao viewed religion as weakening the authority of their regime and by the self serving rules of their regimes: it was just another threat. Just like higher education and the middle classes were a threat. Religions that have a head of the religion (e.g. exiled Tibetan leader, Catholic pope) are banned in their original form in China to this day. You can keep the religion if you ditch the leader nonsense is the Chinese view.

Killing off the “elite” under Mao had absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs or not, it was just eliminating a threat to the communist movement. Just like clamping down on democracy protests and political activists is regarded as necessary under China’s current system: because it is a threat.

Piles of atoms
Anthony then strays into the topic of whether or not human beings are worthless if we don’t have a god watching over us at all times:

A genuine atheist ought to agree that there is neither anything sacred about a human being, nor any other living thing.  Thus, a living thing is simply a complex arrangement of a bunch of atoms or chemicals, as is a tennis ball, a tin of paint, or a laptop computer.

and:

“what is their justification for having a morality and a purpose?”  Why does a bunch of atoms (regardless of complexity) require a code of ethics and morality?

Define “sacred” as it is a bit of a bullshit word when used like this. If sacred means “belongs to god” then it’s meaningless, if sacred just means important: lots of things are important to lots of creatures without any idea of what god is. Food is important to everything from single celled organisms up to elephants. Is food sacred? Or are only things that can pick up a bible and switch off their proof centre of their brains?

I am not the centre of the universe

You are not a unique snowflake.

An atheist tends not to believe that the world was created specifically around the needs of themselves. They don’t believe that our sole purpose to hang around praising god until that god decides at some point to wipe out all life (again supposedly!) based on some rather poorly thought out morals that bear striking unenlightened resemblance to the rules men lived by in the barbaric time in which they were written.

Yes, we are just a complex arrangement of a bunch of atoms (but driven by some absolutely amazing biological processes). The insides of us are common amongst other animals (there’s no magic fairydust/god wound clock mechanism/soul keeping us going compared to them). Perhaps the author hasn’t poked their nose out of the bible long enough to hear an old saying “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”.
Anthony: I’ll by your car for the sum of the raw components if you truly believe that anything is only worth what the smallest individual bits and the concept of value adding escapes you.

You might as well ask: why does a bunch of copper atoms need electricity passed through it? The answer is: it doesn’t, but if the bunch of atoms happens to be part of a light-bulb: then it can produce light/heat if it has it. Humans don’t need morals/laws so long as they’re happy with complete anarchy. Fortunately we’ve realised over time that we can achieve more if we have some laws (and collective agreement to stick to those laws) that stop people murdering you for food/sex/shelter. So the collective realisation of humanity is that with a bit of structure and some broad agreement to get along – the sum total of humanity can burn so much brighter than an anarchistic mess of individuals clawing over each other for basic needs.

So of course we’re more complicated than our atoms! Of course with a highly sophisticated brain we’ve developed the ability to reason (well, sometimes), so it’s part and parcel of being able to discuss, debate etc. that we would have communication and discussion of behaviour (aka “morals”). Or simply the lessons might be learned that if you often fight, steal, kill, rape etc: then your chances of survival are reduced simply through the process of “common sense karma” (e.g. piss enough people off: one will put you down permanently).

I really don’t know where to begin with how wrong the idea that conscious animals like humans would not use their brains to think without some belief in a god.

People have a brain, occasionally they use it.

One might ask the author as a believer, why, if your fate is so decided and you’re living at the whim of a universal dictator: you worry about doing anything at all if your life is so heavily influenced by a god.

Flip the switch you fool!

“Finally, I suspect that so-called atheists deep down aren’t really atheists at all.  Like most of us, I suspect they are agnostics.  They just lie at the atheistic end of the agnostic spectrum.  Likewise, deep down most God believers lie at the theistic end of that same spectrum.”

Atheist just means some variety of “without belief” not absolute denial (as religious people are used to). So it isn’t “in denial of god when faced with evidence”.
You can generally assume that Atheists = agnostic as the vast majority would be most welcome for evidence of a god. The religious have been dodging giving any proof for so many thousand years. Agnostic is a subset of Atheist. Difference with believers is that all that’s probably needed is some sort of evidence to sway an atheist/agnostic to accept that new piece of information; for the religious no amount of proof is required for any of their beliefs, they simply point at a cloud and say “see! God exists!”.

Can we vote God out?

I’d describe myself as Anti-theist. That is, I’m more than willing to accept some definitive proof (not walls leaking oil or cancer patients getting better after chemotherapy), but upon that realisation: I’m as opposed to supernatural authoritarian dictatorships as I am to Earthly authoritarian unquestionable dictatorships. It amazes me how people can want to fight for the right to vote, but accept that in the big picture (and with the notion of eternal torture if you disagree) they’re more than happy to have god in the picture. If we are to believe the religious texts: a consistently evil genocidal (more than genocidal, as all life was supposedly snuffed out by a global flood), murdering, eternal torturing (if we buy that there’s a Hell) sadistic being.

God's slaughterfest far outstrips the Devil. So who is the bad guy again?

If being god is put to a vote every few years and everyone has an opportunity: I might come around from my anti-theist position. But as there’s no even half way plausible proof as yet: I don’t have to worry really. I guess given the schizophrenic nature of the biblical god (old god = wrathful, new god: divided amongst father/son/holy spirit = schizophrenic) perhaps there already IS a voting, because without complete change of personality there’s no way to consolidate the stories of god.

So my dislike of the idea of a universal dictator doesn’t give me any justification for any earthly action, it’s just a particular position of thought. My experiences/views on speaking my mind or participating in debate might motivate me to talk about it (but not my being an atheist). My inability to just let illogical/irrational statements go unchecked might result in me speaking up (just like my view of fairness and views against violence might prompt me to break up a fight, as I did a few weeks back).

Fairness as a secular source for morality

As I am (I hope!) a decent human being and adhere to principles of fairness: I lack any drive to enforce my view on others via the sword or suicide vest (nor will I be likely to find any without the word of god and promises of supernatural rewards). So without need for reading the bible: we inherently know what is horrible/distasteful because it violates the concept of fairness.

Golden Rule in religion. Pity it generally conflicts with what the religion says.

If we wouldn’t want to put ourself in the other person’s shoes then we’ve got an answer as to how we judge morals.

Golden rule for Atheists.

We certainly don’t get them from biblical times (thankfully!), although the golden rule pops up in lots of religious texts in amongst the fluff and silly stuff.

Where is the real miracle here? How about showing us one amputee who has been healed? Surely not too big an ask for any god worth his/her salt? Prayer is a placebo, nothing more. Mary MacKillop herself was proof of the idea that two working hands achieve more than a million hands praying. So let’s not belittle the good she did by ridiculous superstition and the Catholic Church trying to boost falling numbers. If prayer worked there would be no need for people like MacKillop to try to fix things.

Nathan Lee Coogee

Prayer has been shown to be beneficial to the individual praying in the same sense that any other placebo can be useful: positive thinking. That’s not the same as a miracle. You can (and many people do) get the same result without the need for supernatural appeals.

How to think you're helping at the expense of actually helping!

The point I made was that Mary Mackillop (for all her sky god beliefs) did good by going out there and doing stuff. She didn’t sit around and pray to try and fix the world. I’ve absolutely no beef with anyone who is out there trying to help people. Whether wasting time trying to convert them or push an irrational belief system on vulnerable people is morally “good” is another matter (or indeed you’re pushing that ideology and don’t buy it yourself e.g. like that fraud Mother Teresa..).

Our bodies have a remarkable capacity for repair and capacity to function: that’s not a miracle either. It’s amazing biology and shows how fantastically sophisticated our bodies have become after millions of years of evolutionary fine tuning in a harsh environment.

Mary wrote on occasion too, only fair I should write about her.

Here’s how the miracle of Mary Mackillop “cured” cancer:

Kathleen Evans, 66, whose anonymity has been zealously guarded until now, spoke at the Mary MacKillop chapel in North Sydney this afternoon about her incredible survival.

Surrounded by her husband Barry, family members and sisters from the Josephite Order, the mother of five, grandmother of 20 and great-grandmother of two, told how she had smoked since the age of 16 but had given up in 1990, three years before she got the devastating news that at 49 she had cancer.

The tumour, in her right lung, was particularly aggressive and quickly spread to her glands. Within a few months a secondary cancer was found on her brain.

She was told it was inoperable and that chemotherapy and X-ray treatment were considered pointless.

“Besides,” she said, “the odds were just not worth it.

“‘I was only given a couple of months at the most to live so I said thanks but no thanks.

“All I had left was prayer.”

A friend in the Hunter Valley gave her a picture of Mary MacKillop and a piece of her clothing, so Ms Evans, her family and her parish all began praying.

Yep, that’s the “miracle” there. This half baked explanation of how worshipping a piece of cloth (that Mary Mackillop may or may not have wiped her nose with or worn at some stage which she is so attached to that she pays attention) cures cancer.

Just how many other people at some stage have been told their situation was dire and they had better get their affairs in order? How many have subsequently recovered? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

The data so far..

The world is full of people who were told they would die by a certain age and found a way to beat the odds to keep alive and kicking.

What’s the real story?

What we have here is a lady who smoked from the age of 16, gave it up, they found (a gift from God?) cancer and her body was (fortunately) able to clear it up once it recovered from the years of smoking abuse.

Just like someone who’s diagnosed with heart problems or high blood pressure who gives up the burgers, starts going for regular walks/swims and eats healthily has a pretty good chance their body will get back to a good state.

Had we had two identical twins who had identical smoking habits, who were diagnosed with the identical cancers in the same spots in the body at the same stage and one prayed to the grubby bit of Mackillop cloth and the other didn’t THEN maybe we’d start to have something interesting to investigate. Even then though, all it would really be testing would be the power of positive thinking/placebo affect. That’s why I asked for an amputee cure as proof of a miracle (it won’t be long and science/medicine will fix that too.. and then I’ll bet praise goes skyward for that too).

If doctors were surprised, it was because based on probability she had a good chance of being dead in a matter of months (and who could blame them looking at her medical history). That’s assuming of course we can believe that her description of the medical opinion is correct and that she wasn’t receiving any other treatment (the old chemotherapy/intensive care/skilled doctors/multiple operations and therapies that God gets the credit for and doctors get screwed).

Time for some investigative journalism!

Now to tell the Sydney Morning Herald what I they need to do next time to fix their fluff religious “miracle” piece wrapped up as “news”:

• find the doctors involved and talk to them
• find out if there are many similar recoveries recorded
• perhaps include some more grounded, less superstitious reasons for the recovery or talk to someone with a medical/science background about how the body repairs itself

Anyhow, rant over.. Til next time dear readers..

This weekend we had sky-writing (more on that another time), showing that the church funds scammeddonated for this purpose are certainly not helping anyone in need.* Wonder how many people could have been fed, watered, clothed or vaccinated? The dollars involved in sky-writing make my contributions to (genuine and secular) charities e.g. Oxfam, Fred Hollows foundation etc (By all means go donate too!) look trivial. I wonder if instead of spending money fixing people’s eyes Fred Hollows would prefer the dollars collected to go to writing up “Fred Hollows = vision” in sky writing.

I’d wonder why God can’t just settle this once and for all without the need for hiring planes to do what an almighty all powerful being could do with the snap of the fingers. Pull that burning bush out of storage and wave it around the sky if nothing else.

Jesus couldn't just do this himself? Or at least turn the wind down a bit, because it was gone in a matter of minutes.

*Unless your need was to have the sky drawn on for the briefest of moments before the wind blew it away.

The goal of the campaign was to encourage discussion on a mythical figure that has most certainly been discussed ad nauseam for, oh, about two thousand years or so with no conclusive results and no evidence forthcoming to back up the wild supernatural claims. Certainly no need for millions of dollars to be spent on the hope of converting some “cynical Sydney-siders”.

Jesus isn’t about life

I’d have to question whether the campaign knows anything about Jesus. Saying Jesus was all about life is kinda silly when the whole Jesus concept is “God creates son to be sacrificed so that said god will be able to forgive mankind for various accumulated sins”.

The Jesus mythology is pretty clear that the whole point is blood sacrifice (e.g. DEATH): without the end of crucifixion there is no life-death-rebirth type mythology. Sure you can gloss over this and claim that he died for humanity to live, but it’s some pretty spectacular doublespeak to get to “all about life” from “all about death”.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the symbol of Christianity a tortured guy nailed to a cross?

Jesus: all about death. Nailed it!

Doesn’t look like much of a life eh?

Childish (and child targetting) posters making ridiculous claims

Check out some of the posters here (warning 3.2 meg PDF): here.

Let’s look at the claimed creation of a giant chair.

Chairs made by Jesus?

The poster thanks Jesus for it. Hmm.. Funny, because I found this little picture that shows a bunch of PEOPLE making this.

The real creators of the giant chairs

Funny, I don’t see Jesus in there or maybe he’s running the crane.

The real creator is Giancarlo Neri and the piece is called “The Writer”. Of the things claimed as inspiration I didn’t read anything about Jesus either (see here for a PDF archive of a tonne of articles on the work). There’s no mention of the word Jesus and one reference to “my god it’s vast”.
From an article on it:

Neri calls the design a “monument to the loneliness of writing” but says he hopes people in London will make of it what they will.

No dedication to Jesus there. But I guess the Bible Society made an ad of it to promote their religion without any basis. *shrug*

Another “bizarre” one mentioned in a newspaper article thanks jesus for hot chips: have these people never been into the local fish and chips shop? It sure as shit isn’t Jesus accumulating oil burns over the deep fry vats.

Then there’s one claiming Jesus created parrots (I’m a little fuzzy, but I don’t remember any mention of Jesus being around until long after genesis).

Poor evolution gets screwed again. This time outside the USA for a change.

So can just anyone claim natural processes as their own without a shred of scientific basis? I’d like to claim rights to the natural process of cow digestion so that I can claim royalties every time the churches put out future religious bullshit. Since my taxes are subsidising this sort of rubbish, it’s only fair I get my cut.

Then there’s the one I really think crosses (boom-tish) a line  (or two) that shouldn’t be in a public place directed at children. The R.I.P. cartoon one. Here it is:

Some disclaimers missing from this. Oh, and evidence.

Clearly aimed at children (or those of a childish mind I guess) and I think a pretty clear violation of the relevant advertising/marketing code for Children.

Firstly: there’s absolutely zero proof that there’s an afterlife. None. Zip. Zero. If this was a medical product making claims about care it’d need disclaimers and hard evidence.

Secondly: Substitute anyone’s name in there and it would have equal proof. If Christianity can claim it with no proof, why not (other) corporations?

Ronald McDonald looking after the dead. Just as much proof and just as misleading.

Muslims could run an identical ad thanking Allah or Mohammed for looking after their dead mother. Scientology could thank Xenu or thetan alien spirits whatever it is they believe in.

But perhaps more accurate would be the following (which falls within the findings of effectiveness of prayer studies e.g. like this one showing prayer not only doesn’t aid recovery, actually made recovery statistics worse):

Proof that praying really doesn't work that well.

Or perhaps if they’re going to claim parrots and other man made or biological things as the realm of things to thank Jesus for:

Also fair to say huh? Thanks Jesus for cancer, AIDS, pig flu, poor eyesight, birth defects etc.

Of course I’m forgetting the golden rules of this “God” concept which is:

• responsible for all good, even if you did it yourself
• testing your faith or a deserved punishment if bad stuff happens

Anyhow, I lodged a complaint with the advertising standards bureau because I think these ads breach a number of the standards on advertising for children. We’ll see how that goes. If making any and all unfounded claims to promote the Jesus corporation is fine with them then what’s to stop other businesses from doing so (assuming Religion doesn’t magically deserve an exemption to the rules about deceptive advertising and misleading children targeted information).

If you’re going to productise Jesus then just like other product advertisement you can’t make unfounded claims. Keep it nicely contained in that little book of fairy-tales and it isn’t as much of an issue.

Other links:

• Jesus about life (parody site as the idiots forgot to register the .com)
• The official site is here

Neumann’s daughter Madeline died from untreated diabetes on March 23, 2008, surrounded by people praying for her. When she stopped breathing, her parents’ business and Bible study partners finally called 911.

Prosecutors contend a reasonable parent would have known something was gravely wrong with Madeline and that her mother recklessly killed her by ignoring obvious symptoms, such as her inability to walk or talk.

Praying simply does not work and it’s particularly stupid to pray for things which you yourself can fix. In this case prayer was not necessary because no miracle was required just standard treatment of a diabetic child. Modern medicine shits all over this particular problem thanks to insulin. Prayer and wishful religious inspired thinking however do nothing.

Praying for a cure list of steps. Just jump to the last one right away

It’s such a shame that a child ended up dead because of their parents’ superstitious belief that appeals to made up beings could work better than a trip to a doctor. The only trouble is that tolerance of this archaic practice of prayer is pretty widespread.

During closing arguments, Falstad described Neumann as a religious zealot who let her daughter, called Kara by her parents, die as a test of faith.

I wonder though if the witnesses in the trial were ordered to place their hand on a bible before giving testimony?

So is it really any wonder that a Christian might be prepared to sacrifice their child as a test of faith? Isn’t the whole idea of Christianity about a father sacrificing a son. One of the appalling parts of the bible I remember vividly from my (albeit limited) exposure to the bible thumpers for some reason let into school was the story of Abraham and Isaac:

“Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)

A decent, moral parent would tell God where he could stick his idea and ask what kind of fucked up thing that is to be saying. Up there with “love thine enemy” and “turn the other cheek” type lessons in stupidity.

This woman probably blames herself not because she didn’t go to the hospital with its evil science and real medicine. No, she probably blames herself because she didn’t have enough faith. With more faith her prayers would surely have been answered. Or maybe she just thinks this is God’s will and she should be thankful for the chance to go to jail for 20-25 years to learn some divine lesson or fulfil some punishment.

I mean I really hope she has come to her senses and blames herself for believing that prayer was going to work. But sadly blaming lack of faith is how the logic of these religions work to strengthen their stranglehold. Hell, even the two faced Mother Theresa knew praying was bullshit and didn’t really believe it all.

It seems like never occurs that God must have been responsible for the bad thing the first place, or perhaps (if you have to have god in the picture) blessing you with close proximity to a fully stocked, clean, modern hospital.

Let’s hope this is the trigger for the people involved to realise that they need to stop just accepting “god speaks to me”, “I believe in the power of prayer”, “God will answer our prayers” and maybe religion will die out a bit quicker.

The Attorney said this in her closing statement:

“Basic medical care would have saved Kara’s life — fluids and insulin,” Falstad said. “There was plenty of time to save Kara’s life.”

It was an arrogant exercise in self delusion that meant that the real help (which they all knew was just a 911 emergency call away) was requested. It was the adults involved gambling a child’s life on the unlikely event that she might recover by herself (from a state of not being able to walk or talk) so that they could happy-clap each other and praise the lord. So for that reason alone they all need to go to jail.

I love how it appears that people involved still think the parent is praiseworthy.

He said Neumann was a devout Christian and took good care of her four children.

Aah, what part of killing a child makes her a good parent? I’m no parent, but I’m pretty sure that’s a “you have failed parenting” situation. My parents never killed me as a child and I turned out ok.

From an Earthly and morally good (e.g. not Isaac’s old man) standpoint – parents should look after their kids by taking them to a doctor when they’re sick or injured. If this was “mother high on crack lets baby die of neglect” these religious types would be treating this entirely differently. Both are a tragedy for the poor kid, both are situations where someone’s mind is not working quite right. One gets special government subsidies (tax free status) to promote and pollute people’s minds with rubbish, the other is illegal under anti-drug laws.

I’d suggest that the prayer group who sat by with the parents should also be charged for contributing and not calling a doctor when it was pretty obvious that the kid wasn’t getting better. But maybe they thought an exorcism could fix it right at the end.

By the way, if you’re reading this in Ireland: it may be illegal to do so thanks to rediculous “blasphemous libel” laws proposed by the Irish PM.

After all, my saying prayer is stupid, useless and dangerous is insulting to a whole bunch of religions.. *shrug*

Anyhow, let’s hope we see less prayer and more action and maybe people won’t end up unecessarily dying while good people stand by looking skyward when they should just get in and do something.

Creationist swine flu

See the original one here.

A quick update as I’ve been a bit waylaid with getting back to the working world and haven’t even found much time for the new toy. But life’s going fine (and it’s nice to be earning an income after the bumming around on the bike touring in Europe). Heading into “winter” in Sydney I’m pretty relaxed about the temperature as I won’t be getting stuck in snow here.

Nath

Check out this disturbing post at a site called “rapture ready”.

I’ll quote..

..actually, you know what, I’m looking for something to quote that doesn’t make me feel like taking an ice pick to my head when I read of these nitwits who want to act like spoilt children in the hope that their sun god father will wipe out the world. I suppose it’s a natural progression given that prayer achieves absolutely nothing, their religions are fast losing followers and having an all powerful god who appears completely non-existant must sting a bit. I can only hope they work on keeping their virginity forever and thus take themselves out of the gene pool.

Ok, here’s one:

I don’t want the Rapture to happen now. I want it to have happened YESTERDAY!!! I wanna go home daddddddyyyyyyyy!

and another from “WaitingForJesus”:

I very badly want to go home, too. I feel alienated from this world with its ungodly ways. I know it’s selfish of me (because I guess we SHOULD want to stay a bit longer so we can evangelize some more…), but I wanna go RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!

and still more:

The rapture is the blessed hope which is a desire that the Lord puts in our hearts. I suppose its a lot like looking forward to Christmas as a child, the more you look forward to it and anticipate it, the more you enjoy it when it finally comes.

There’s at least hope for one on the forum:

I always thought that the cough syrup in California was a lot more potent than here in Iowa…you have confirmed my thoughts

I mean it’s a pretty sick kind of mindset I think that goes to bed each night and wakes up each morning hoping that the wrath of god will descend upon anyone who hasn’t accepted a bunch of unfounded stories about some guy called Jesus (that just happen to mirror a bunch of astrology based stories the Egyptian religions had long before). If this was anything other than religion these people would be on suicide watch.

To give you further examples of the insanity of this notion that the world will end thanks to rapture: there are a bunch of twits who think that Obama is the anti-christ.

I mean is it any wonder we had 8 years of George W Bush?

They really should put a child proof lid on the ballot box to stop these dickheads getting to vote.

For nearly 60 years, the town council here started its meetings by reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Council members felt the passage gave them guidance and inspiration.

That tradition ended recently after the council’s attorney advised members they should heed a request by a resident, an avowed atheist, to stop the practice.

Although I’m a little confused how one becomes an “avowed atheist”. Talk about contradiction of terms! To whom do I address the vows to declare my lack of having a religious/faith based belief. But I guess if you really think about it: the religious types to make their vows to god are just talking to the air anyhow, so I guess it could be the same.

But back on track: there are a number of these residual superstitions left in our society/government/legal system. I think it’s time for a concerted effort to cull them out and then maybe we can hold our heads high when we pour scorn upon countries with sorcery and witch trials. Might as well be sacrificing a chicken before we get down to business! At least the mess of blood, guts and loud noise would be symbolic of the process that follows.