Before commenting about the atheist rift, or claiming there is sexism/racism within the atheist community, educate yourself about Elevatorgate by reading this factually-accurate satirical epic
KPFA deplatformed Richard Dawkins. This was entirely predictable and, actually, we know very well who has been paving the way for this.
Mehta failed epically to hold accountable three public servants who are hindering the efforts to fight Muslim terrorism, and made up a shitty excuse for their behavior (with no supporting evidence whatsoever), throwing two fellow secularists under the bus in the process
You can’t indoctrinate people into facts. Telling children there are no Smurfs, leprechauns, fairies or gods, is no indoctrination. Is being responsible
Francis conveyed that practicing Catholics are better than non-practicing Catholics. That is demonstrably false:
Treating Islam as a race, instead of as a religion, hinders the efforts to treat all citizens equally under the law, by way of giving Islam a special treatment, that is religious privilege.
Arch-vulture Glenn Greenwald could not miss the opportunity to exploit the death of six Muslims in Quebec and pin it on atheists
The atheist rift is between people who follow Enlightenment principles and those who believe in authoritarian principles
It’s not an attack on Muslim population — the ban only applies to places and circumstances where it is legally required to see the full face of individuals for identification purposes.
Catholic priests, nuns and bishops participated in the genocide in Rwanda, and incited it from their pulpits — they admit it 22 years later.
Besides the newsworthiness of the truth, there are at least three reasons why it is desirable that politicians and journalists begin to admit the relationship between religion and the terrorist acts it inspires:
The problem is not taking a belief to an extreme, but the fact that said belief is extremist in itself — a football referee or a poker player can be very purist with the rules, a ‘extremist’ if you like, and he will never kill anyone because that is simply not in his book.
“When people pray before meals and you sit there wondering what you should do?”
I start eating. I don’t respect religious beliefs.
The interpretation of a text occurs when it is unclear in its literalness, so it is necessary to go to the context or the principles assisting it as motivation. Are they going to argue that god dictated its magnum opus in such a way it would lose consistency over time, or with metaphors that would cause confusion depending on who interpreted them?
farfetched to claim that people who keep denying the relationship between religion and terrorism have blood on their hands?
An interesting way to remove the superstitious enforcement in the last moments of life. How would you want your obituary to replace the religious symbol?
Maybe Weinberg wasn’t as accurate as he could have been, but his statement remains true to a certain degree. Some times evil is done without invoking a god; but it is always done with the psychological set of tools that characterizes religion.
– What if you’re wrong and there is a god?
– Then he has a lot to answer for!
The argument that the rules can be skipped if you have an imaginary friend has won once again — thank you Waris Ahluwalia.
None of the people who’re on the bandwagon to smear Richard-Dawkins do it for click bait. They do it out of hate. Plain and simple, visceral, old fashioned hate.