Paul ’s Comments (group member since Sep 12, 2010)

Paul ’s comments from the Atheists and Skeptics group.

Hi all

In the last year I've started listening to podcasts in a big way, to the detriment of my audio book listening. Most of them are, unsurprisingly, atheist, sceptical and scientific in nature. I wondered what, if any, the rest of you listen to.

The ones I listen to religiously (as it were) are:

Atheism / Scepticism
The Pod Delusion
Skeptics With a K
The Geologic Podcast (George Hrab is the only guy I know who can carry a solo podcast, with the possible exception of Dan Carlin)
The Imaginary Friends Show
Cognitive Dissonance
Skeptics Guide to the Universe
Geeks Without God
Reason
Skeptoid

Science
Big Picture Science
Discovery
The Naked Scientists
Monster Talk

other
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History
Slam Dunk Cinema
The Bugle

and there are a few others I tend to dip into or catch up on in chunks.

I've really slipped off my regular blog reading (probably as it was getting to the point where there were just so many) and tend to read the odd one when someone links to it, here or on facebook or wherever.

MadgeUK wrote: "Female genital mutilation is already against the law Paul. I agree that a government debate would not necessarily lead to a ban but I do think that MPs overall, as in Germany, may favour it provide..."

Indeed, which is one of the things that shows the idiocy of male circumcision being so accepted, simply because it has a long tradition. I do think it is a practice that will die out, although perhaps I'm also being optimistic. I know one of the big aspects is support of the medical community; the difference in rates of non-religious circumcision between the US (where the medical establishment has promoted it for various reasons) and most of Europe is staggering.

The Manchester case does give me second thoughts on this; while I'm completely against genital mutilation, if it weren't able to be carried out in a safe environment by a doctor there would be more botched operations of that kind. I know; that doesn't excuse it, the same argument can be made for other things (such as female genital mutilation), but it does give me pause.

That said, I have signed. At the very least we need the debate, and the education that such things are wrong in all but medical exceptions. I'm not sure a parliamentary debate WOULD lead to a ban, but I would like to see it get that far.

"UK health and social workers and those in the criminal justice system are increasingly having to understand belief in spiritual possession among ethnic minorities, with new research highlighting a particular issue with some sections of the British Asian community blaming mental health problems on the supernatural."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20357997

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-...

"The strongest argument that meat is not essential food is the fact that the Creator of this Universe did not include meat in the original diet for Adam and Eve. He gave them fruits, nuts and vegetables," reads a chapter entitled Do We Need Flesh Food?

The chapter details the "benefits" of a vegetarian diet and goes on to list "some of the characteristics" found among non-vegetarians.

"They easily cheat, tell lies, forget promises, they are dishonest and tell bad words, steal, fight and turn to violence and commit sex crimes," it says.

The chapter, full of factual inaccuracies, refers to Eskimos (Inuit) as "lazy, sluggish and short-lived", because they live on "a diet largely of meat".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19...

An article on the BBC containing two (both rather poor, flat and simplistic) POVs from American writers - one a conervative, the other a former conservative.

You can tell the first writer is full of it when he states "As a practicing Christian of the Hitchens sort (Peter, the good one)", and it goes downhill from there.

I think that the liberal is, however, also wrong. He dismisses lots of effects (the Catholic abuse scandals can't be the cause "because that started over seven years ago"! Idiot). I agree with him that the horrendous attitude of the conservative churches to homosexuality is part of it, but I think more because it is symptomatic of attitudes that are both a general disconnect with the reality that most people see (more people now know others who are openly gay, and they are not evil, child-molesting baby eaters), but also shows conservative Christianity as being generally bigotted and out of touch. The close relationship between the religious and political right in the US is also, I believe, part of this; the young, after all, are generally more liberal than their elders.

He also makes a brief comparison with young muslims, who he believes are hanging more tightly on to their religion. As well as being largely wrong on this (there is quite a lot of evidence that Islam in Western countries is both losing young worshippers but even believers are becoming more liberal), but the crisis in Islam is also more recent (after all, Christianity has been in decline since the Enlightenment, and markedly show since the 19th Century) so the muslim experience is probably more difficult - mixed in with the fact that, as many muslims are immigrants (or children of immigrants) and to an extent culturally distinct and separate, ditching your religion is both more hidden and more problematic. (Alom Shaha has written about the issue of coming out as an atheist in a Muslim community).

I'm sure there have been much better (and probably worse) examinations of the recent US polls, bu this just happens to be the first one I stumbled across.

What an ignorant, blinkered, victim blaming fuckwit.

As I heard someone put it recently: there is only one situation when abortion is acceptable. If a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion.

"If you don't believe in the supernatural, how can you believe that you have supernatural abilities enough to survive?"

What? What is she talking about? As well as the fact that she's dead wrong; the studies are very, very mixed, depending on the way they choose subjects. I believe some do show that religiously inclined people are more willing to give up on life, for fairly obvious reasons. And as societies, those with lower religiosity tend to have better life expectancies and standards of health generally, although that may be because they are "more educated" which, as this woman says, destroys belief in religion.

Fisher really is going all out to become the undisputed king of evil retards.

Hey Dutch

reading this makes me thankful (sic) for living where and when I do. It would be easy to take it for granted. Except in specific, fairly closed, communities - traditionalist muslim, jewish or whatever - the standard attitude to religion in Britain seems to be discomfort or bemusement. Having religious discussions in the public arena (at work, or with acquaintances) it seems that churchgoing believers are the ones who are more reticent about coming out.

I know a lot of people who would say they are 'spiritual' or believe in a vague god, or who identify as a particular religion but find it increasingly difficult to buy into the dogma or feel alienated by the some of the stances of the various churches. For example, my dad considers himself a catholic, and gets very annoyed when I tell him that as he supports birth control, abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage he'd probably get thrown out of the church - if he ever actually went to mass.

Remember, there are no padres in foxholes, but plenty of atheists.

You would hope that someone being as loudly moronic and extreme as this would wake people up. Unfortunately it seems to be par for the course...

The thing that gets me about the US health system (ie, pure market capitalism controlled by a few big providers) is that it costs MORE than any other system on Earth - twice. It costs US citizens more in taxes and then they have to pay for it through insurance as well.

Hell, if that's the price you're willing to pay from 'freedom' from 'socialism'...

The CofE's warnings about the effect on society are laughable, and this threat is truly ridiculous. The only threat here is to the church itself, and that is purely self inflicted; if they continue down this route (which is likely) the will lose all respect from the majority of people.

MadgeUK wrote: "At least I enjoyed it, fellow Republic of Yorkshire Spirit!:D."

Ta Madge. We're currently trying to arrange that, if the Scots do vote for independence, everything North of Birmingham goes with them :D

Just when I think I couldn't have less respect for Cameron, he opens his mouth. It's not that he's standing up for his beliefs (I don't think for a moment he is), it's that he is so blatantly willing to shill for any cause that he thinks will save his sorry skin. Yes, I know; that could be the defining characteristic of a politician, but these cretins are so shameless it is stomach turning.

Still, local elections in a month. I fervently hope (and am almost tempted to pray) that the LibDems get so screwed they'll panic and maybe cause the coalition some problems.

(hmm, perhaps this rant would have fitted better on the Liberal Politics page...)

(just had to share my facebook rant on this one. preaching to the choir, i know - and i also seem unable to avoid religious metaphors! btw, hope everyone is well. i've not been very active lately)

http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/04/09/c...

Now this is one of the things that makes me angry about religion (aside from the various abuses that happen in its name or under its protection, which are often argued to be the fault of sick or evil individuals). Not only does this idiot, Mark Davies (I refuse to give him a title) deliberately misread history - he is either deliberately dishonest or so ignorant concerning the facts of what he is talking about that he should shut his mouth and pick up a few books - the whole tone of his statements drip with the unquestioned assumption that without sharing his particular set of beliefs it is impossible to be good or moral or right. His creed has perpetrated more than its fair share of evil - including the specific one that he wrongly lays at the door of secularism - and yet he still has the gall to act as though any diminution of his church's power will be the end of the world. And the thing is - he's being more honest than most of his co-religionists! That is precisely what these religions insist ("no-one comes to the father except through me"); when you state that you hold the one and only revealed truth Davies' approach is the only one that is consistent. And this is precisely the position that the christian church has ALWAYS taken - until it was forced to back down after centuries of Enlightenment broke its stranglehold. Yes, I know the strident tone we anti-theists take doesn't always help matters, but we'll be buggered if we'll let idiots like this drag us even one day back toward the Dark Ages of ignorance which his and similar organisations need in order to wield the power they once did.

The problem is surely the pretence that abstinence in itself is effective, despite all evidence. I think there is also a subtext of 'blaming the victim'; that people who get STDs or unwanted pregnancies are at fault because they ave in to their animal urges.

The latest on this. Hopefully going on a protest against this man next week, all the more reason to now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics...

"The essence of Christianity is told in the Garden of Eden story. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions... 'Get smart and I'll fuck you over,' sayeth the Lord."

Frank Zappa