Gods Deconstructed

Beliefs and their objects, dismantled.

On the requirement that Almighty God must be acknowledged by atheists in the State of Kentucky

According to Alter Net , Kentucky law states: “The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God as set forth in the public speeches and proclamations of American Presidents.”

And in an affront to the Glory of Lord God Almighty, according to the Digital Journal, American Atheists have submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in a bid to overturn a Kentucky homeland security law which can send atheists to jail for up to 12 months for refusing to acknowledge “Almighty God.”

A couple of questions immediately arose in my mind: 1) How can the Authorities of Kentucky know that God is offended by atheists who do not acknowledge him and 2) How can they know that God requires the offending atheists to be jailed?

It seems to me there is a way out of the impasse that is fair to all parties and will ensure that we all know what God wants.

Obviously, there is another consideration to be taken into account once we find out what God wants if the legal system is to be fair to God and that is to ensure that God is given an appropriate monetary award for the losses he incurs by being called to attend the courts by the Authorities of Kentucky. This, of course, must be paid in full by atheists once the case is proved. However, we must also be fair to the atheists accused of offending God in the unlikely possibility the case is not proven.

That said:

“Therefore it is required that the Authorities of Kentucky must instruct lawyers to issue a subpoena requiring that God attend the court in person to explain why He is offended when atheists do not worship and acknowledge Him. God must also declare any financial loss He suffers each time an atheist does not show due deference. God must also declare the substantial financial loss He suffers each time he is required to attend the court. Further to these requirements and demands, in the interests of fairness and love, each time God does not attend court substantial damages must be paid to the accused atheists and a fine levied against those who have claimed to speak for God for failing to ensure that He attended the court as required.”

Obviously, lawyers would need to ensure the wording meets all the requirements of law but I can see no reason why a fair and loving God would not agree to it.

Destruction of Democracy

Destruction of Democracy

Why I Think Jesus Didn’t Exist: A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind

Dr. Richard Carrier describes how he examined the methodology af Jesus myth proponents, found it wanting and created an academic methodology that would stand up to peer review.

The Truth About “Atheist Tolerance” and Other Self-Delusion

rogerivanhart:

Tolerance of intolerance is a diminution of our humanity, our ability to empathise with those whose opinions and ideas differ from our own.

Originally posted on @Gspellchecker's Blog:

I spend a significant portion of my time debating and exchanging views with fellow primates on Twitter.  I make a rule of never being abusive, hostile or assuming to know what someone else believes.  I frequently pose my responses as questions, in order to avoid being presumptuous.

I also never tell anyone they haven’t the right to believe what they want to believe, as this would clearly be wrong.  I think the most I am guilty of is sarcasm, mockery and ridicule.  I’m perfectly comfortable with this.

I make sure I deal with the actual statements put forward, whether they are made to me specifically or to the “Twitterverse” in general. I aim to do this as calmly as possible and in a civil manner, often pointing out logical fallacies, or citing sources to address failures to understand established scientific concepts or terminology.

I’ve sent more than 11,000 tweets, and…

View original 3,247 more words

Giant Leaps

Giant Leaps

Giant leaps are impossible without many tiny steps.

Conservative MPs to campaign for ban on eating black pudding!

Conservative MPs, angry that Parliament has lifted the ban on gay marriage, are to campaign to ensure other biblical prohibitions are enforced.

The MPs have decided that as the command in Leviticus 18:22 that a man should not sleep with another man as he does with a woman has been so disgracefully overturned they will now concentrate on Leviticus 3:17 and demand that eating blood must be banned.

However, there is a problem in that blood forms a significant percentage of the MPs favourite meat, roast beef. It has been decided, therefore, that products consisting mainly of blood should be banned – and that means black pudding.

It is expected that a significant number of Conservative MPs who eat black pudding with their English breakfast will refuse to support the forthcoming bill but the majority feel that giving up black pudding is essential if biblical prohibitions are to continue to be enforced, the gay marriage vote can be eventually overturned and common conservative values of decency can be restored.

Nature: Social Evolution: The Ritual Animal

Nature: Social Evolution: The Ritual Animal

Dan Jones, in an article published by the online science journal Nature, explores the evolution of ritual and asks if ritual could explain the evolution of human civilizations. While the article does not cover the evolution of belief itself it does show how closely the imaging and patterning associated with the human mind could be responsible for the rise of religions and the need of most human to feel they are part of a group of like-minded individuals. But, warns Jones, rituals can be used not only to establish social cohesion but to induce terror as well.

14 year-old girl asks: Has science explained religion?

14 year-old girl asks: Has science explained religion?

Catherine Hochman was just 14 when she asked the question in teen magazine KidSpirit. Maybe she would not come to the same conclusions now but I find it heartening to know that a teenager would even consider asking the question in what is essentially a religious blog.

I happen to think that science is getting ever closer but, as Catherine points out, it is not there yet. If and when it does happen, there will be tremendous upheaval as so many humans are nowhere near psychologically able to cope with the implications.

Anyway, I hope you read the post and see what you think.

Your Christmas Meal

This Christmas (Christ Myth, Mithras Day, Saturnalia, Solstice Celebration or whatever you like to call it) will you sit down to a meal that includes meat? Whether it is a meal of turkey, goose, beef, salmon, pork, venison or some other meat, maybe a combination of meats, will you say a grace or a prayer to whatever supreme being you believe in? Or none if you are an atheist?

This year, though, would you mind doing something else for me?

Would you mind just sitting still for a brief moment before you begin your feast and think of the animal that gave its life for your enjoyment? I say enjoyment because we all eat far more than we need at this time of year, don’t we? But would you spend a moment wondering how the animal lived its life, whether it enjoyed its own food, whether it was an alpha or a lesser member of the flock or herd? Was it bullied by others? Was it treated as a valued member or as an outcast or a freak? Ask yourself how the animal died. Did it know it was going to be killed? Was it afraid? Was it treated with respect?

I know I will sit down to enjoy a meal of turkey and all the trimmings with my daughter and her family. We will pull crackers and the house will be full of the laughter of their children, my grandchildren. In the evening I shall have a tea that probably includes ham sandwiches, possibly some turkey left over from their main meal. And at both meals I shall say a silent thank you to the animal(s) who gave their lives so that we might enjoy our meals.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating meat. I love it. I am not a vegetarian or vegan. Not that I have anything against anyone who disagrees with eating meat. I respect their right to eat what they like. Perhaps it is because I eat meat, however, that I try to respect the lives, and deaths, of the animals I consume.

Maybe, just maybe, if we all think about the animals we are eating at this time of year our thoughts will stay with us and we will think about animal welfare throughout the year ahead.

Whatever you decide, have a great time over the coming weeks and enjoy a wonderful meal, and I hope you are also able to enjoy the season and the feeling of happiness and contentment being with friends and family can bring.

BBC’s bias against gay men.

The BBC today reported on its website ‘Highest-ever HIV diagnoses in gay men’.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20526380

The BBC reported that:

“The number of gay and bisexual men being diagnosed with HIV in the UK reached an “all-time high” in 2011, according to the Health Protection Agency (HPA).

It said there had been a “worrying” trend since 2007, with more and more new cases each year.

Nearly half of the 6,280 people diagnosed last year were men who had sex with other men (MSM).”

Sky News reported the same story.

http://news.sky.com/story/1018117/alarm-as-hiv-cases-in-uk-soar-to-record-high

Sky reported:

“A record number of people in the UK are living with HIV, with almost a quarter of those with the virus not aware they are infected.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) says there are about 96,000 people who have the HIV – an all-time high.

Nearly half of all infections in 2011 were through heterosexual sex. Of these, more than half were probably acquired in the UK, compared to only 27% in 2002, according to a HPA report.”

Note the difference in emphasis? Is the BBC biased against gay men? It would certainly seem so. Why should this be? Well, the BBC is a very religiously-biased organisation. Considerable coverage is given to religious events, services are broadcast, Radio 4’s Thought for the Day is strictly religious and the BBC boasted that it had ‘seen off the atheists’ when secular organisations demanded that the secular worldview should be represented and the BBC refused.

Where does the BBC get its bias from? Could it be the Bible, and in particular Leviticus? Homosexual sex is forbidden in Leviticus. But, then, so is the eating of blood. So why when there is a meat-poisoning scare does the BBC not immediately blame black pudding eaters for being behind the poisoning?

Post Navigation

Cancer Research UK - Science blog

The latest news, views and opinions from Cancer Research UK

WOW Petition Campaign

Site of the Resistance to the War on Welfare

The Hardest Hit

Fighting cuts to support for disabled people

Ray Ferrer - Emotion on Canvas

** OFFICIAL Site of Artist Ray Ferrer **

No Country for Women

Beliefs and their objects, dismantled.

Shit You Didn't Know About Biology

Unrepentantly celebratory insights into life on Earth's under-appreciated, under-acknowleged, and utterly amazing stories

Cell to Self

A Journey Through the Science of Life

Kathleen Van Looveren

Anthropologist & Writer

The Monster's Ink

Never Hide Your Light

suzzeq's Blog

A fine WordPress.com site

The Secular Society

Ireland's Youth-Led Secular Movement, respecting those of all faiths.

Gods Deconstructed

Beliefs and their objects, dismantled.

TED Blog

The TED Blog shares interesting news about TED, TED Talks video, the TED Prize and more.

Modest Monist

Secular Snapshots

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers