June 14, 2008

The Difference Between Animals And Muslims

Something which is very common in the animal kingdom is a general sense of compassion for the young. Animals, Including humans of course, Feel compelled to not just care for a nurture their own young, But also the young of another animals, even another species. Some social species live in groups which have an assigned group of females whose job is to look after the young of the entire group in what has been described as a nursery. We have heard countless stories of a member of one species adopting and raising an infant from an entirely different species, In some cases even spontaneously lactating in order to feed the infant.

Love for the young is widespread among animals.
Dad sits still as his son tries to find his way around the world by his sense of smell.

Even baby leopards get dirty faces. And mum knows it's her job to keep baby clean and free from infection.

A huge St Bernard lays in a state relaxation as a baby chick investigates.

Rhino heads are heavy, Dad gives junior a resting place.

So what could possibly make someone lose what is apparently a universal bond between adult and infant? what one force could make people reject a feeling as strong as a parents need to protect their child? Religion, Of course. But religion doesn't only have the capacity to remove the strong need to protect the young, it also has the capacity to make people swing in the exact opposite direction and even intentionally cause harm to their child and inflict pain and suffering on their child. And for what reason? because it's what their god wants.

Mum offers her babies head to an imam so he can slice it open with a straight razor

Mum looks on gleefully as her child bleeds heavily from a wound she just inflicted on him.

Make daddy proud son... Bleed heavily for god.

The more it hurts the happier god, And mum, Will be.

So what is the difference between animals and mulsims? Compassion and and an inherent need to protect the vulnerable. Just one more reason why atheists care about religion.


  1. Wouldn't the honest, responsible thing be to include some explanation of what (presumably, some sort of Muslim religious practice, but that isn't even stated) the images in this post are depicting?

  2. The images depict people cutting the heads of children open, I don't think their motives or reasons are all too important.

  3. This post is a propaganda stunt of which Goebbels would have been proud of. You take the primitive barabaric rituals of a sector of the shiite tradition and condemn all of Islam as barbaric. Well done Matt. So Atheism is not only a way of escaping one loony belief system for another it is also a way one can justify ones prejudice. For me I cannot see the difference between someone who cuts opens their childrens head and one who says certain people are lower than animals because of their beliefs, they are both barbarians. We slaughter and degrade animals - so does these mean we can do worse to Muslims? Is this not what Goebbels said of the Jews - they were dirtier than rats? I agree that loony extremist beliefs should be railed against but not with more loony extremist beliefs. I must say there are some striking resemblences between your religion and these people:


    So the striking similarities between your kind of atheism and fundamentalist christianity:

    They both think they have the truth.
    They both think the bible is to be interpretted literally.
    They both vilify people who are not their own to the point of hatred
    They both hide their thinly disguised prejudices behind their dogmas.
    Neither live up to their own ideas.

  4. Stay on topic warren or ill delete your replies. if you want to rant about "fundimentalist atheism" then get your own blog.

  5. oh sorry Matt I thought the topic was loony religious beliefs.

  6. yet again people ignore the brutal abuse of children by the religious and criticize people for highlighting it. This is exactly why we need blogs like this, because people like warren will forever sweep this abuse under the carpet.

  7. Warren has a point, frankly.

    You ascribe this ritual to Muslims in general, when in fact it seems to be a particular and traditional sectarian practice not supported by all Muslims at all. There are, in fact, lots of cultural traditions that are sort of nasty that aren't even religious, or even forbidden by religion.

    In any case, can religion be used to justify things that, if you don't believe in its principles, you can't justify? Sure.

    But that isn't a good reason for something like "the difference between animals and muslims." Especially not when animals can be extremely vicious to their own children: it's simply naive to pretend that they can't, especially for the purposes of a comparison.

  8. Well said Robk!

    Imagine if people were slicing kids heads open over football, baseball or thier favourite flavor chips, People whould be outraged. but because its religion people assume its entitled to special treatment.

    Its child abuse, Be outraged and stop giving justification to these fucking animals.

    And again, Even after robk pointed it out, We are yet to have a single person criticising the act of cutting open a childs head. You cowards make me sick.

  9. It's disgusting what people are prepared to do to children in the name of thier religion. Its also disgusting that people would rather moan about bloggers talking about it than moan about the abhorrent child abuse that religions are guilty of.

  10. @banjo-hero & Mohammad

    I criticised this abuse as barbaric I don't think anyone thinks it isn't barbaric. Yet I seemed to have had one of my posts censored by Matt. I for one would not look at these images and say all muslims are lower than animals this is twisting the story to your own ends. There recently was a loon in Austria who kept his family in a dungeon but I wouldn't condemn all Austrians for this. If you outlawed all religion child abuse would not stop. What you blind followers of your own religion don't seem to realise is this you are all guilty of demeaning people by objectifying them. By seeing people as animals you are guilty of the same thing as these people who abuse their children - of ignorance. What Matt didn't tell you is that it is not a proscribed practice even in Iran and has been banned by the leading ayatollah for being unislamic and has been outlawed as barbaric in the few middle eastern countries where it was practiced. So it doesn't really have anything to do with religion just the loony religious fervour of a small section of the shiite community. By leaving this fact out Matt has twisted this story to bolster his own neurotic ideas. So your eagerness to blame religion for everything has blinded you to the facts. Lets face it if the shining glowing light of humanism came in to save the world, if any of its adherents are like Matt, then god help us. We would have another inquisition on our hands. I for one think all religions are batty including humanism and atheism. As Nietzche said humanism is just theism without god.

  11. warren i deleted your post because it was yet another rant about "fundamentalist atheism", Like i said, Stay on topic or have your posts deleted. This blog is not your soapbox.

    and as for not stopping all child abuse by getting rid of religion, I agree, it wouldn't stop all child abuse. But if it were not for religion the filth in these pictures would be arrested. Only religion can make this kind of thing socially acceptable. Only a belief in god can make a parent willfully and gleefully slice open their childs head with a knife and smile as blood pour down their face. Only in religion can justification for such a sick, abusive act be found.

    as for your point about not blaming all austalians for what one mad man done, again i agree, But then he didn't find justification for his actions in being austalian. he didn't keep his children in a cellar because he was australian, being australian doesn't give the justification. The filth in these pictures however specifically do it because they are muslim, They specifically find justification for it in their religion.

    what part of this simple concept are you having trouble understanding?

  12. Well Matt Sorry for my 'ranting' but pots calling kettles black I have to argue with. I don't think these 'filth' as you call them would be arrested. You forget Iran is not the west it is a developing country. We in the west committed all manner of atrocities as we were developing and we used religion for its justification but if religion wasn't there we thought of something else such as king and country as these people would have. Of course they are muslims they live in a muslim country. does this make every murder, every act of child abuse, every crime the fault of Islam don't be ridiculous. What these people are doing is not a religious thing at all they are punishing themselves for chickening out of a war years ago that betrayed one of their saints. This is nothing to do with Islam as a religion this is to do with an event in shiite history. Indonesians are muslims they probably have never heard of this shiite saint. In the phillipines they crucify themselves every easter does this make all christians loonys we have never done this in the west we probably never even heard of this practice until recently.
    The Australian was actually Austrian no he didn't justify his abuse by being Austrian this is my point exactly these people are not representative of Islam as this person is not representative of Austria so why condemn all muslims as animals because it seems to have more than its fair share of nutters. Forgive my cynicism but would you have highlighted this abuse if it was caused by non-religious people I doubt you would have because my point is you are not highlighting abuse what you are saying is you hate religion and you are using emotive images to bolster your views.

  13. It doesn't matter that it's a small part, the point is it's done in the name of religion! Child abuse is wrong, whether it's done EN MASSE or not. ALSO it is Islam that drives them to do this, so don't try to downplay it. Doesn't matter if it's one sect or one million.

    If today you say it's ok for them to abuse children in one sect, then tomorrow it's ok to kill them, etc.

  14. @ anonymous
    Atheists are such drama queens. You cannot see the wood for the trees. Nobody said it was ok for them to do it - it is not ok for them to do it at all from anyones point of view. Just because I oppose comparing muslims to animals does not mean I support this barbarity or even think it is ok because its religious. Its like saying George Bush is a moron so all Americans are morons. As I have had experience and knowledge of America and Americans (I am English by the way) I know they are just like me and are no more moronic than anyone else.
    Apart from the fact Islam does not sanction it, your prejudice and ignorance against religion blinds you to what is really happening here. This is abuse full stop despite for what reason it is done. But you can do anything in the name of religion I could go around murdering people in the name of C of E that does not make mean all anglicans are barbarians and the archbishop of Canterbury would condemn me and distance his faith from me as the leading ayatollah in Iran has done. Mengele did all manner of horrible things to people in the name of science does this make all scientists lower than animals? If atheism was not just another dumb religion you would be more interested in helping these people to understand the error of their ways instead of condemning a major chunk of the worlds population to being beneath animals. It is this sort of blind ignorance that causes loonys such as these to abuse their children. The issue here is not abuse - Matt wants to make the point Muslims are lower than animals and is using powerful emotive images to persuade you to that effect. This is not reasoning this is atheist propaganda

  15. Sorry, but I'm with warren on this one. Firstly, your anthropomorphic interpretation of the animal pictures is weak - lions regularly eat their young, and leopards have been known to. In the wild, dogs eat birds, cute fluffy chicks included. "Love" for the young is not widespread among animals at all, the nuturing instinct is confined to a few of the higher orders of mammals, humans included. Most animals have no relationship with their young of any kind, many eat them given half a chance, some never even see them.

    Secondly, you are indeed guilty of tarring all Muslims with the same brush. Yes, one small sect has a ritual that involves cutting their children, which is frowned upon by the rest of the Islamic world. That does not extend to all Muslims, nor does it imply any connection between being Muslim and being an animal (save for the fact that all humans are animals...). Some countries in Africa practice female circumcision, which is by any measure barbaric - does this mean that all Africans should be described as "animals"? You're a few shaky steps from out-and-out racism here.

    As atheists, our tools are logic, reason and evidence. Leave the emotive hyperbole to the fundies!

  16. Oh look, Another middle of the road "atheist" prepared to make excuses for people who are willing to mutilate their children in the name of their god.

    I'm sick of apologetic atheists. Why don't you go sit in the agnostic corner, You coward.

    Are they muslims cutting open their children's heads because of religion - YES

  17. robk:

    "Are they Muslims cutting open their children's heads because of religion? YES."

    No disagreement with you on that score. What I'm pointing out out is that just because some members of a group behave in a certain fashion does not mean that they all do. I, as it happens, do not believe in the death penalty. Since I am an atheist, does that mean all atheists disagree with capital punishment? I can point you at several who do not.

    In any case, my objection is directed at a combination of inaccurate anthropomorphism (on the one hand) and the drawing of general conclusions from abberent examples on the other. Both have no place in rational argument. I don't in anyway disagree with the premise that this barbarity towards children is a result of religion.

  18. Yunshui. I totally agree with you when you said:

    As atheists, our tools are logic, reason and evidence. Leave the emotive hyperbole to the fundies!

    Even though I would never consider myself an atheist simply because of people such as RobK and Matt I think you hit the nail on the head there.

    Whats a middle of the road atheist? This seemingly by your standard is someone not willing to be hoodwinked by anyone with some idiotic agenda to push in the name of Atheism. Are you not saying the same kind of things that leads to Al Qaeda. Come hate some group in the name of god, socialism, nazism or atheism. Atheism will never be taken seriously until it rids itself of your kind of petty prejudices. I would say Yunshui is a true rational atheist (if there is such a thing sorry for dragging you into this) as he/she can see past the emotive images in Matt's post and you are an extremist. The problems in the world pertaining to religion are not religion versus science it is extremism versus moderatism and to me it is the extremists who are the problem.

    Furthermore What is so cowardly about being agnostic? this is where I disagree with atheism and something I have never understood about Richard Dawkins ideas on it. To me you either believe/disbelieve in god or you don't. I don't believe in god because I have never seen him/her/it and I don't disbelieve in god either as why bother - this means I would have to commit to this belief which is just as daft as believing (in my opinion). To me atheists are deciding there is no god based on scientific evidence but then they would wouldn't they? If you are an atheist, theist whatever, You should decide and think for yourself not be herded into believing it by the church or science or anyone.

    Finally back to the topic at hand. Yes they are cutting there childrens heads open in the name of god and they probably had it done to them by their parents and so on back into history. Even in our wonderfully enlightened secular west we see child abuse being perpetrated by victims of child abuse. So what. What has patterns of abuse got to do with religion take the religion out of the picture and you still have abuse. If religion was never invented then we would still have abuse. I mean you are a supposed rational atheist yet you call people animals is this because of your religious upbringing or to do with you joining your extremist cult or because of your ignorance?

  19. Warren Terror... another controversy just like the other posts I read of yours earlier. Let me assure you that I applaud many of your points. It is biased reporting in the way that this article was written and there are some essential facts that needed to surface from it. Moreover, atrocities against children in the name of religion is the reason we have extremist atheists. Being taught from a young age that this fairy tale is true is psychologically damaging, more so if it comes from the parent. Children are naive and will welcome religion with no thought to its absurdity. After struggling with reasoning, the atheist will tend to look back upon religion with the bitter resentment it deserves.

    As you are an agnostic, you have yet to feel that euphoria of releasing the burden of religion. As an agnostic you have not recapitulated religion enough to resent it. Consider this, if you had never been taught religion as truth, then you would be an atheist, for you are not going to be undecided about the existence of a god that no one you know or have known believes in. Dawkins speaks of agnosticism as cowardice, because the agnostic can't come to grasp that he/she was lied to even though he/she has seen enough reality to recognize religion does not reside in it. The agnostic will sit on the fence between the far-fetched stories told when they were young and naive and the real world that they can clearly see. Us atheists see clearly that god is an unnecessary burden upon the agnostic, and you would not believe how great the relief is when it is finally discarded.

    I held on to agnosticism for over a decade. It was a convenience, in that, I could escape having to justify my beliefs because I lacked solidity in them. I could keep my family pacified in their delusions that my soul was still saved. I could escape thinking about my own mortality in that I saw a world of possibilities after death. Throughout that decade, I rather knew there was no god, but it takes courage to forfeit god as a possibility. If you do not worship a god, do not seriously practice religious ceremonies, and you do include yourself in religious congregations; then you are an atheist that could benefit from some added confidence.

    Always remember though, resentment of religion is not required to be an atheist, but it does typically happen for first generation atheists. Their kids who are not raised with such lies don't typically have much resentment.

  20. Hi Joshua, sorry for lack of reply I don't really follow Matts blog. As this is Matts blog and as I have already been censured for being off topic. As seemingly you are not off topic I will and answer each paragraph in brief although I am not very good at brief. Also thank you for your concern but I think you misunderstand me. I have replied to each paragraph and have separated each response by paragraph I did not include your paragraphs to make it shorter(sorry not good with bold italics and that on blogs)

    First Paragraph
    So what is the difference between extreme atheism and extreme religion? For me there is no difference. I would rather my children were not indoctrinated in anyway by any religion in this I include atheism as I have yet to make the distinction. I am for freedom of thought no matter into which daft areas it takes you. Yes the religion you mention is psychologically damaging but so is the delusion that science understands everything (or will understand it). Science cannot deal with the subjective so well and thankfully it is beyond its remit or else science would be a religion. Science has been compromised by philosophy and in particular atheism. Richard Dawkins is more keen on defending his beliefs than he is science. Also having bitter resentment towards something does not usually make one readily examine that thing objectively

    Second paragraph
    This paragraph Joshua is more telling of your situation than mine. My transition to where I am now is not: religious - agnostic - atheism. Mine is: indifferent - atheism - agnostic. I was brought up by secular parents who gave me the freedom to believe what I wanted. I became interested in science and did a degree in life sciences and debated evolution vs creationism and all the rest of it. However, while doing my degree and in my subsequent employment I have learned there are many sacred cows in biology that one must never desecrate - Neodarwinism and the selfish gene theory being two. As I have never really adhered to a philosophy and I see neodarwinism and the selfish gene theory as useful and educating they are more philosophy these days than science so I pursued my own interests in biology as a hobby. My interest in sympatric speciation, lamarckism and epigenesis led me away from the default biological fold and as I began to realise that so much of atheism's proofs rely on ND and SG I began to see atheism as weak as it all but claims science disproves god yet its own proofs are just as shaky. (please spare me the atheism is not a religion or a philosophy angle tell that to Dawkins et al). I don't think you realise how much courage it takes to say you are an agnostic in science these days. I am an agnostic not because I am trying to appease anyone I am an agnostic to show I think there is no fence. there is no battle between religion and science it is a battle of control and ideology. Einstein said 'science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind' I doubt few of the modern breed of atheists have really thought or understood what he meant by this. To me if there is a fence there is agnostics on one side and atheism and religion on the other. I agree with Robert Winston and Huxley and believe that agnostics are uncertain not of their beliefs but in the certainty of atheists and religionists not because agnostics don't understand but because they question the validity of the claims.

    Third paragraph
    I am now an agnostic not because of any beliefs really but to distinguish myself as a biologist from the lunacy of ID and new atheism by that I mean Dawkins et al again. As a person I have largely arrived at my position by myself and have yet seen any reason to question it. I have recently read the irrational atheist by Vox Day and although I disagree with him on many things in his book he vented all my frustration at having science hijacked by philosophers who have scant regard for the facts. ( I have also read the god delusion, darwins dangerous idea, god is not great and all that bull so If you think I am not well read tell me more I should read). I also do not think not believing in god makes you necessarily an atheist as I don't believe or disbelieve to clarify this I don't believe coke is better than pepsi this does not make me a pepsi-ist as I dislike both drinks

    Fourth Paragraph
    I was effectively raised an atheist and studied science and my resentment comes from science being hijacked by atheism for its own end. It is high time we freed society from such narrow - mindedness as the new atheism presents in my opinion. Science has not proved or disproved god this is rubbish, science should be agnostic it should not believe - it should know. Science needs liberating from atheism as it does from religion. I have yet in my life to even think about god as it is not so important to me. I think yes its possible there is a god but as I have not seen the light I will reserve my beliefs until such a day. My morality has come from the examples my parents gave me and from my own personal belief that certain things are wrong such as murder, rape etc. Now in my agnostic opinion it is ok to believe in god or disbelieve in god or the FSM or fairies if that is where your journey takes you what I dislike is the preaching of the 'truth' by religion or atheism - to me its trying to control peoples minds. Now I fully respect yours and anyone elses beliefs but I do object to science being used as a basis for atheism or any belief.

  21. This is wrong it is against the Muslim religion Allah created for this test in this world. He won't want his creations to be ruined. These parents are not doing a good thing.sorry for your disturbance

  22. Warren, by your explanation there, you are an atheist, but you refrain from using that term because you think of it with multiple negative connotations. There are terrible people in any group whether it be Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhist, Moonies, et cetera. Atheism is not those that wish to disprove god's existence, however there are a good amount of atheist out there with that motivation. Atheists are those that abandon the god theory, just as we've abandoned phrenology and many other wrong routes humanity has taken. Agnosticism is about holding on to the god theory as a possibility. There may be new evidence that arises to prove parts of phrenology as actual science, but until that day, phrenology is not a theory I accept as possible. There may be new evidence that arises to prove parts of the Koran or Bible as true, but until that day, god is not a theory that I accept as possible.

    Science should be used in atheism, not as a point to disprove god, but as a point to represent religion's desire to perpetuate ignorance. There are religious people that find it necessary to hide the truth that science brings from people to perpetuate their beliefs. This has been done with atheists as well and so I can see how you have developed your issues with atheist "hijacking" science.

    Gene selection is a dominating theory in evolution, but not because it helps to disprove god, it is because it follows a good path of logic from what we understand about reproduction versus the old views like Lamarck had. If you feel like gene selection is going in the wrong direction, that's fine. I personally would feel like there are too many gaps of logic in Lamarckism to favour it. It is essential for science to branch out like that, I could be wrong about gene selection just as easily as you could be wrong about epigenesis. One thing I will definitely say is that they are both better theories than what's written in the book of Genesis.

    As for neodarwinism, that is basically a movement not a theory and with any movement somethings are good ideas and somethings aren't. I'm not going to argue the existence of a physical meme any more than I am going to argue the existence of the Higgs particle. They both are theories of science based more on speculation than observation. These theories help us look for what we're missing but seldom are the correct answer. It doesn't mean we should abandon neodarwinist movement any more than we should abandon the quantum gravity movement.

    Religious leaders worldwide are trying to silence scientific discoveries and I will resent those people just as much as I resent the atheists responsible for piltdown man. I will not, however, let the deplorable acts of other atheists make me have any more faith in the pathetic theory of god. I stand here as an independent atheist, agreeing with what I find most accurate regardless of what any religionist or other atheist is doing. That much sounds like you as well, if you could stop grouping the word atheist with these negative connotations that are not part of the basic idea of atheism.

  23. Matt sorry to Hijack your Blog. Joshua, the reasons you outline about agnostics are not true. To me there is a possibility there is a god but for me it is not important. For an atheist it is important, as otherwise why would they say they don't believe - to me I couldn't care less. I doubt that agnosticism is more about retaining the possibility of a god but more about skepticism towards other peoples beliefs including atheism. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins you don't believe in any of the beliefs in the world I go one belief further.

    I think you misunderstand me when I was talking about atheism and science. Atheism is a belief, science is not, atheists can believe science is the basis of all things this is fine. This may or may not be true. However, for me the evolution vs creationism debate is holding up both science and religious debate. There is a lot more to evolution than Richard Dawkins would have us believe. You ask the question if natural selection drives evolution then why do we see scant evidence for it in the fossil record. People will think you are some religious nut or anti-evolution. It is a genuine scientific question. It seems to me evolution occurs and natural selection occurs but is NS the only mechanism or even the main mechanism.

    You say religious leaders around the world are trying to stifle scientific discoverys - which ones the fanatical muslims? the evangelical americans or the atheistic fundamentalists?

    It all smacks of not allowing people to think for themselves. I went to a harvest play at my daughters school the other day it was so saccharinely PC it was laughable. This isn't to protect the religious in the audience as most of those don't mind that religion is so watered down in school. It is sterilised not to offend the atheists who think any mention of anything that is suspiciously superstitious is tantamount to witchcraft. The harvest festival is originally a pagan thing then it became a christian thing now it has become nothing but a sickly sweet PC nod to the brilliance of all the agro corporations and how they feed us. This to me is atheism in practice. If any atheist realised the essence of the harvest festival is too acknowledge something greater than themselves something atheism will not concede as it would allow unsolvable mystery into the world an we cannot have that.

    I am not an Atheist I don't disbelieve in god but I am not a theist, deist, pantheist, spinozan either.

  24. Science too, is a belief. I hate saying that, because many will draw a parallel to science and religion, but I go on to say science is a belief but it is not faith. It is based on the belief that empirical evidence is accurately reported and that scientific theorists are correct in their conclusions. Atheism is not a belief, quite contrary it is a disbelief. Agnosticism, in the same, is also a disbelief. I know there is more to evolution that Dawkins professes. The late Gould had many debates upon Dawkins stance on evolution and vice versa. Gould's theory on punctuated equilibrium has been attacked, as it appears like it was just written out of convenience of the lacking in fossil records. Regardless of the validity of punctuated equilibrium, the two of them could at least agree that there was sufficient reason to retain the overall concept of evolution.

    Many religious people are trying to stifle scientific discoveries. There is tax payer money wasted in the States with legal battles originally trying to remove evolution in the science classroom, and now with the motivation to teach creationism along side it. This is a detrimental stance, as it misconstrued the youths' mind in thinking that creationism is a scientific theory. I have always said that I wouldn't mind creationism to be taught in school, but only in an elective course of world religion or ancient literature, as that would be the proper place for it. If mandatory curriculum for a student includes biology, then the theory of evolution must be taught as it is a cornerstone in most biological studies. Upon my rearing in the public school system, I was given a piss-poor explanation of evolution with a side of creationism. I do not wish for my son to be given the same.

    From the protestant movement of Martin Luther and the detainment of Galileo, history has shown time and again how the religious leaders have tried to keep people in ignorant bliss. Whether it is to get more wealth from indulgences or to silence someone that dares to question their assumption on geocentricism, religion wants to be considered an authority. I fail to see how giving the same answers to questions that surface for thousands of years should ever be awarded the respect of an authoritative branch. I find it distasteful to even look to them as an authority of morality.

    As for the sensitive atheists that want to vanquish any superstitious commentary is a tad ridiculous. We watch films and television programs, read books of fiction; to demand that everything is grounded in reality takes a certain flavour out of life. Not that I think this life needs it, but I think that it is going to far to vanquish it completely. The reason why schools must refrain from religious specific superstitions is more to accommodate the diversity of religious backgrounds. The movement to stop public Christian-specific Christmas displays in this country was started by the Jewish people and now includes people from all levels of different beliefs. Political correctness has more to do with living peacefully in an area of diversity, for if my son acted in a nativity scene, he's think of it as real of a story as SpongeBob. True, the harvest festival was started as the Pagan offerings to the gods for the harvest of Samhain, but what you saw on stage was not the celebration as the Pagans would have done. It is merely a representation of surplus in agriculture, something no one could complain about (except maybe some way over-the-top environmentalist). We have already found that tolerance and respect in standards and practices leaves a mediocre product that's difficult to relate to. As long as the instructor is not stating truth behind the story, I, as well as many other atheist, would have no problems with representing ideas that are not based in reality.

  25. Well Joshua again I have to disagree with you. Science is not a belief it is the pursuit of knowledge the moment it becomes a belief it is no longer science. Evolution is a theory and a theory is the closest thing science comes to belief. Science is actually more akin to faith in my opinion than belief. I have faith in evolution, as a biologist but if if my faith is groundless and something different comes along then so my faith will change. If I believe in evolution it closes my mind to other possibilities to explain the data supporting evolution. One has faith in the empirical evidence but it is dangerous to believe it. Again with Gould I don't think it was written out of convenience but the fossil record clearly indicates periods of rapid evolution punctuated by periods of hardly any. The trouble with Goulds idea seems largely to have been that it contradicted the gradualist (most accepted form of evolutionary progress) which RD did not entirely agree with. Agnosticism is not disbelief at all it is neither belief or disbelief it is more like uncertainty atheism is disbelief.

    Yes many religious people are trying to stifle evolution in classrooms but by and large this is unsuccessful as the US still produces the more brilliant biologists than anywhere else. I had a piss poor classes in evolution at school and I was also taught RE but not really creationism I guess this is a problem for America. But for me creationism, religion in general and atheism should be taught in humanities and science should be left to scientists. However, I read all of the time how many millions big private scientific industries stifle science and bias data in favour of their products they even buy scientists this is far more sinister in my opinion.

    Joshua, Martin Luther and Galileo are always taken out of context. Martin Luther did challenge the authority of the pope and the church but it was a more a political than a religious affair we send people to jail in the modern world for challenging the government to such an extent. Galileo was actually contradicting what was considered scientific fact. The world being the centre of the universe was an Aristotelian idea and Copernicus believed the sun was the centre. The church, as did most post people up until Galileo, took the Aristotelian idea as it seem to correlate with the bible but the catholic church outlawed the idea of heliocentricism, not because it contradicted the bible but because it contradicted the empirical evidence at that time. You have to remember contrary to popular belief the church was very scientific as well as religious. I tend to agree with you over the morality part though.

    I think you missed what I was saying, in Britain all festivals such as Easter, Christmas, Harvest etc are being sanitised not because of any change in belief but because by and large humanists oppose them (this is my experience anyway) the handful of muslims that attend my daughters school participated in these festivals and the muslims I know have a great deal of respect for these festivals. As do most of the non-muslim kids have respect for the muslim festivals which my daughters school no longer celebrates because of, I will name and shame 2 uptight 'humanist' (their words not mine) parents. Not even the Christians outlawed these 3 obviously pagan festivals they incorporated them into their own belief systems. My daughters school as with many non-religious schools in Britain are being dictated to by what we term 'PC' education authorities who would ban maths if they thought it would offend anyone and so one or two enlightened atheist parents complain about the obvious religious elements (to them maybe) in the harvest festival at my daughters school so in the end have sanitised its meaning due to their inability to see the ideas behind these festivals which are universal and not necessarily specific to a particular religion.
    I have sat in on the meetings with these people they are petrified of their kids getting any form of non-rational non-logical education. So in effect because of these gobshites all festivals at the school have to be by and large non-religious and so the original meaning of these festivals are lost. Yay lets celebrate Darwin day instead. In my experience PC is more about the standardisation of everything rather than celebrating the differences which is what the school tried to do what a poor world we will live in.

  26. why not compared the other religion with animals??it will be sounds great!!!by the way the pictures of muslim's baby with blood is so totally not make any sense.it could be one of the picture that he took from internet cause of war..that is what we really call propaganda..i can do the same also..

  27. it's staggering, and frightening, the brutality people are willing to attempt to justify in the name of religion.

    Imagine, if you will, that i were to cut open a babies head with a razor blade on the grounds that i believed the goblin who lives in my cellar wanted it. would that action be defended with such abject dhimmitude, or would you suggest, rightly, that i have my children taken away from me and be sent for treatment in a secure mental institution?

    so answer me this, what makes the above images of child abuse defensible when the same actions in any other situation would be utterly indefensible?

    All we get from you people are excuses.

  28. fuck what is this? muslim moms get real pleasure on havin sex with imam and her father in laws