Latest Entries »


I recently skimmed a YouTube video with Kent Hovind entitled 100 Reasons Evolution is Stupid! If you don’t know who Hovind is, you should definitely check out some of his videos — they are case studies of hucksterism. I really can’t comprehend how people watching his speeches don’t see him for what he is. It’s not even the fact that he’s spreading a belief in so-called Intelligent Design (creationism) — something I think is ridiculous. It’s his mannerisms and speaking style. Regardless of what he was discussing, I wouldn’t trust him. He could tell me the sky is blue and I’d be highly suspicious of his claims, just because he sounds like a conman.

As I watched just a short clip, I quickly noticed one lie without really searching for it. He claimed that Stephen J. Gould — a renowned evolutionary biologist — stated the following:

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for … evolution.”

It seemed strange to me that an ellipsis was required right before the word evolution in this quotation. Usually ellipses are used to removed unnecessary information, but in this case, what would have fit in here except vital information. It almost seemed as if Hovind was trying to hide something. Well, perhaps I was mistaken, so I looked up the full quotation.

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.” (Gould, Stephen J., ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)

If you don’t know, Gould was not in favor of the gradualist account of evolution; however, he was of course in favor of evolution itself. Gould supported “punctuated equilibrium” — a view of evolution as quick explosions of diversity in organisms and long periods of little change. Therefore, this quote does in no way demonstrate that Gould questioned the idea of evolution. It is a flat out lie to portray it as such — which is what Hovind did. At best, Hovind can claim that there are disagreements about how evolution functions — which is true.

Although it upset me to see that Hovind was spreading lies to children, I felt better knowing that he’s now rotting in jail. Not sure exactly what for, but if I cant quote mine from all the things he’s said in his life, Hovind said this about his incarceration:

“I went to … jail … because I … solicited … children with … the intention to … have sex with them … and then … murder them.”

Those are Kent’s words, so this isn’t a lie, right?


The anti-GMO conspiracy theory.

A great exposition of the harm done by anti-GMO environmentalists.

Environmentalism doesn’t mean reacting violently against any modification of the environment!

Luddites have never been successful in regressing the march of technology. Intelligent use of technology is the only way forward.

Has feminism become a cult?


I recently had another blogger, queer guess code, respond to my previous post about feminism. Her response perfectly demonstrates the irrational need to hold onto a belief that has taken hold of many feminists. If you read my post, you’ll see that it was quite a mild criticism of some types of feminist thought: it was not a criticism of feminism itself! Yet, the response was one of pure anger. Her response is here. You can check it out if you happen to like reading many exclamation marks, boldface, ALL-CAPS and swearing coupled with a painful writing style and little semblance of a logical flow.

One thing that I have truly been amazed at from writing this blog is how many civilized Muslims have responded to my (sometimes admittedly strong) attacks on Islam and how many uncivilized feminists have responded vehemently against my minor criticisms of certain aspects of feminism.

I really didn’t expect that feminists would be more inclined to be close-minded than religious people. Feminism comes out of a culture of questioning everything! How can this be?

Perhaps my personal experience is not representative. What do others think?


It seems quite difficult to read anything by feminist writers today that doesn’t come back to the idea of patriarchy. This concept has, in my opinion, actually taken away a lot from the feminist struggle. When most people think of the struggle of feminism, they think of women overcoming the dominance imposed upon them by males; however, if you are a little more clever, you will realise that this is only half of the issue. The other side is the dominance of males imposed on females by females. This realisation requires a little more introspection by women, admittedly.

When a feminist writer blames male dominance in society on patriarchy, they are not considering what women are doing wrong to deny themselves access to the dominant positions in society. Thus, the need to be introspective and work harder to attain betterment of oneself is negated. This is a major step backwards.

While playing the victim does demonstrate how a perpetrator is doing something bad, does little to encourage oneself to improve or change. So, I would say that there are other reasons than just the idea of the patriarchy for, for example, there being so few female CEOs in the world.

I believe that one issue is that many so-called ‘masculine’ activities are quite beneficial to the introspection of an individual. One example is sports. When women don’t play sports because they think that competitive activities are a guy thing, they miss out on the chance to criticize themselves. In sport, it is quite evident who is better and who is worse. In other activities that are usually non-competitive, like art or dance, this is less obvious (of course, comparing Picasso to a common person is an easy call, but comparing two people in the same range becomes extremely debatable). When you do poorly in an art class, there is no game sheet to say how few points you scored. You are not reminded constantly of your shortcomings. In sport, assuming you are playing in the right level for your skill, you are constantly reminded about what you can do better (this is why playing against poor players will generally stagnate or even degrade a player’s skill, since they don’t worry about what they are doing wrong). This forced introspection and encouragement of betterment is a strong influence on the development of a child’s mind, inside and outside of sports.

This is only one example. No doubt there are other activities deemed ‘masculine’ that help men develop into the kind of people who will work a little harder to achieve dominant positions in society. So, this is actually a kind of feminism, in my opinion; just one that goes against the grain of what many feminists seem to advocate these days. In short, parents instill the skills needed for successful girls — those parents must realise that many ‘masculine’ activities are quite beneficial to their children’s development.


The recent Islam-inspired murder in London allowed us to glimpse the mind of a jihadi. One thing that I noticed was how he proudly said that this is “an eye for an eye” for the people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even the non-religious amongst us, I believe, rarely question this Biblical concept of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. However, once you do think about it, you realise how barbaric such a legal system would be. We do not dole out identical punishments to fit crimes, nor would this be desirable or even possible. What is to be done with rape? What about mass murder? What if, as happened recently in Saudi Arabia, one person inadvertently paralyzes another while fighting?
Of course it would be barbaric or impossible to try to impose an identical punishment for each of these crimes.
The only crime that some developed societies do impose an eye for an eye for is quite controversial: the death penalty for murder. This too, is considered barbaric by many people.
So, let’s stop just accepting silly old concepts because they’ve been around for so long.
This London murderer was deluded not just by his religion, but also by his understanding of what justice truly is.


The lack of rationalism imbedded in an act so heinous as hijacking a plane with the sole purpose of using that plane as a weapon of murder-suicide is hard to grasp for most of us. But then, most of us do not live our lives with the irrational belief that killing ourselves while murdering innocents will send us to Paradise.

The bombing in Boston has demonstrated quite clearly that fighting such irrationalism is incredibly difficult when we limit our counter-terrorism to rational actions.
Once I realised this, I quickly thought of one irrational, and highly cost-effective method of shielding airplanes from Islamic terrorism. It’s simple: place a Koran on every plane. Since Muslims are willing to riot when someone else defiles a Koran anywhere in the world, it would seem that destroying a plane with a Koran on it would be the height of sacrilege. So, as I see it, the act of martyrdom would be negated by intentionally destroying the precious, precious Koran. Problem solved!


I recently received a comment from Ali Naqash on a blog that I wrote a while back called Can Democracy and Islam Coexist? It’s stupidity is mind-blowing. I really don’t know where to start in the criticism of this comment.  Without question, it deserves the title of “The Dumbest Comment”. Here it is, enjoy:

“Democracy is not the way of forward, since it gives no right to women like they deserve to be given. It treats them like waste. But it is only through morality and justice as in Islam that one can expect women to be treated like Queens. This article proves that Muslims are sick and tired of people like you trying to FORCE democracy on us! We DONT want your democracy. Thank you. We would be much happier without it.”


… another way of saying, “Nothing will ever shake my ignorance”?


… does not wearing a niqab demonstrate a Muslim’s immodesty?


Today on CNN, I witnessed one of the stupidest statements ever made.

The Boston Bombers’ mother proposed that the blood at the Boston Marathon was not actually blood, but red paint. In other words, it was all a set up.

Imagine sitting in a hospital with your legs freshly blown off and hearing such nonsense. Really infuriating.

More about this here.

The Unholy Book

Varying topical discussions on atheism

Atheist Assessment

Posts about Atheism and the shortcomings of religion. Sometimes satirical and sometimes serious. #AtheistAssessment

standup2p

Observations - From the sharp end

Questionable Motives

What is the right question?

The Havers of a Questioning Mind

All men are born with a nose and ten fingers, but no one was born with a knowledge of God. -Voltaire

nerd on the bridge

A Literary Paradox

Lights on the Moon

what's real & what's not

The Southern Rationalist

Voices of Rationality and Skepticism from the Southern US

The Ramblings of a Young Atheist | Carnun Marcus-Page

Neglected, weekly-ish (ha!) musings on non-belief and 'life in general' from the perspective of a self-identifying young rationalist, humanist and free-thinking lefty.

Endless Erring

Stumbling along a Druid path

God Shmod

The one true God of Atheism.

Pretentious Ape

a humanist blog

Confessions of a Disquisitive Writer

Blogging my thoughts to the world

The More I Learn the More I Wonder

Rambles and brambles in the garden of my mind

Little Duckies

Parenting, polyticks, and the everyday busyness of an American-born mom in Israel.

The Agnostic Pastor

From Faith to Freethinking

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 99 other followers