Copland III

Something I don’t ‘get’ about theism is how they explain away the lack of proof for a god’s existence by telling us that we must have faith – in books written millennia ago.

If we are to put our faith in a book, we could put it in any book – and maybe even one with more verifiable authorship than the Bible, Koran, Upanishads, et cetera. For example, I could claim my beliefs are based around The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the Scripture divinely inspired in the Prophet Douglas’s mind. It teaches in the ways of hitch-hiking, towel-carrying, and how to free oneself from the evil Vogons and their satanic poetry.

Of course, basing one’s belief system on a work of fiction would be nothing hort of clinically insane, as there is no evidence to suggest the Earth was destroyed in the 1980s by fat, slug-like creatures with bad breath and bad poetic skills. We also have no evidence to suggest that Oxford was once inhabited by hobbits, or that a hundred thousand years ago, a race of mysterious human-like beings fired an array of ring-shaped superweapons to fumigate the galaxy from an alien parasite.

So why on earth should we have faith in any book, without undisputable proof to back it up?

A Roman Catholic school in Manchester has banned its pupils from receiving a vaccination against HPV, a sexually transmitted virus which causes cervical cancer. They have cited concerns about possible side effects.

I say bullshit. The jab has been tested, and is PERFECTLY SAFE. This is turning into a mini rerun of the MMR fiasco. It’s pathetic. The promiscuity argument is ridiculous – whether you like it or not, people are going to have sex.

Examining a ‘have your say’ forum from last year, some people seem absolutely clueless about the jab.

So all you sheep would be willing to allow your precious children have an injection with a substance you know nothing about?

Have any of you even thought about researching the pharmaceutical giant behind this apparent vaccine? It’s history and its founders?

If not, why not?

Surely it’s in your best interest to do this as responsible adults – and parents.

PLEASE Mothers, BEWARE….this vaccine is being tested on your young girls at your great expense and possibly the greater expense on your/our girls who have no say in the matter. Ten years down the line or twenty…..will they thank you for this? Think about it.

This, however, is perhaps one of the best retorts I’ve seen in months.

has anyone any idea what the long term effect of this cervical cancer vaccine on the young girls?
Debbie, Perth

Er…yes. The long term effect is that women will be protected against HPV…

Something I note on Conservapedia’s slag pile for Atheism is this opening gambit:

Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the denial of the existence of God.

‘Denial of the existence of God’? This seems very strange to me.

For example, imagine I told you that in a house there was a room. I don’t tell you anything more. What do you assume? You don’t assume anything: you do not have enough information to elaborate on the contents of the room (although you may speculate). If I were to state that the room was empty, I would not be ‘denying the existence’ of anything within.

This is exactly what Conservapedia is saying. Despite there being zero evidence for the existence of god, if we state that it’s very unlikely there is one in there, we’re said to be denying the existence, even if there is never, was never, and will never be a god.

A flawed counter-argument is that of association. For example, if I said the empty room had a computer in it, you would assume, by association, that the room had at least one power outlet. If I said it was an office, by association, you would assume there was a desk and some papers in there. And, chances are, you’ll be right.

However, this argument only goes so far. There is more chaos in this world than order, and there is a heavy body of evidence against the existence of a god, at least as current definitions put it. So if the existence of something is disproved (or is to the best of our knowledge) the counter-argument is invalid.

It always pisses me off seriously when a creationist refers to creation ’science’. It’s not science. It’s belief in a fluffy old book that’s about as coherent as David Blaine on crack. No peer-reviewed research, no evidence, nothing. It’s religion, not science.

So why the fuck should it be taught in science lessons? This madness is already happening in the USA, but now someone wants it to happen in the UK: and this person is director of education at the Royal Society, and a professor of science education at the Insititute of Education, University of London.

I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view.

But it’s not science’s job to teach world views. Science’s job is to teach science, which can be tested and repeated over and over again. And it’s still embarrassing that 10% of the British population actually believe the Earth is less than ten thousand years old. We really need to ensure that science is taught properly - all too often, I’ve seen evolution incorrectly described, so science classes must teach evolution as a tried and tested theory which has stood the test of time, and that creationism has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Forget the fact that EA’s newest game, Spore, is hampered by restrictive DRM, and uses an incorrect model of evolution: the fact is that buy buying it, you’ll be cheesing off this twerp. It’s a fracking video game. Not a bad one at that.

Even if you don’t use it, buy a copy and show your support for EA. The comments section on the About page of Anti Spore shows a very hostile reaction from video-game junkies. Oh yes, and human beings. A hand-picked selection of the comments follows after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

So, it seems that Barack Obama has actually responded to scientists’ requests to clarify his policies on science. It provides fourteen more reasons to vote for the Democrats in November, if you’re in the USA (also taking into consideration that he is in favour of actually teaching science in science classes). Those of us who aren’t (myself included) are counting on you to ensure that the religious cretins of the Republican party don’t get back in the White House.

With this in mind, it transpires that Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate for Vice President, doesn’t know her own country’s history.

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

She of course neglected to mention that the Pledge of Allegiance wasn’t written until the late 19th century, years after the Founding Fathers had kicked the bucket. The words “Under God” weren’t added until nineteen-fifty-fricking-four.

How can this woman be considered by anyone to be suitable for the White House?