The “atheist church” draws a variety of freethinkers, who identify themselves as skeptics, atheists, agnostics or doubters. In lieu of theology, these churchgoers cherish rationalism, and the motto of their church is “think”. The NTCOF [North Texas Church of Freethought] is concerned with issues of justice, honesty, and values, and teaches most of the same concepts of right and wrong as other churches, but they maintain that making the right moral choices has everything to do with rational thought and nothing to do with belief in a higher power.

My first reaction was “ew!”

…but then I thought, okay, maybe this is a good idea.  If you want to do this, it would be good if it were organized into a flat structure where, instead of having a weekly preacher, all congregation members took turns contributing on topics of their choosing, which were then opened up for discussion among all attendees.  Skepticism and challenge are valued and encouraged.

And THEN I thought, we already HAVE this.  It’s called science!  (And it’s not even restricted to just one day on the weekend!)

Do we NEED atheist churches for the plebes?  I’m a plebe, and I’m asking seriously — if not slightly bemusedly.  Is this a viable approach to ending the war on science?

ShareThis

ShareThis

Pat Condell has the most subscriptions of any comic on YouTube. He has been making candid, no-holds-barred critiques of British society, Muslim theocracy and religion in general for quite some time.

Recently YouTube threatened to suspend his account, and pulled his latest video on Sharia law in Britain. From his user page on YouTube, Condell tells us:

I’VE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE FROM YOUTUBE EXPLAINING WHY MY VIDEO “WELCOME TO SAUDI BRITAIN” WAS REMOVED:“Your video was removed due to a violation of ourpolicy against hate speech. The specific portion of the video found to be in violation occurs around 2:20.”

But it doesn’t matter that he’s popular or that he’s consistent. What matters is whether or not he has the right to say what he’s saying. Here’s a heads up regarding YouTube’s comments about what happens at 2:20. He calls one Saudi an “idiot,” and the entire country “mentally ill.”

Watch it for yourself.

He’s angry about Sharia law being instituted in Britain. He’s angry that his society, which values tolerance, does so to the extreme of allowing an INtolerant subculture to establish and legitimize its own INtolerant court system. Rules in a Sharia court would not be allowed in society at large’s court. He’s angry that political correctness rules common sense.

Is that not something worth being angry about? Has he crossed some line to rail against a culture that punishes rape victims as mentally ill? How should members of socially tolerant liberal democracies react exactly? Please, YouTube, enlighten us!

The point is, even if you don’t like the WAY he is saying it, or for that matter, even if you disagree with him altogether, you ARE simply proving his point by censuring him for this video. Watch ALL his videos (start at the end of the list and work back to get them chronologically), and tell me you don’t come to the conclusion (as many have) that he is really a peace-loving patriot, that his heart really is in the right place and that he is genuinely concerned and, yes, outraged.

Sticks and stones, YouTube. As has been said, WAY WORSE language than this has been used in all sorts of official public discourse around the world, whether it’s politics, courts or food critics!

What can they possibly hope to accomplish by banning this video? I am dumbfounded that they would even try. There’s NO foundation for it, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

For fuck’s sake, are you even paying attention to the last 8 years in America, and the current election? YouTube, are YOU mentally ill?

ShareThis

He can’t seem condescending.  He can’t really sell his record (yawn — especially next to a sexy librarian with great guns).

He definitely can’t attack her (meanie!).

But Hillary can!

Imagine him spending the entire debate responding as though he were Hillary’s advocate.  No matter what you think of her compared to Obama, Hillary’s policies TROUNCE Palin’s.  If Biden were to use Hillary talking points, AND CREDIT HER FOR THEM, as his modus operandi of making his own points, this would be a fantastically confusing strategy for whatever the Palin camp has up their sleeve.

This strategy has so many positives, and only one minor negative.  The McSames can rightfully attack him for not being his own man.  …like THAT’s going to stick!

The positives include: good policies seen against bad (reproductive rights anyone?); girl on girl (no condescension, no cruelty); all those Hillary voters!

The biggest positive of all is the fact that he cannot LOSE the debate this way.  …which is much more important then him actually winning it.

ShareThis

Kiva allows lenders to organize themselves into groups, or “lending teams.”  When I saw the Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious lending team, I was sold.  (There are other groups organized on a full range of interests/issues.)

I am so surprised that it took our species so long to figure out that lending money was better than giving it away when it comes to alleviating poverty.

From the point of view of the borrower, the gains in dignity, responsibility and sense of empowerment are obvious.  For the lender, the gains are clarity, personalization, ease and very low risk.

In the past, when I’d hear about a new charity that I liked, I often did not follow through with giving to it for a few reasons.  For one thing, it was often up to me to find out how to give them money at all.  An even bigger barrier was the feeling a feeling that the little bit I could give would just disappear into the ether.  There was no sense of satisfaction for me.  You just have to trust that the charity does a good job.

The net result was that I just hardly ever gave anything at all.

But Kiva changes all that.  How much could I part with without feeling it?  $25 every 2 weeks?  Sure.  That’s $650/year.  After 3 years, almost 2 grand.  Can you imagine managing a two thousand dollar investment in the poorest people of the world?  Imagine all of us doing it.

That brings me to the best part of this to me…  It’s extremely scalable. First of all, I think estimates that we can solve half of world poverty in a very short time are conservative.  I think it could be even better.  Second, after the poorest entrepreneurs have rolled through our excess dinero, the huge resulting capital pool could be used to fund even larger projects.

Wait a second, is this socialist?!

heh heh

ShareThis

The whole idea of lending very small amounts of money to the very poor just seemed to make sense.  I think I smiled, and then I went on with my life.

If you have an hour, you can watch Yunus describe his work at Google, or you can watch Charlie Rose interview him.

Enter Web 2.0.  Also recently,  Seth Godin pointed me to kiva.org.  It’s a web service that allows all of us to participate in the micro-financial market that Muhammad Yunus invented.

I’m blown away.  Go there, join, and get started.

If you have gone there, and you still need a reason, here’s a few…

1. Instead of giving $10 to charity, lend it (directly to an actual poor entrepreneur), get it back, and then lend it again.  Rinse and repeat.
2. Empower and educate poor women.
3. Actually see the effects of your loan, and read about the successes of the people you’ve helped.
4. If you’ve given a few thousand dollars after a long time, and you hit hard times, and you need your lent money back, get it back.
5. This could not be simpler.  If you can use Facebook, you can change the world with kiva.org.

ShareThis

At least we’re able to figure out that our perceptive powers are suspect!  Of course, you could always argue that if we can’t trust our percpetive powers, then how do we know we’re right to not trust our perceptive powers.

…riiiight.  And luckily you came along with your “other ways of knowing” to save the day!!

Or, we could just acknowledge that tested results are the only results worth paying any attention to, and that we gravitate to bad explanations in the face of none (or partial) ones.

Put on a brain condom and get on with it already!  Safety first people! 

ShareThis

…or this one?

ShareThis

What a great line! Here’s more YouTube goodness recently discovered…

Anyone who can work the line “all you goddamn dirty catholics can cath-o-lick my balls” in while making fun of the KKK isn’t all bad! Seriously, this kid has loads of talent, and has thankfully returned with a couple hits after disappearing for months. Buy his new EP on iTunes; I hear he’s heading off to college soon.

Finally, Hitch never fails to give reasons to forgive him for being such a right wing fucking prick. His original Vanity Fair article caused some great feedback.

His reply to the last guy is priceless:

Way to prove my point. I tried reading [your] letter in the open air and birds fell dead from the clear blue sky.

When Alessandra Stanley called him on his opinion, Hitch once again proved his retorts are always better.

Actually, Stanley’s article mentions Larry Summers, the President of Harvard who was forced to resign over some speculative remarks he made about innate differences between men and women. I hadn’t heard of this, and was not overly surprised to learn about yet another case of the PC cops getting down and dirty. Steven Pinker to the rescue. But really what I want to say is how comforting a thought it is that such magical thinking is almost for sure in its death throes.

ShareThis

Sam Harris is also pretty much always spot on: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html

My favourite quote:

Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.

Given this “psychopathic skewing of priorities,” he concludes:

The problem is not, as is often alleged, that governments cannot afford to protect every person who speaks out against Muslim intolerance. The problem is that so few people do speak out. If there were ten thousand Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s, the risk to each would be radically reduced.

This is indeed a problem, is it not? Even if you are Muslim, or even if you are not, how can we tolerate intolerance to criticism? EVER? This is not okay at all. There’s simply no positive outcome from limiting the ability to criticize. Harris says this another way, a better way, by quoting famous Muslim apostate Ibn Warraq:

There is no such right as ‘the right not to be offended’.

Can you imagine if there were?!!

(If there was ever a clear sign that political correctness MUST GO, this is it!)

ShareThis