• Education is now optional in Alberta

    01May
    Categories: In the News Comments: 404

    OK, so it’s not law yet, but a new bill is being proposed right now that will allow parents to take their kids out of classes that teach “controversial” subjects like evolution and homosexuality.

    As quoted in the article:

    “The new rules, which would require schools to notify parents in advance of “subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation” is buried in a bill that extends human rights to homosexuals. Parents can ask for their child to be excluded from the discussion.”

    Ok. So why is evolution there? It does not deal explicitly with religion or sexuality. The bill separates evolution from the rest of science as if it was an entirely different subject - fluffy and optional. Not like it is the foundation of biology or anything.

    And what about homosexuality? What is wrong about teaching kids to be tolerant? I rather doubt that educators are telling kids to go home and have gay orgies. It’s just about respecting people for being who they are. Just because a couple of lines in an old book say it’s wrong, that doesn’t mean that the rest of the world should bow to the same ignorance.

    Although I do think parents should have a say in what their kids are being taught, this goes too far. The bill will affect public schools. The government should not be agreeing with the crazy religious people who don’t know a thing about science and just want to pass on their bigotry, unhindered. Evolution is not controversial. Homosexuality should not be controversial. The whole “teach the controversy” is a PR move and the government is just feeding them. It’s ridiculous.

    What if I declare algebra to be against my religion? Would I have the right to take my kid out of math classes?

    Schools should be teaching kids how to think and why they should be tolerant of people who are different from them. Not letting their parents yank them away from reality. Keeping kids in a safe bubble, away from anything that their parents don’t understand, will not solve anything. Kids need to be exposed to ideas that are different from the ones with which they were raised. It’s how we learn how to think.

    Tags: , ,

  • What’s with all the chiropractors?

    03Apr
    Categories: In the News Comments: 55

    Another MP has recently proved that he does not actually know what science is and wants everyone to bow down to scientific ignorance in the name of “tolerance”. In the House of Commons, no less.

    James Lunney is a conservative MP who recently gave this fallacy ridden speech. I assume he was talking about the silly little problem of the Minister of Science not knowing what science is:

    “Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a creator. Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own. Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.

    In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions. Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

    The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.

    Sigh.

    Ok, Mr. Lunney, first of all, no one was “disrespecting” the right for the guy to believe in a creator. Seriously, most of us couldn’t care less. But we sure were disrespecting his career since he was supposed to be the Minister of Science and clearly had no idea what the concept meant. That is a problem.

    Secondy, evolution is a fact. I suggest that you read about what a scientific theory actually means before moaning about it. You just show your complete lack of knowledge by whinging about it being “just a theory” and it’s sad.

    Thirdy, “intolerant of beliefs” is a phrase that is too widely thrown around. Tolerance does not mean that we should all bow down to ignorance. Believe what you want but don’t change facts and evidence to suit it. It is not intolerant to defend science. It is not intolerant to expose ignorance. It is not intolerant to expose blatant lying and twisting of facts. It’s honesty.

    Fourthly, evolution has be observed over and over and over and over and over again. Look up some of science that has been done over the past couple of centuries. You might be surprised.

    Fifthly, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolution is about how organisms CHANGE over time. That’s it. Maybe you should look up the definition of something before you start arguing against it.

    Wow, that was just the first paragraph.

    Sixthly, WE DO NOT WORSHIP CHARLES DARWIN. Really. We don’t. Seriously. And your silly little speech is a good example of why science does not rely on an appeal to authority. Sure, Darwin got some details wrong. That’s ok, that’s what science is for! Science provides a methodolody that enables people to constantly examine and question and refine and test new ideas. Believe it or not, Mr. Lunney, more than a couple of people have examined evolution since Charles Darwin. You might want to ask them about it.

    The whole speech feels like he picked up a couple of books on Intelligent Design, flipped through them casually and then created his whole concept of science around that. It’s silly and it is sad that this person supposedly has a scientific background and even sadder that he wants to promote ignorance for the sake of religious tolerance.

    Come on, Canada, we need some politicians out there who can think, not just repeat the words of the last book that they read and try to hide from the world under the umbrella of religious tolerance.

    Tags: ,

  • So much for freedom of speech…

    26Mar
    Categories: In the News Comments: 55

    This kind of scares me.

    Basically, a bloc of 57 Islamic States are trying to get the UN to criminalize the  “defamation of Islam”.

    “The resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a “serious affront to human dignity” which could lead to “social disharmony”, “violations of human rights” and “incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular”. If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at “local, national and international levels” start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief.”

    And this might actually pass. This is ridiculous.

    Ok, first of all, defamation laws protect people, not ideas. If it becomes law that certain ideas cannot be questioned then that is a big leap forward into a rather scary Orwellian society. All ideas should be up for examination and criticism, you can’t just pick a few and put them behind a glass wall, to be admired but never examined for fear of punishment. That just throws the whole idea of freedom of speech out the window. This is not about religion. This is about free speech. Freedom of religion allows people to practice their own religion. It does not protect practitioners from all possible criticism from the rest of the world. You can’t shield ideas under the law. That defeats the whole purpose of thinking.

    Maybe I should try and get people arrested for mocking the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Tags: ,

  • Ok, so the Pope is an idiot.

    17Mar
    Categories: In the News Comments: 1,245

    This is going to be a not so cheerful post.

    Once again, the supposedly infallible head of the Catholic Church has proven himself to be stuck in the dark ages and completely unconcerned with human welfare.

    He explicitly stated that condoms won’t work and that Africans should just stop having sex instead to prevent the spread of AIDS. Yep. Because that has proven to be so effective.  In his own words:

    “The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of the disease.

    “You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon, where he will begin a seven-day pilgrimage on the continent. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.’”

    Seriously, what century does this guy live in? People have sex. It’s quite natural. And, condoms work. Condoms greatly reduce the chances of getting the HIV virus and also unwanted pregnancies at the same time. I know that the Catholic Church wants every possible little Catholic baby to exist, but in a part of world heavily troubled by overpopulation, disease, warfare, starvation…it makes sense to have kids you can support and care for, not simply numbers to add to your religion.

    And here is where the Catholic Church fails. They chose potential converts over the health and welfare of the existing human population. And by spreading misinformation about condoms and AIDS, the Catholic Church is causing the deaths of millions.

    I got particularly angry when I read this paragraph:

    The pope also said today that he intends to make an appeal for “international solidarity” for Africa in the face of the global economic downturn.

    He said that while the church does not propose specific economic solutions, it can give “spiritual and moral” suggestions.

    Ok, so he recognizes the huge worldwide problem, that people are unemployed, going hungry, facing enormous issues. And his solution is to tell them to either stop having sex or die and go to Hell. And, in doing so, he claims the moral high ground.

    I laughed when I read that the Pope was “saddened that he was criticized “with open hostility”". Umm, yeah. Because you are killing people with your ignorance. I think that is a damn good reason to be hostile.

    Tags: ,

  • No Atheism allowed in Halifax.

    04Feb
    Categories: In the News Comments: 62

    Our bus ads have officially been rejected from the Halifax public transit system for being “too controversial” and “in poor taste”. If the ads are toned down, they may consider accepting them at a later date.

    The two slogans that were proposed: “There’s Probably is No God. Now, Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” and “You Can Be Good Without God.”

    I’m honestly not sure how much more toned down you can get.

    Because all those ads about abortion, transexuality, war, gay marriage and other religions aren’t controversial. Nope. Just those damn atheists.

    I’m less offended by the “too controversial argument” than I am by the “poor taste” one. Just because you disagree doesn’t make it inherently offensive! It’s just another example of religion holding a special place in too many places. A lot of ads are offensive to people who don’t like what is being portrayed. I’m sure anti-choice people hate planned pregnancy ads. I’m sure vegans are offended by juicy Burger King ads. I’m offended by all the ads of impossibly skinny photoshopped women using sex appeal to sell everything. But no one tries to stop them from existing!

    Good ads are often controversial. They make you think, question, talk to people about them.

    I guess the Halifax Transit authorities don’t it when people think too much.

    Tags:

  • Atheists are Fighting?

    23Jan
    Categories: In the News Comments: 62

    I just read this article in the National Post and it pissed me off.

    In one article, it managed to convey that atheist/humanist groups are all about the bitter infighting and that our goal is to out-advertise the other with our atheistic messages.

    The headline is “That there is no God is about all they agree on.”

    That is just silly.

    The fact that multiple groups want to have visibility with a different focus is fantastic! The more, the merrier! We are not “rival groups who are peddling their different views”, we are two alternative groups focusing on different aspects of not having a religion. If two different charities are trying to raise money to help, say starving children, does that mean that they want the other one to fail? NO!  I welcome any sort of ad that discusses a viable alternative to religion.

    The other thing that really made me angry in the article was that a humanist directly compared atheists to Stalin. Sigh. We spend so much time defending ourselves from stupid comments like that, we really don’t need it from people who agree with us.

    It’s articles like this that make me realize how necessary these ads really are.

    Tags:

  • Atheist Buses Coming to Toronto!

    17Jan
    Categories: In the News Comments: 46

    We have officially launched our campaign to bring in some atheist ads to TTC subway and buses. After much deliberation, we decided to use the same slogan as the one in the UK: “There’s Probably No God, So Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life”.

    This is a positive thing. We need to get the message of postive atheism out there and make atheism an acceptable and publicly acknowledged alternative.

    So I fully encourage everyone to donate to this cause! It may not save the world but it is getting people to talk and that is never a bad thing.

    Donate here.

    Tags: ,

  • Book Banning in Toronto

    16Jan
    Categories: In the News Comments: 131

    A parent of a 17 year old is trying to stop a Grade 12 high school English class from reading “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood.  Read it here.

    Sigh.

    I’m not a huge fan of Atwood. Some of her stuff is good. A lot of it is boring and just doesn’t appeal to me. But banning the book because of the use of profanity and the “anti-Christian undertones” is just plain silly.

    First of all, his kid is SEVENTEEN. Does he really think that his precious child has not yet been exposed to the word “fuck” or the existance of sex? I read the book when I was in grade nine and I don’t think that I am irreperably damaged because of it.

    As stated in the article: The book “is rife with brutality towards and mistreatment of women (and men at times), sexual scenes, and bleak depression,” Edwards said in a letter to the school’s principal. “I can’t really understand what it is my son is supposed to be learning from this fictional drivel.

    It is a distopian novel. Things are supposed to be bleak, hence the distopia. It is a “what-if” scenario, created to get people to think about consequences. It leads people to think about possibilities, to discuss where things can go wrong, to see issues in a different light. It’s a launching point for discussions, a way of getting these kids to think and talk about tough issues.

    But no, let’s all just read stories about fluffy little bunnies having adventures instead of actually thinking about anything.

    Tags:

  • “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life!”

    11Jan
    Categories: In the News Comments: 48

    I’m sure that most of you are familiar with the British atheist bus campaign by now. It’s been widely discussed by all sides of the issue. The message is appearing on buses all over London and people are talking about it.

    First of all, let me just state that I love the slogan. It’s direct, to the point, intellectually honest and almost friendly. Instead of being bitter and lashing against a specific religion, one gets the mental image of a group of atheists just shrugging their shoulders and saying “chill out”. It’s great.

    It’s been interesting to read all the various reactions to it. A lot of atheists like it. A lot of atheists hate it. A lot of religious people really hate it. A lot of people have problems with the “probably”, wishing that it actually stated clearly that there is no god. But that isn’t right. We can’t prove there is no god. We can just be pretty darn sure and live our lives accordingly. So the “probably” is honest, not a cop out.

    Other countries are latching on to this campaign and are planning similar initiatives. Here in Canada, we are currently trying to come up with our own slogan although I am a bit concerned with the direction we are going with it. We’ll see what is actually chosen next week, I will comment on it then.

    But I do support this movement. I like the idea of making atheism more visible, making it a viable alternative to religion instead a hated, misunderstood attack.

    Of course, a simple sign on a few buses is not to induce massive changes or anything but at least it is a step in the right direction. People are starting to think about it and are talking about it. I think it’s great.

    I was especially intrigued by some Christian responses to this campaign. As recently featured on Friendly Atheist, a teacher from the Las Vegas Emergent Cohort wrote about one of his student’s reaction to the British atheist bus campaign. It makes for an interesting read, check it out. Although I don’t agree with everything the teacher and the student say, I do agree with the intention behind it. The hostility that exists between believers and non-believers doesn’t necessarily have to exist. It’s also nice to see that some Christians acknowledge that they aren’t the victims here. I hope that there are more Christians like that teacher and his student out there.

    Tags:

Blogroll:

Meta:

Recent Posts