Dawkins Wants To Share Eroticism, Tim Stanley That Devil Intervenes

Richard Dawkins suggested that broadcasting loving erotica might help to tackle misogyny generally in theocratic states.

This was in response to what Boris Johnson said regarding blue balls theory that by not getting laid, this led to wanking at porn and then jihadists (I debunk the theory here.)

Clearly that was not what Dawkins was expressing. Rather, it was that women and men should be viewed in loving ways whether sexually or otherwise. Erotica that stressed that would be a contrast to repressive religious cultures that insisted on men and women being segregated, with women being covered up as a temptresses in need of modesty to preserve herself, and protect men from themselves.

Dear Richard Dawkins, my people WROTE the book on this. Most of it is athletic, if quite gentle, erotica. Didn't stop our violent tendencies

— Sunny Singh (@sunnysingh_nw3) January 31, 2015

Last year ended with Richard Dawkins being quartered, drawn and hung by the harridans. This year begins with his self-censorship for SWJs.

— Mduduzi Dlamini (@Quibbie_) January 31, 2015

In homage to Richard Dawkins's plan to beat Islamic extremism with porn, here's an excerpt from "Pride & Prejudice" pic.twitter.com/oTdcaVfVLl

— Paul Anthony Ward (@PaulAnthonyWard) January 31, 2015

Dawkins ended up deleting his tweet, following unloving mounting derision at the idea.

Tim Stanley seemed to find sadistic delight in laying the boot in:

After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.

Time was when it looked like Dawkins was about to go the full “nut-job 180” and declare that, upon reflection, there actually is a God and it’s Richard Dawkins – and have himself blasted into space on the back of a dolphin singing Onward Christian Soldiers. As you can tell, I’ve come to regard Dick with a great deal of affection. He’s just a mad uncle – a genius academic with monomania who probably isn’t a bad person just a rather naïve one. And his capacity for dreaming up new ways to irritate the religious is, at least, not boring.

So how did Tim show that he was far from a nut job or mad uncle himself? By trying to tell us the answer to Stephen Fry’s how could a loving God let children be born with bone cancer was already in the bible.

Not only has theology dedicated itself for thousands of years to unpicking that problem but the answer to it is there in the very Bible itself. Since Adam and Eve ate the apple, we’ve been living in a fallen world full of pain. God granted us free will not only to do bad things but also good things – like finding a cure for cancer or caring for those dying from it.
Terrible things happen because of a) random acts of nature, b) the intervention of the Devil or c) the corruption of man.

“I’m not saying anyone has to believe what I write…” goes on Tim, but I would like him to go further and write more. Does he literally believe there was an Adam and Eve that ate an apple? Was it a just God that then allowed all their offspring to suffer for such a transgression by being cast out of paradise? Did God not set the randomness of nature, or was it beyond his capacity to control? Does the devil intervene by controlling nature, us or influencing directly our thoughts and actions, even using children and loved ones let alone heads of state or Telegraph journalists? Does the corruption of man mean children must expect getting bone cancer, or a worm burrowing out of their eye, and still praise God while in pain thus accepting their corruption?

“…please don’t act like it’s never been said before or that the answer to Fry’s facile question doesn’t exist.” That is the problem – they are not answers. What evidence does Stanley have, significant insight to know this is of God, that he can use without sounding like a nut job mad uncle? He cannot, though he can say this is my belief and that is enough for me. Thing is,he sees this as an answer for everyone, one we should embrace in our wretchedness.

So the choice of spreading around the world loving erotica or the good news that children are responsible for their bone cancer because they are born corrupted. It truly is a mad world where Dawkins feels the need to delete his tweet, but Stanley can let stand dogma that is truly pernicious.

I appreciate some people wondering at the tweets by Dawkins. However, there are far worse things said as religion, which seems to make people authorities while standing on sand by a lapping sea of faith.

Watch for the tides, in case your reason is lost far out to sea.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Stephen Fry: What He Would Say To God

Gay Byrne rolls his eyes to heaven as if looking for consolation, to an elegant response by Stephen Fry to why most atheists would reject a God:

“The god who created this universe, if he created this universe, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish.

“We have to spend our lives on our knees thanking him. What kind of god would do that?

“Yes the world is very splendid, but it also has in it insects whose whole life cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind.”

Misotheism, that is the hatred of the Gods and denying they are worthy of obedience or acquiescence, may not be the basis of most people’s atheism. (My own is lack of evidence to suggest it is other than humanity creating God). Rather, Stephen articulates why the idea that people would want God to be true needs countering with what that means.

Praise a God that created a worm that burrows into a child’s eye? On your own. Does piety make you want to spend eternity with such a being?

Goodness and happiness makes humanity better, and life less harsh. Belief in God will not add to that for me.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Pope Francis: Violence At Insulting Faith Is Normal

“If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”… [Source]

Speaking of our mothers, the Muslim Council of Britain made clear:

1. For Muslims, love of the Prophet ( ﷺ peace be upon him) is a NECESSARY part of our FAITH. He is dearer to us than our parents and children. We prefer him to our own self.

So if punching someone for mocking your mother is normal, than what of mocking someone you are told to esteem beyond your mother? A fatal knockout blow perhaps because you have to punch that much harder as it is not your mother, but Mohammed. Show the love.

The Pope did say killing in the name of religion is wrong, but his comment is the apology any fundamentalist needs to whitewash the bloodstains. They so love Mohammed, that if ever they were to look on him:

“My eyes have never seen anyone more perfect than you

No woman has given birth to anyone more handsome than you

You have been created free from all defects

As if you were created the way you wished”

That a Charlie Hebdo caricature, that showed him crying at the thought of murder done in his name, would be a provocation to further murder. Idolatry is meant to be avoided, yet the very image of Mohammed portrayed goes beyond esteem as the couplet above mentions (again via MCB).

Giles Fraser calls Charlie Hebdo iconoclasts for this reason. I am inclined to agree. The need to challenge the idea that any man must be lionised in this manner, and worse that we must kowtow before this idea is preposterous. An image of the mind that must never be made real, and certainly not satirically depicted. We are expected to be as a devout believer.

Power is the right subject for satire. This is why religious figures are legitimate subjects. It is dangerous to suggest violence against this is normal, that insults lead to murder for those things we care passionately about. Honour killings, and persecution of other religions and sects are justified this way too.

We would do well to include persecution of atheists, often at the forefront of questioning religious ideas, and opinions:

Karim Ashraf Mohamed al-Banna was arrested with a group of people at a cafe in November, according to the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression. An Egyptian minor offenses court sentenced him on blasphemy charges Saturday in what Human Rights Watch called “part of a wider government push to combat atheism and other forms of dissent.” [CNN]

Karim’s parents so much loved the prophet more that they lured him to the cafe so the police could arrest him. His father testified in court against his son. This is the pure love demanded when you must place a dead man you never knew before your own living child.

The Pope says people make a game of insulting religion. This is no game. The ideas of religion as sacrosanct need to be shown for what they are. The pretentious nature of sycophancy to a man’s physique, the requirement to love him beyond that of your own children so that to betray them for him is right.

We must continue to lampoon religion not because it hurts others, but because the hurt done by religion is very real. Offence because piety demands you must react that way is not natural; your emotions to your children are natural. If the choice is the welfare of your children or your religion no holy book need be reached for or cleric called for the answer. A loving parent should know which comes first, every, single, time.

The need to smash idols is ever present, and the apologetics for massacres. It means very little to say murder is wrong when you then justify it. When you demand the implausible is done, the unthinkable will happen.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Andrew Brown: Hating Islam Means Hating Muslims

To hate a religion according to Andrew Brown is to hate religious believers. To the point you want to make them victims. My hatred of religion for endorsing slavery makes me apparently hate modern religious believers, which is equivalent to rascism.

It is a trope among people who loathe and fear Islam that their fear and loathing has nothing in common with racism because Islam is not a race, the implication being that hating Muslims is rational and wise whereas hating black people is deeply irrational and stupid.

…

Racial and religious hatreds have one thing in common: they are not inspired by the race or religion of the hater, but by the religion or race of the victim. This is clearest in the case of antisemitism, which can appear as either a racial or a religious hatred, or indeed both. What’s constant is that it involves hating Jewish people, whatever the reasons given. Similarly, if you hate black people, you hate them on racist grounds whatever the colour of your own skin, and if you hate Muslims, Catholics, Quakers or Mormons, you hate them for their religion – whatever your own beliefs. So it is perfectly possible for religious hatred to be motivated by atheism and it may be quite common in the modern world. [Guardian Comment Is Free: Why I Don’t Believe People Who Say They Loathe Islam But Not Muslims

The article ends with Stalin and Mao being motivated in their religious hate by atheism. That these mass murderers would endorse Sam Harris, whose photo appears at the top of the article. That communism as an ideology promoted the hatred and brutal destruction of religion in society is not mentioned, just atheism.

The distinction between religion and its practitioners is an important one. Ideas do not have the rights, privileges and civility that people are entitled to enjoy. For me it is important to draw a distinction between Islamism and Islam, in that the former calls for society to be transformed along fundamentalist lines. Muslims that disagree and cross those lines are the first victims of such fundamentalists.

The body count is far higher for muslims killed by fundamentalists than it is for non muslims, when we look at the modern day blood bath playing out. The fundamentalist view that people are inseparable from their religion is one Brown is endorising.

Far right extremists need challenging because they promote discrimination (from immigration controls to no mosques being built) on back of religious critique debate. Secularism matters because it treats people regardless of their beliefs as equal citizens before the law and with the same universal human rights.

There is too much anti-muslim hate out there, when it is the fundamentalists and extremists which deserve our rancour. The oppressed by Theocratic States need solidarity, and to hell with people who suggest humanism is just a cover here to hate religion.

People matter not Gods. That is why I will continue to dislike religion, but stand up for people whether they have faith or not.

Andrew Brown offers no way to unite the religious and non religious to tackle extremism. Rather, he promotes that atheists are quite prepared to become mass murderers on the basis of other’s religious beliefs (just like plagiarist CJ does). Without specifying the context of what Sam Harris was saying about actions caused by beliefs that threaten humanity.

Feeding the paranoia of religious extremists, and deliberately misrepresenting how atheists feel about religious people is counter productive.

Those that discriminate against religious people need to be challenged. When it comes to religious freedom, atheists will be there supporting it. For it also means freedom from religion too.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

I Am a Terrorist According To Saudi Arabia

I dream of the overthrow of theocracy. By people peacefully rejecting clerical fundamentalism. With a transition to democracy where atheists and wahhabists, let alone men and women, are equal citizens before secular law. Where thought is not a crime as opinion is voiced openly and freely. As I am doing above in front of the camera outside The White House.

This would make me not just a criminal but a terrorist for encouraging atheist thought in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. That theocratic monarchical thought crime state that allies with liberal secular democracies. Democracies that call for the very things I just opened with. Strange bed fellows are made by circumstance, and the bastard child that came out of this arrangement was militant jihadism. Which has, thanks to generous patronage in Saudi Arabia, gone global as a movement. 

The interior ministry regulations include other sweeping provisions that authorities can use to criminalize virtually any expression or association critical of the government and its understanding of Islam. These “terrorism” provisions include the following:

 

• Article 1: “Calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based.” [Source]

In this strategic arrangement the oil flows to the developed world, and the blood is meant to only run down the streets of the developing world. The Saudis are offering the US a proxy war in Syria backing a third force which will attack Assad’s forces and the Jihad groups like ISIS. Part of this clamp down on terrorism by Saudi Arabia includes atheists. The British started the ball rolling supporting the House of Saud and the USA continues the relationship. We need to rethink how this relationship is working.

This is a classic Saudi move; give the west a bone while beating down with a stick domestically, to preserve the House of Saud in unstable times. An outstretched hand of friendship while the other pummels dissent and thought into submission before fanatical tyranny. The kingdom where tweeting this article might lead to a visit from the security services. 

The stance of the west is weakened by our over reliance on Saudi Arabia as an ally. The price is the continued subjugation of people to a theocratic police state. We tell ourselves this is the price of sleeping well in our beds. The cost of filling up our tanks so we have the freedom to live happy and prosperous. 

My support for the Dawkins’ OUT Campaign, encouraging atheists to be open in rejecting religion, makes me subject to the same terrorism laws as Al Qaeda. To quote Jarvis Cocker ” We won’t use guns, we won’t use bombs. We’ll use the one thing we’ve got more of; that’s our minds.” To secularists that are threatened and fear for their freedom and loved ones, I cannot imagine what you are going through.

I am determined to make use of the liberties I have to call for freedom and criticize government policy that makes your plight worse. Religious freedom is for all whether Shia, Sufi, Sunni, Wahhbist, Ahmadi, non Islamic faith or atheists. None of them should be treated by the state as terrorists. 

Secularism is a terror to theocratic despotism because it dares to call for equal liberty of all no matter what they think. 

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog