Author Archives: Jacob Fortin

Illinois conservatives defeat anti-bullying

Posted on by

In light of homosexuality becoming more accepted in society, there are still those individuals who have a problem with the idea two people of the same sex can love each other. Of the few institutions that still harbor an intense hatred of gays, the most respected is religion, and this has meant the fight for civil rights has been pitted against “religious freedom”. This tactic isn’t new; Southern Baptists were using the same tactic when trying to fight against African Americans being guaranteed the same rights as other citizens through government legislation.

Now the same kind of tactic is being used when talking about the rights of gay to marry, and be protected from abuse and violence. Illinois recently had an opportunity to do the right thing and chose not to do so due to fear and hatred of homosexuality:

The Illinois Senate today turned down a bill that would have encouraged anti-bullying programs in schools, after conservatives argued that such programs could be used as a front to promote homosexuality.
“There are anti-bullying programs that have an agenda, to only protect one class of individuals,”

We’ll ignore the fact gays are disproportionately bullied in schools: there was nothing about the program that singled them out. It was simply a measure meant to try and curb the growing problem of bullying. Fearing homophobic students motivated by religion might be put in a situation exposing their bigotry, the State Assembly chose instead to allow kids to live in terror rather than allow some gay kids to live their lives free of fear and persecution.

The bill could have actually passed, but because a dozen legislators chose to vote “present”‘, it failed. Like the persistence of any prejudice and social injustice, it is those who stand by the sidelines who contribute to the misery. Evil persists when good men and women do nothing, and that’s exactly what these cowards did. It should be a lesson to those of us who choose to say nothing in the face of injustice, ignorance, and bigotry. For every one of these poltroons, two brave men and women must take their place, to drown out the voices of those who oppose the rights of their fellow human beings. Although this battle may be lost, we will never let them win this war.

Religious People keep getting atheism wrong

Posted on by

Every day, another religious mouth breather with a keyboard attempts to find a way to argue the atheistic worldview is antithetical to the welfare of society. It’s so painful to read these articles specifically because at no time do any of these morons ever come close to making a valid point. The latest frustration to hit my peepers is an article entitled “Atheists Get Religion All Wrong“. This unidentified author tries to argue that as non-believers, we don’t really “get” the purpose of religion:

Let’s say those religions do disappear, even this very afternoon…Will all the problems of the world cease – would wars, terrorism, sexual molestation of children, discrimination, jealously, theft, just stop…Would peace and goodwill descend on Earth?

Of course not.

Well, we already know for a fact countless conflicts around the globe, the systematic cover-up of sex abuse by various faiths, the spread of AIDS in Africa and the murder of children due to dangerous superstitions would be severely reduced. While the whole world wouldn’t suddenly be holding hands and singing songs together, why does the end outcome have to be perfect anyway? No atheist has ever argued the world without religion would achieve perfect amenity; it would just get a hell of a lot better, that’s all.

If one wants to make the intellectual effort to understand religions one should look at the whole and not just the part. No one has to, of course, it’s all entertainment anyway. But still, maybe there is a reason why religions endure.

Tuberculosis may “endure”, but it isn’t because of some benign reason. Superstition is the same; our brains may be wired to jump to irrational conclusions when faced with few facts about the world (which is why filling it with facts is so corrosive to faith), but this doesn’t suddenly mean this is a desirable mental state. It was just a very practical one at the time. As for “understanding religion” more, do you get the immediate impression the author of this article only really understands faith from a Christian perspective? It certainly smacks of it when making broad statements that all religions are concerned about sins, or “fallen” people. Anyone who believes these are the primary concerns of most world religions throughout history has obviously never truly studied them.

The news remains: people do bad things and would be better off if they did the right things. The funny thing about this religious idea is that it is based on a fact. It is scientifically without exception verifiable that every single naughty, wrong, bad, evil is done by people. This fact preceded and gave rise to the religions.

How is “you’re better off doing something good rather than bad” a religious idea? Only a person indoctrinated with the nonsense of faith could even begin to believe that’s true. Animals in nature obey their own form of the “Golden Rule” and yet require no sermons nor holy books to accomplish this. The author is right: the golden rule is a fact, but it’s better understood as a mathematical principle than the revealed word of God.

If atheists want to dismantle religions they need to dismantle this verifiable fact and the belief that things could be better.

It’s ironic a person who has a literal belief a God will someday come and wipe out the whole of humanity in a holy war could even accuse others of failing to believe in a better tomorrow. Only a mind so steeped in religious nonsense could even stand that degree of cognitive dissonance. The largest religious denomination in North America is a death-cult obsessed with the end of days, a product of the embarrassing death of their messiah. This version of a “better tomorrow” involves rivers of blood, plagues, disasters and death. How is any of this dangerous nonsense needed to believe in a future more just, prosperous and peaceful?

Orthodox Jews fear unlimited access to knowledge

Posted on by

Imagine holding a rally in a stadium to debate the invention of the printing press. You may as well do so now if you’re an Ultra-Orthodox Jew, because apparently, holding one to ‘discuss’ their official stance on whether or not they should allow themselves to connect with anyone not sharing their limited worldview is growing.

Give them credit for understanding the fact having access to unlimited information, coupled with the ability to communicate with other human beings at the speed of light is dangerous to any insular faith, or faith in general.

Like any archaic religion suffering from a strong hatred of the vagina and a distrust of any opinion that isn’t male, the event, held at Citi-Field, was for the boys only. So many morons showed up, they had to rent a nearby second stadium with a 20k person capacity just to accommodate them.

The conference questioning the Internet was sponsored by an Online company that was sure to hand out fliers for its products. Most were there on the order of their Rabbi, since their community is so isolated, almost everyone there was a perfect stranger.

No strangers to cognitive dissonance, they broadcast the very thing they condemned via electromagnetic waves, hoping in vain it wouldn’t get rebroadcast. Like anything on the Internet, someone “hacked the Gibson” and let everyone see what was going on behind the curtain, much to the delight/disgust of the curious, wishing to understand whether this is a tragedy or a comedic farce.

Indeed it has to be either, since no one there could actually agree on anything other than the fact the Internet is a scary place. Modernity has a way of catching up to you, and Orthodox Jews know well the temptations of modern Hellenization. They fear it but are secretly drawn to it, making it a lot more perverse than it need be. But that’s religion for you, twisting things and demonstrating a childlike understanding of what is the most potent invention of the Information Age.

The wrong kind of skepticism

Posted on by

If you care at all about the human race, it’s a moral imperative to detest anti-vaxxers. Here is a group of people desperately trying to undermine what is undoubtedly the most important medical revolution in modern history. The introduction of vaccination has saved countless lives, but because the benefit of vaccinations aren’t directly observable, there are still those who refuse to accept their efficacy, with deadly consequences. The latest bunch of assholes is from Australia. Billing themselves as the “Real” Australian Skeptics, their website has only 2 posts so far, both of which testify to their complete lack of understanding regarding the methodology of science:

And just what is the ‘scientific method’. We hear about this a lot but no one ever really categorically defines what binds say medicine with astrophysics. The randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial (RDBPCT) is considered the gold standard of epidemiology but I can’t imagine how such a technique would be of any use in understanding how stars form. But what do I know? I think peer-review is nothing more than a euphemism for appealing to authority and its main purpose is to protect academic guilds from clandestine thoughts. Now that’s ‘otherworldly and alien’ for you.

What do you know indeed. Anyone who thinks the process of peer-review is an appeal to authority has obviously never experienced it. The whole point of peer-review is to allow other experts in your field to critically examine your findings, conclusions, and methodology to detect possible mistakes, misinterpretations, or even outright fraud. As for double blind tests, the reason this is so effective is it prevents human biases from influencing test results. It’s a method meant to prevent the very people attempting to isolate the effect of a drug (or any other substance) from unconsciously affecting the results. It fucking works, and that’s why people love it.

Now you should be starting to get an idea of the extraordinary deception that vaccine ‘science’ requires. When they say no link has been found, you can rest assured that no link was looked for. More than that, they had to cover their eyes in order not to see all the elephants in the room.

To cite only one example of how untrue this statement is (since adding more would make this article far too lengthy), the Canadian Pediatric Society spent millions studying the supposed link between the MMR vaccine and autism, and like the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and the UK National Health Service, they found none. But with these clowns, it doesn’t matter how rigorous your testing is: they will always find something to criticize that they don’t really understand.

We might also be people who are innumerate (which presumably includes people who think that the double in double blind trial actually means something), or have low cognitive skills. This is quite strange really given that in the Western world, those who question vaccinations are almost invariably among the more educated and better paid, but never mind.

While it’s true many parents who refuse to immunize their children are educated, many (like the author of this article) are scientifically illiterate. Rather than be risk conscious, they are risk averse, convinced the potential harm of vaccination outweighs the benefits. Because we all benefit from high rates of vaccination, herd immunity is often enough to protect these jackasses, although not always. As the “Super Bowl outbreak” demonstrated, it doesn’t take much slack for there to be serious and deadly consequences. As their numbers grow, so too does the chance of an outbreak.

If only their stupidity affected only themselves. Unfortunately, there are those of us who are at risk because of compromised immune systems, like cancer patients, the elderly, and children suffering from certain types of maladies. It’s their carelessness and fear mongering that puts these vulnerable people at risk. Hey Australian skeptics, can you put these assholes in their place, please?

Article claims rationality is overrated

Posted on by

I hate it when our commitment to rationality is attacked for no other reason than religiously motivated people feeling slighted from the accusation that rational thought is abrasive to belief. In light of a recent study that found rational thinking diminishes religious faith (at least temporarily), a few mouth-breathers are attempting to argue being rational isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

It’s misleading for Harris to define faith as “belief without evidence,” Haught says. Faith, which is similar to “trust,” is embedded in our humanity. Atheists, for instance, act out of faith when they trust their partners, or even when they hope rationality is capable of solving every problem.

It’s interesting this author is trying to conflate the various definitions of faith. While it’s true I trust my partner will be faithful, I do so because I have plenty of evidence of fidelity in the past. This trust may not always be a “rational” thing to believe, but it is grounded in some degree of reality, something religious faith cannot claim. To use this shitty example against itself, if there was any proof my partner no longer deserved my trust, then it would quickly erode my “faith’. I can assure you there is little in the form of evidence that moves a religious believer away from their dogmatic commitment to bullshit.

Even though atheists are correct in saying many faithful people do come to irrational “supernatural” conclusions, Haught says theologians have for centuries offered a more complex definition of faith.

More sophisticated forms of nonsense are still rooted in nonsense, regardless of the relative intelligence of their proponents. Besides, so few believers are actually familiar with these arguments that one wonders if they should even bother to come up with more ridiculous justifications for believing in things without evidence.

The author seems to believe rationalists are incapable of imagination, or even intuitive thinking, when in fact, our commitment to rationality is a statement about knowledge itself. While I fully accept not all aspects of humanity should be governed by rationality, it does not mean the irrational ideas of the religious are suddenly true, or even meaningful.

In other words, as Einstein suggested, authentic scientists may well be rational and analytic — but they also have imagination, vision, empathy and a sense of values and aesthetics. All of which helps guide them in their intellectual pursuits…In that way, scientists are just like many spiritual people.

If you chose to so poorly define something, then sure, you could claim that. Or, if you used your brain for a moment, you would realize perhaps what these people have in common is imagination, although that similarity ends as soon as one group decides what they feel intuitively must be the truth without even bothering to back it up with any evidence. If scientists were more like spiritual people, then we wouldn’t have a lot of good science; just a bunch of meaningless, untested theories.

Ultimately, what Haught and the author fail to realize rationality is what grounds us in reality. While I don’t deny that we must let our imaginations soar once in a while, it does not mean that we should suddenly abandon what is still our most important weapon in our intellectual arsenal. To suggest rationality is overrated in a world still dictated by so much superstition is both dishonest and ignorant. Perhaps if our society was ruled exclusively by logic and cold rationality, I might agree. As it stands, I think the world could use a lot more of it, not less.

Susan Jacoby vs Dinesh D’Souza debate

Posted on by

Got a bunch of spare time to listen to a debate? Odds are if you’re trolling TGA, you have plenty of free time on your hands. You may appreciate this debate “Is Christianity Good for America?” While you probably already know the answer to this question, it’s always important to know what “the enemy” (I say this in the least vitriolic of terms) is thinking.

15% of people think the end of the world is coming

Posted on by

If you were hoping this whole ‘Mayan 2012′ thing would just blow over and be ignored this year, I’ve got some bad news for you: it would appear roughly 10% of the population is convinced the end of the world is happening soon. According to a recent poll, one in every 7 people thinks the world will end within their lifetime, while one in every 10 think the Mayans predicted the date it’ll happen (despite failing to predict their own demise).

About one in 10 people globally also said they were experiencing fear or anxiety about the impending end of the world in 2012. The greatest numbers were in Russia and Poland, the fewest in Great Britain.

That makes sense: If I had to live in Russia or Poland, I’d probably be looking forward to the End Times. There isn’t enough vodka or perogies to ever convince me to live in either of these frozen shit-holes (I’m happy in mine, thanks). Is there perhaps some overriding factor which causes people to believe in such nonsense?

Gottfried also said that people with lower education or household income levels, as well as those under 35 years old, were more likely to believe in an apocalypse during their lifetime or in 2012, or have anxiety over the prospect.

Ah, so if you’re an uneducated twat, odds are you’ll easily be convinced by lazy journalism the Mayan calendar ‘ending’ means something more than the simple resetting of “the long count” (Carisa’s favorite YouTuber has a great video explaining all of this).

If you really want to be depressed, the figures are much higher in both Turkey and the US (two of the most religious countries in the world), where 22% are convinced the end is nigh. Oh America, you still lead the world in religiously motivated ignorance.

Pastor apologizes for unintentionally getting caught

Posted on by

A few days ago, pastor Sean Harris made headlines after he encouraged his parishioners to beat their children if they displayed any “gay” behavior. Needless to say, he found the attention less than desirable, and has since attempted to retract his statement. Unfortunately, like any homophobe caught in the act, his retraction is less than sincere:

“I apologize to anyone I have unintentionally offended,” Sean Harris, pastor of Berean Baptist Church wrote in a statement on his church’s website. “I did not say anything to intentionally offend anyone in the LGBT community.

He claims his speech was intended as a joke, but judging by all the “Amens” you hear during his speech, it’s clear the audience was rather receptive to his abusive message. His non-apology also rings hollow when statements like this are made:

Harris said in the sermon that same-sex couples are free to live together. He argued Tuesday that there was “not an ounce of hate being communicated in that,” but said in the sermon that such couples live together “in the most sick and ungodly way.”

It’s the whole: “I don’t hate you: God does” argument that gets old real fast. The fact Harris despises gay couples is undeniable, and any attempt not to look like a total asshole is impossible. What I find amusing in all of this is only a few days ago, Dan Savage delivered a speech to high school journalists condemning the Bible for promoting (among other things) homophobia. A few of the students walked out, and the religious right immediately screamed religious discrimination. Savage was essentially vindicated by the Harris’ sadistic and cruel comments, which demonstrated yet again the toxic effects of religious faith. Nice work, Danny-boy.

Atheist facing jail time in Indonesia for blasphemy

Posted on by

It’s easy to forget the right to express our disbelief is a fairly recent phenomenon. I recognize many fans were angry when I argued Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s reaction of the title ‘atheist’ was an act of intellectual cowardliness, but I voiced my anger precisely because I know how important it is for some to even express their disbelief. The bravery of those willing to stand up for what they believe (or in this case, disbelieve) is not something we often recognize. It’s why I found his dismissal of ‘the movement’ so insulting. There are real consequences to declaring your lack of belief, something Alex Aan of Indonesia is learning the hard way:

…after posting “God doesn’t exist” on Facebook, the soft-spoken civil servant, 30, faces up to 11 years in jail for what is considered blasphemy in Indonesia… From the medium-security rural prison where he has been held for the past two months, Aan has little hope for the future. He has been beaten by angry mobs, rejected by his community and endured public calls for his beheading.

Alex had no way of knowing the horrible consequences of rejecting the idea of God. While he inherited his bravery from the West, he has little hope for support half a world away. Our words gave him the audacity to question God, but it did not prepare him for the misery and abuse he would face as a consequence. What can we offer him in return? What words of comfort can alleviate his fear the world he lives in is getting worse in the light of a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism, itself a direct consequences of our own war on religion?

“I only want to see a better world and help create a better world,” he says. “If I cannot … then I would prefer to die.”

Declaring my atheism isn’t just something I do for myself; I do it because like Alex, I want to make a better world, and the only way to do that is to fight the evils of religion head on.

Cardinal refuses to step down despite abuse

Posted on by

It doesn’t ever seem to stop, does it? As the Catholic Church slowly comes to terms with the fact their record of abuse, and failure to report said abuse, is slowly destroying their organization, Ireland, once a stronghold of Catholicism, is rapidly moving away from the faith in light of damning reports that show widespread sexual and physical abuse at the hands of priests.

The latest scandal involves Cardinal Sean Brady. According to an investigation by the BBC, in 1975 he was made aware of the abuse of several children at the hands of Fr Brendan Smyth, who would later turn out to be Ireland’s most prolific pedophile. When confronted with these powerful allegations, he did what any man of the cloth in his position would do: he swore the children to silence and covered it up.

While it is true that the abused boy’s father travelled with him to the interview, he was not allowed inside the room while his son was questioned…Nor did Brendan Boland [one of the abused boys] feel able to tell his father about what had taken place, as he was sworn to secrecy, upon the Bible, before leaving.

The Church’s stand on this is about as shockingly ignorant as one can get:

The Catholic Church has said that the “sole purpose of the oath” signed by Brendan Boland in Cardinal Brady’s presence was “To give greater force and integrity to the evidence given by Mr. Boland against any counter claim by Fr Brendan Smyth”.
The Church also points out that in 1975 “no State or Church guidelines for responding to allegations of child abuse existed in Ireland.”

Because without the law telling you specifically to report child abuse, you would just stand by and continue to let children get raped by these predators, am I right? You would if you’re the Cardinal Brady and the Catholic Church! Did I mention new laws forcing the Church to report abuse is being framed as an affront to their religious liberty by Bill Donohue and his Catholic League?

Father wants to protect child from reality

Posted on by

When you stop placating people and call them out on their bullshit, you’re bound to hurt their feelings. While some of us are comfortable with the idea of letting dumb or dangerous ideas thrive under the banner of “tolerance”, there are those brave few who cannot stay silent in the face of the injustices brought on by antiquated religious belief. When Dan Savage recently spoke to students at a High School Journalism Conference, he condemned the Bible for being used to justify not only bigotry, but slavery. This prompted a few of the students to walk out in protest, and one of them yelled “that’s bull!” (obviously, this young person, like most Christians, have never read this book). Enter this man, who echoes the sentiment of so many of his fellow believers who were shocked someone would be so incensed as to dare call these guys on their shit.

How does he justify this behavior? He makes a claim leveled by many by saying “there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong.” This is wrong on two counts. First, there are not “many people” doing anything even remotely like “gay bullying” and there is not one single account I have heard of where someone specifically used the Bible as their justification for bullying gays.

If you bury your head in the sand deep enough, that would explain why you’re totally unaware your fellow Christians bring up the Bible as a way of justifying their homophobia on a daily fucking basis. How can you even talk to someone who is that willfully ignorant? Does he not watch TV? Has he not heard one speech by the Pope, or that moron Bradlee Dean, or the countless other preachers continually quoting Leviticus?

It is a lesson about intolerant people claiming Christians are intolerant, bullying by those who claim to help the bullied, and hypocrisy from the same people who point the finger at others claiming they are hypocrites.

The irony here is a few days ago, another beautiful young man committed suicide because of the bullying he suffered at the hands of religious homophobes. His death coincided with a recent Southern Baptist Conference decrying the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act because it included provisions for LGBT victims of domestic abuse. Dan Savage’s response to these kinds of tragedies cuts through the bullshit: the majority of perpetrators of homophobia are unmistakably religious.

In the light of criticism, Christians have declared their religious freedoms are violated by any pro-gay legislation. This sort of tactic has been used before: Southern Baptists argued during the civil rights movement that laws designed to prevent discrimination against blacks violated their religious freedom (the Bible is pro-slavery, after all). In the face of constant pressure to conform, they eventually abandoned this strategy, although there are a few remnants of it here and there (bigotry does not disappear easily).

Dan Savage, as is the case with those who hate and do not understand Christianity, is simply ignorant. My task in educating my children will be to teach them how to deal with that ignorance, intolerance and oppression, simply because they are Christians.

What most Christians fail to understand is many non-believers and critics of the religion were themselves entangled in it at one time. Survey after survey proves our understanding of religious materials is superior to believers. That’s not very surprising. The more you uncover about faith, the more you realize it’s a smoke and mirror show. Ignorance, as it turns out, is the only way to remain a believer. They have a fancy word for it: they call it faith.

Exposing the bigotry of religion makes us bullies

Posted on by

What happens when your privileged place in society begins to erode? Well, like a spoiled child, you relentlessly accuse others of being mean bullies for not letting them have their way. It takes time to become an adult, but expecting religion to mature is unrealistic. Take Matt Barber: He’s accusing secularists of being “bullies”, and his solution is playground fare: punch them in the mouth, Christians!

How are we bullies, you might wonder? It must have something to do with the fact we’re done taking their shit sitting down. When these “culture warriors” try to dictate the reproductive rights of women, prevent gays from enjoying the same rights as the straight counter-parts, and stop stem cell research, fighting back makes us seem like we’re the bad guys. Good. Just try to punch me in the fucking mouth, Matt. See what happens.

Parents acquitted of torturing daughter thanks to “religious freedom”

Posted on by

In our brave new world, multicultural and diverse as it is, our moral sensibilities can often be rattled by the brutishness and ignorance of many cultural traditions that make their way to our shores. As some of you reading this blog may remember, my heart bleeds for the way African children are tortured due to a dangerous mix of new and ancient religious superstitions. The Christian crusade to possess Africa has re-ignited the belief in witchcraft, and the victims tend to be unwanted children. The sheer amount of suffering happening in places like Uganda and Nigeria is enough to make one ill, but it gets worse when this type of violence is excused as merely a matter of “religious freedom”.

When Swedish prosecutors attempted to bring two Congolese parents to justice after they systematically tortured their daughter, the defense was able to argue that exorcisms were part of their religious freedom. Combined with too little physical evidence (those horrible scars could have been anything, they say), the prosecution was unable to get a conviction.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with my right wing counterparts who despair multiculturalism, albeit for entirely different reasons. I don’t believe that all cultural achievements are equal. I believe many traditions are barbaric, dehumanizing, misogynistic and unworthy of being maintained. Religious freedom is simply a new way of framing dangerous or hateful practices in such a way that masks their true nature. Why are we so fucking gutless in the face of religion? The torture of any child is indefensible, and we have laws to protect them. Why do we chose instead to protect ideas whose time has long since passed?

Living Waters still using “Croc-O-Duck” argument

Posted on by

Despite the fact the whole world makes fun of Ray Comfort and his lapdog Kirk Cameron over their “croc-o-duck” idea, it seems though the pair has decided this argument still holds water. If this is news to you, let me summarize the “theory”: because animals evolve slowly over time, Ray believes the process of transmutation would create strange hybrids. One such creature he nicknamed the “Croc-o-duck”, and because this animal doesn’t exist, it must mean that evolution doesn’t exist either! See how easy it is to knock a strawman down?

Despite the fact my 12 year old cousin could figure out the flaw in that logic, Ray has learned over the years if you repeat a lie often enough, someone will believe you. How else can you explain them using what is arguably the stupidest “rebuttal” in the world? Do they not realize it’s a fucking joke?

The “Homosexual Agenda”

Posted on by

Actually, the odds of the Titanic hitting that iceberg were astronomically small; as it turns out, it was a series of poor decisions by the crew that led to the disaster. Had the ship actually crashed head on into the iceberg, it would have survived the impact. Ironically, it was their attempt to navigate around it that ultimately led to the ship sinking. So, if I can use their stupid metaphor against them for a moment, I would say that like all icebergs, the majority of it is hidden underwater. And like all icebergs, there is a ton of stored energy just waiting to be released. Am I done now? Can I stop comparing gay rights to a gigantic floating block of ice? It’s fucking ridiculous!