Author Archives: Jacob Fortin

Psychic steals $250,000 from victim

Posted on by

It takes a special kind of scumbag to be a psychic. Seriously. I mean, your job is basically to manipulate people who are at a low point in their lives. Lonely, sad, desperate and terribly uneducated people are seduced by these charlatans intent on bilking them out of their hard earned money.

It’s easy to feel judgmental about the suckers, like the case of “Jane Doe”, defrauded to the tune of 250,000 dollars by Lisa Debbie Adams. A self professed psychic, Adams told her that a curse had been placed while she was still a baby inside her mother’s womb. Despite how utterly stupid that may seem to us, people like Jane are susceptible to these superstitions. In the end, Adams succeeded in convincing Jane to give her entire life savings in a series of increasingly wild spending sprees (including the “spiritual” benevolence of Mercedes-Benz, a feeling perhaps familiar to some owners).

Should we punish the ignorant? Shall we forget they are victims merely because they were vulnerable, improperly educated dolts who had the misfortune of falling for a scam artist? It’s a cruel world if we can’t feel at least some sympathy. Reading the stories of victims reminds me how easy it is to fool desperate people wanting any easy answer to solve their problem. It’s a sad reality, a reminder that reason – the shield that should have protected these people against fraud – was paper thin.

It’s time for us to ridicule psychics more, and I mean A LOT more. We need to expose them as the fraudsters and tricksters they are. There’s no need to make the belief in superstitions illegal; it’s far more affective to make it shameful, and object to ridicule. The funnier, the better. So you know what to do…

Suicide Bombings are not political in nature

Posted on by

In a large Suffi shrine in Southern Pakistan, two young men with explosives strapped on their backs navigate nervously through a packed crowd. They are looking for an ideal place to murder as many of their fellow human beings as possible. The plan is surprisingly evil: the second boy is there to detonate himself the moment help arrives to care for the victims of the first attack.

As chance would have it, Umar Fidai‘s bomb didn’t discharge properly. It ended up only partially detonating, ripping away his left arm and tearing his insides apart. Before Umar could reach his grenade – a fail-safe given to suicide bombers allowing them a chance to still enter a martyr’s paradise – he was shot in the other arm by a police officer. Bleeding, incapacitated and watching the torment and pain of those around him, Umar felt shame and remorse at the sight of the medics and civilians rushing to their aid. Mere minutes before, all he could think about was the taste of the otherworldly fruits he would enjoy from such pious labor.

Young Umar is only 14 years old. What motivated him to commit his failed violent act was not political. It was religious. As I read his recollection of the events that led to his mangled state, I couldn’t help but feel that the seeds of his destruction, and of so many other victims, were planted long ago. The soil was fertile from a lifetime of indoctrination to dangerous and poisonous ideas. Umar’s targets were fellow Muslims, part of a different traditional set of doctrinal convictions, and therefore unbelievers. To the Taliban, the nearly endless supplies of human explosives – packed tight with anger, confusion, alienation, and ready to ignite with the mixture of religion- makes their task effortlessly easy. They need only light the wick and point.

You’ll often hear Muslim apologists refer to the problem of suicide bombing in political rather than religious terms. They do this to mask the terrifying reality of religious indoctrination, either deliberately or unknowingly. We ask why humans continue to commit atrocities – why we kill each other with impunity and cause untold misery and destruction – yet we refuse to accept the simple answer. It is unquestionably religion that creates the systemic barbarism, cruelty and ignorance of the world we live in. We have ample evidence of this. That it makes some happy is inconsequential. It should not enter into our minds as something worthy of consideration. Should you care if a drunkard is admittedly happier when he drinks if he later beats his wife and children as a result?

If you still cling to the notion of geopolitics as the root of the problem, why not ask the villains themselves? The very words of acolytes, saved from their own annihilation due to faulty mechanics, is a chilling wake-up call to apologists. It was their conviction paradise awaited them, not their political desires that motivated their actions. Until we stop denying the obvious, it’ll keep blowing up in our faces.

Bill Donohue blames gays for priestly abuse

Posted on by

You’ve got to admire Bill Donohue – in a rather sick and twisted way – for his unique ability to always “up the ante” of shitty things to say. He’s really an artist of sorts, effortlessly dispatching the truth whenever it seems to be inconvenient, and compensating by making outlandishly false statements, all in a futile attempt to defend what is arguably one of the most corrupt institutions in the world. To defend monsters, one must become a monster.

The latest “Donohism” is a difficult one to top however: he’s accusing the media of improperly reporting the sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children. Most were willing participants, and the real problem was homosexuality:

“The Boston Globe correctly said of the John Jay report that ‘more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia.’ In other words, the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia,” Donohue wrote.

“What accounts for the relentless attacks on the Church?” he asked in conclusion. “Let’s face it: if its teachings were pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-women clergy, the dogs would have been called off years ago.”

Don’t blame all these priests, says Bill, most were participants who enjoyed what was happening. The real villains were the sodomites, everyone! After all, they wanted to put their penises where God had strictly forbidden it, and we all know if you don’t listen to sky-daddy, he will send a tidal wave after you.

It’s in situations like this I wish I could produce a report that could explain the depth of all the sexual abuse that occurred to both men and women…Oh wait, silly me, it turns out there are a ton of them, with more popping up all the time. Perhaps the most comprehensive of which is the Ryan Report, a difficult and lengthy volume detailing all aspects of abuse of Catholic-run institutions in Ireland. So without needing to trust Billy-boy at his words, we can instead rely on the litany of statistics on female sexual abuse by clergymen. I’ll go out on a limb here and say it was definitely not consensual:

Reported abuse ranged from inappropriate fondling and touching to oral/genital contact, vaginal and anal rape. There were 128 reports of sexual abuse from 127 female witnesses (34%). One witness reported that she was sexually abused in two different Schools. Witnesses described their experience of sexual abuse as either acute or chronic episodes occurring throughout their admissions in the Schools. Witnesses reported being sexually abused by religious and lay staff in addition to other adults, the majority of whom were understood to be directly associated with the Schools. Witnesses also reported being sexually abused by co-residents.

Before you feel entirely too depressed over the fact such stupidity still makes the air on a regular basis, take comfort in the knowledge, so long as people like Bill speak for their churches, the job of demonstrating the poisonous nature of religion is made much easier. Bill is a cruel, stupid brute whose actions undermine the false idea that religion moralizes an otherwise evil creation. In other words, with fuckheads like Bill at the wheel, it’s a lot easier for these morons to careen off a cliff.

Buddhists are confused about everything

Posted on by

A fan of the site sent me this Buddhist exchange that I had to say something about:

Curious Buddhist:

I have an odd question which was raised by a friend, who was asking me questions about Buddhism. They wanted to know how Buddhism deals with the concept of evolution? Are Buddhists creationists? Our teachings don’t seem to deal with such matters and I was rather at a loss as to how to answer them.

Lama Shenpen:

I suppose one would have to say Buddhists are evolutionists in the sense that they do not think God created everything in seven days.

That’s not really a good start. Creationists don’t all believe in that exact nonsense. Some are far more sophisticated in their stupidity.

The Buddhist view is that everything emanates from the Primordial expanse of Openness Clarity Sensitivity and is illusion-like, never really coming into existence but the illusion is created by infinite intricate connections that are not anywhere and not in time.

Wow, the bullshit train is riding hard right now. Am I to believe that the Universe is an expanse of Sensitivity? I would argue that stars exploding in massive gamma ray bursts might not be entirely too sensitive to the feelings of nearby planets.

Time and space are part of the illusion that is emanating from that Primordial expanse – so it’s all very mysterious. From the Buddhist perspective there is no problem with life on earth having evolved somehow – but evolution is not in itself a full story or full account of life on earth – it leaves quite basic questions left unanswered.

Yes, evolution leaves tons of unanswered questions for Buddhists, such as “how did the first human exist if we’re all reincarnated”, and “how can human beings be so fucking gullible”?

In a way one might want to argue Buddhism is closer to creationism because our world is created by awareness – the awareness of the beings that inhabit it – evolution only gives a kind of history of how that illusion unfolds.

They love their whole “illusion” angle, don’t they. It’s a great way to avoid having to explain anything concrete about your stupid belief system. Hey, how do protons and electrons work? It’s all an elaborate illusion, so don’t bother trying to find out!

Buddhist do indeed share much in common with creationists: for starters, they have no desire to discover the natural world, and rely on tradition and superstition to tell them about the Universe. While they smugly assert that all the Cosmos is Maya (or illusion), this impossible to disprove condition is just another example of the nonsense of religion. If they had their way, scientific progress would end as we know it, in favor of mumbling some shitty prayers and believing that justice is handed out by an invisible force.

Isn’t religion great?

David Cross is hilarious

Posted on by

I’ve got to figure out a way to get David on the Show. Guess I’ll need to stalk him for a while or something…

US Rep thinks Einstein would be a creationist

Posted on by

Is this guy for real? You think Albert Einstein would be a creationist? You think this Spinozan would consider your quaint little religion the only true one? What kind of ballooned existence do you experience to say such idiocies? You are either a liar, having fabricated your fictitious idea with the intent on making it stick, or a farcical imbecile who has never bothered to read anything that contradicted his limited world view. I suppose both are probable, but for the sake of humanity, I hope it’s the latter. I really do.

Love wins, Christianity loses

Posted on by

The Evangelical world may not be as coherent and homogeneous as some would lead you to believe. For one thing, they can’t seem to properly contain the apostasy of Pastor Robert Bell, who has been preaching from Mars Hill a theology that takes special efforts to exclude Hell.

Bell credits a conversation he had about Ghandi. When a parishioner kindly reminded him he was slowly roasting in the fires of Hell, something changed in him, according to this Time article. He wanted to believe in a God who didn’t send people to Hell. What, the author argues somewhat saliently, is the point of believing if it doesn’t matter anyways?

If, in other words, Gandhi is in heaven, then why bother with accepting Christ? If you say the Bible doesn’t really say what a lot of people have said it says, then where does that stop? If the verses about hell and judgment aren’t literal, what about the ones on adultery, say, or homosexuality? Taken to their logical conclusions, such questions could undermine much of conservative Christianity.

It’s not just the conservative side that gets bent out of shape once you expose people to the real nightmare that is the Bible, and the poisonous undercurrent of its theology. Given the authority society has granted this book, rather uncritically I might add, the Bible becomes the tool of bigots, racists, and sexists alike. We then find it surprising when the power and authority they command through their religions allow for the continued mistreatment of women, minorities, and the emotional, physical and sexual abuse of children.

Some, like Bell, have resolved to make the texts fit their own perception of the world. With delightful impunity he denies Hell, aware this idea alone –  eternal torture of the innocent for the crime of having chosen the wrong god – is morally repugnant. He attempts to save his favorite deity by endorsing the idea that everyone has been retroactively saved due to the torture and martyrdom of a middle-aged Nazarene some two thousand years ago. Asking why such a barbaric act is necessary in the first place is not something he’s yet ready for, since this too taxes a belief system already strained by the capricious and cruel blood thirst of Bell’s Abrahamic god.

With Bell’s attempt to stretch the foundations of his faith to encompass individuals outside his own organization, he in effect weakens the redemptive message evangelical preachers rely on to terrify their flock from questioning doctrine. What he and his cohorts fail to understand is for some, it’s the fire and torment they like. The “lovey-dovey” stuff is for sissies and liberals in their eyes. For many in the Evangelical right, it is the intensity of their hatred of people on the “outside” of their tight little Jesus circle-jerk that fuels their hellish fantasies. Recall in their eyes, we’ve already made our choice not to believe in their intellectually void ministrations, and the heavenly reward that supposedly awaits them includes the pleasure of watching the eternity of our torment for so much free-thought. If love was really the issue at hand, how could the so-called “righteous ones” not rebel against their God at the though of so many suffering in pain forever?

Of course that’s exactly the kinds of morally repulsive conclusions Bell has reached, and so he seduces those within Evangelism who have tired of the “brimstone mandate”. They are more numerous than the churches would ever admit. It is yet another kink in their already fading aura of supposed invisibility. Keep up the good work, Robby. Your attempts to civilize your religion will end up destroying it from the inside.

My kind of Zodiac

Posted on by

One of the coolest ideas I’ve seen in a long time. According to the Geek Zodiac, I’m a Spy. My qualities are “confident, patriotic, duplicitous, selfish and resourceful”. Can you guess which two attributes DON’T describe me? I bet you can’t…

Pat Robertson denies his hatefulness

Posted on by

Behind the scenes of Larry King live in the 90′s, Pat Robertson simultaneously argues he’s said nothing hurtful, and as soon as the camera lights are off, his true feelings seep out like a leaky septic tank. I love how he thinks the producers are “setting” him up by having callers who sound gay. Pat, when can we expect you to finally kick the bucket and leave us in peace?

Woman botches home circumcision of infant son

Posted on by

When Abraham is an old man, says the Bible, he enters a covenant with God that offers – in exchange for the tips of everyone’s penises in perpetuity – a guaranteed 400 years of misery with the promise of inheriting someone else’s land.

Abraham makes the rather undiplomatic agreement for the sake of his descendants, and proceeds to cut every male’s foreskin with a blade. Most of the men, the vast majority of them slaves, are all adults and the invention of anesthetics is still many moons away.

If there’s a lesson here, it’s probably you should avoid trusting what a senile old man claiming to hear the voice of God tells you. Unfortunately for a 3 month old in Portland Oregon, the Bible has received the greatest publicity campaign in the world, declared by educated and uneducated alike to be the definitive source of all Western morality.

When the boy’s mother – indoctrinated since childhood as to the benefit of reading this vile tome- decided to follow the same covenant Abraham made with God, she did so in much the same fashion. 29-year-old Keemonta Peterson circumcised her child, and after he cried in agony for 2 hours as the blood continued to flow out of his body, her malfunctioning maternal instincts finally kicked into high gear long enough to call the hospital and avoid him death. By the time he arrived, the child was listed as critical. The doctor testified the pain for the baby would have been immense.

He has since luckily recovered, although no details have emerged as to the condition of his penis. The mother is facing charges, and must now visit her children under supervision. Where did all of this misery begin? Did it start in her childhood, as the ludicrous concepts of religion were drilled into her impressionable brain?

I’m glad her lawyer didn’t try to argue endangering your child is a form of religious expression, like some people. It seems as though we’ve humored the nonsense of faith for so long we’re shocked people act on it. People like Keemonta may be crazy, but they got helping getting there.

Is there objective morality in the Universe?

Posted on by

I received a number of emails about the Harris vs Craig debate, and I thought it would be fun if we had a forum to discuss a question that’s been on my mind since listening to the debate: does objective morality exists?

We’ll start with one of the letters I got from a fan of the show:

Hi there TGA,
I just thought I’d say that I really enjoyed the debate you posted between Sam Harris and Something Craig. However, as an atheist I was surprised to find that I was disappointed by Sam’s showing. It seemed to me that he spent most of his time rehashing arguments he’d made at previous talks rather than addressing the statements made by Professor Craig. Specifically, I felt that the Prof adopted an almost pantheist or deist framework, refusing to acknowledge the sectarian beliefs we all know he holds, while Sam spent the debate firing heavy artillery at those very sectarian contentions, thereby missing Craig’s assertions entirely.

There are a lot of flaws in Craig’s argument that weren’t discussed and it’d go along way in satisfying my urge to shake some sense into him, in a way Sam didn’t, if you’d address them in your next podcast.

Before I talk about this on the podcast, I think it’s important for me to say that I’m not entirely convinced there is such a thing as “objective morality” in the Universe. That’s not to say I don’t believe in right or wrong; I’m just not convinced there’s any empirical evidence to suggest human morality is somewhat built on the premise certain actions are Universally wrong and Universally right outside our own species.

So I’m presented with a bit of a dilemma: while I think Craig’s argument – this objective morality is grounded in the concept of a morally perfect God – fails to address a number of issues, Sam similarly fails in my view to demonstrate how an objective morality exists outside of our own framework.

Still, I haven’t yet read his book, and his argument may be simply incomplete. So while I try and spend the next few days securing and analyzing his tome, I want your opinions on whether you think objective morality in fact exists!

Accommodation or confrontation?

Posted on by

Since arriving in Calgary, I made a simple promise to myself. I vowed that I would further my involvement in the local atheist community. It was therefore fortuitous that after only of few days of adjusting to my new surroundings, an opportunity to meet up with other atheists presented itself in the form of a lecture. Held at the University of Calgary last night, it was entitled “The Evolution-Creation Controversy“. Dr. David Eberth presented a stimulating discussion on the framework of Creationism, and argued the real ‘debate” is a political and cultural rather than a scientific struggle.

Dr. Eberth was coming into his approach from an admittedly accommodationist angle. You’re all probably terribly familiar with my thoughts on the matter by now, and can venture to guess I had a few things to say about it. Specifically I focused on one of his metaphors: that of a pendulum illustrating the tendencies for movements to shift from side to side. My argument was perhaps it would be in our favor to put as much emphasis on “our end of the spectrum” rather than concentrate on those who’s opinions were unformulated (the overly solicited “middle ground”).

While I admit it may seem strange one becomes more popular the more you alienate others (to a certain degree, of course), this paradox is undeniably true. Perhaps it’s because the unconvinced masses are impossible to sway, and so they require a “flash-point” in order to be compelled to choose (the safest thing, after all, is not to do anything). The “proles”, Winston observed in George Orwell’s dystopic masterpiece, were simply incapable of grasping the idea they were being oppressed. The experience was so pervasive, it was essentially invisible to them.

Delusion functions similarly. And while Eberth expressed no real interest in what people believed – since in his view it didn’t influence the process of science – it nevertheless interferes with the perception of science. This may be cultural, but it is the systematic irrationality on the part of everyone involved (at all levels) that creates fertile grounds for the controversy. Like any other poisonous concept such as racism, bigotry and sexism, there are no institutions that vanguard these antiquated and dangerous ideas; they are merely the subtle manifestation of a broader set of shared beliefs.

In other words, what you believe really does matter. The importance of belief leaves me unmoved by the limited reproach we give to bad ideas. Even worse, if we try to seduce people to see reality, the truth is we do provide a far less tempting offer. Religion entices followers with a host of promises we couldn’t begin to match. Instead we offer the bitter reality, like all offers which are too good to be true, it really was that and more. What our species accepted in the bargain of religion was the formation of an idea whose very existence created culturally dominant forces which withheld at bay our growing curiosity. Only in the light of reason, a glacially slow process many have perished to preserve, have we wrested away control from these institutions.

Soft pats on the back and a Scooby-Snack will not be enough to entice people to reason. We must instead appeal to the need that all humans share: to wrestle against the absurd. It is in our nature to fight the confusion of enigmatic forces acting upon one another. That struggle creates order to the world we experience. If you doubt this, a simple test can be arranged: simply try and manage that monster struggle after a only few days of sleeplessness. Our capacity for reason is the ultimate triumph of this struggle, but it is a delicate thing, difficult to maintain, and often contrary to our more potent instincts.

We must dissuade them as strongly as we can not to surrender this fragile capacity for reason simply for wishful fantasy. At the end of the day, I believe it is our desire to win the struggle for reason that will make us triumphant, and it is not one we should mask in an effort to be polite.

The evils of Missionary work

Posted on by

A recent article on haveyoureadthebible.com* on missionary work left me both angry and disgusted. If you’ve got the time, I highly recommend reading it if you want your blood to boil a little (especially the pictures of these morons on dune buggies and hiking trips).

I never grew up in a particularly religious environment, thanks largely to my anti-theist father, so my interactions with missionaries occurred only in my young adulthood. Until then I never really thought about what it was all about. No doubt if I had met any in my youth, they would have filled my head with romantic images of the struggling humanitarians trying to “save the souls” of the damned to create a better world.

The reality of missionary work, however, differs vastly from the carefully crafted image religions try to portray. The problem can be understood this way: any actions intended to change the mind and culture of another society comes with a number of risks. The first, and most obvious, is the corrupting influence of wealth; for how can an African child, offered a piece of life-saving bread at the edge of starvation, not be unduly influenced by those giving out their aid? At the least sinister (and this is rarely the case), charity alone pressures those receiving food or shelter to play along for their own good. Much more often, the gift is a bargaining chip to entice converts, and a strong deterrent for departure.

The danger lies also in the twisted reason for their pilgrimage. Rather than a result of merely the kindness and goodness of their hearts, the missionary is on an ordained mission from God, told by scripture to spread the word, regardless of its consequences. The influence of which has transformed Africa into a proxy war between Christianity and Islam. Conflict follows religions wherever they go, since their own ideologies require a totalitarian control over the entirety of existence. It isn’t enough they control the actions of millions of people, the externalities of belief demand even family members turn on one another. Like Matthiew 10:21 so clearly opined,

“brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.”

*(Update: The site no longer exists)

Hitchens on the afterlife

Posted on by

Here’s a nice video for you late risers that is part of a complete breakfast: Hitchens being asked if the prospect of death has caused him to “rethink” his position on the “afterlife”. His response is both eloquent, and satisfyingly vulgar. Enjoy!

Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig

Posted on by

William Lane Craig is perhaps one of the few powerful debaters left on the side of zombie Jesus, so I strongly recommend you listen to what he has to say and determine for yourself how wrong he is about the concept of God being the superior objective moral standard.

My 2 cents? Is something good only because God determines it to be good? If there is a definite moral objectivity, how is unquestioning authority a solution to this? If he admits morality changes over time, then how does this reflect the image of a never changing God?