You Can't Be Good Without God.

I suppose that's what the Metro Transit Authority in Halifax is telling us when they denied the Humanists an opportunity to advertise on the sides of buses.

"So, if anytime we feel there's a message that could be controversial and upsetting to people, we don't necessarily sell the ads."

Indeed. I can't wait for the obvious corollaries to come through on a broad statement like that. I'm rather offended, quite personally and honestly, when politicians tell us that atheists can't be trusted because we don't believe in god.

The Humanists are simply responding to that multitude of religious people that insist religion and god-belief are necessary for morality, thereby insinuating that the rest of us are incapable of morality. The Humanists are saying that we can be good without god.

And this is controversial?

This stands, to me, as the typical rant of the religious. They get to swing their fists wherever they want: insulting us; tricking our children in to their cult; using our tax dollars to fund their worship. And if ever we tell them to stop insulting us and to leave our children alone then we are persecuting them. Suddenly, it's so difficult to be in that gigantic majority of Christiandom because they're not allowed to punch us in the face with their dogma.

Yes, I can see how that could be offensive: announcing that some of us, despite everything their priests have told them, can lead moral lives without their religion. I can see how that must grate on their nerves. After all of the abuse and scorn they've been permitted to heap on us, after all the nonsense they've taught their children about us, they're forced to face the truth that some of us actually lead decent lives without being cajoled or threatened with eternal damnation. What will their children think of this?

Yeah, that must really tick them off.

h/t to Red Tory.

Recommend this Post

Sam Harris, Sir, You Rule

Over at richarddawkins.net, there's an essay by Jerry Coyne on the subject of religion and science running together and how some scientists manage to remain religious.

The good stuff comes from the responses by various scientists (religious and not) of import and how they deal with the situation. After you've read Krauss's bit on how it's not worth the time to argue with the religious and Dyson's bit on how the number of books reconciling science and religion is a sign of success at doing so, scroll down to Sam Harris's eloquent essay.

Remember to wear goggles. The sarcasm ... it burns.

Recommend this Post

Oh, no! Not Marijuana!

How can it be? How can it be!

I didn't want to believe it, but he admitted to it! The world's favourite 23-year-old swimming superstar now outed as a heavy drug user when a picture came out on the interwebs of him using ...

What?

Marijuana?

Omigod, people, get a grip.

I suppose we should expect Americans to explode this way, after the way they exploded when they Janet Jackson's breast appeared on television for some fraction of a second. But really. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

The last time a Canadian Olympian got caught green-handed, remember that? Rebagliatti? Marijuana in his urine? Our whole country was up in arms demanding that he keep his gold medal because a) marijuana isn't a performance enhancing drug and b) it's marijuana, not crack.

Sheesh, people. He's human. And 23. And a superstar. You should be happy it's only weed.

Recommend this Post