Bertrand Russell – Love Is Wise

Posted by admin | Posted in Anti-Religion | Posted on 19-09-2014


All material cited below. Special thanks to YouTube user pedroabreu23 (Pedro Abreu) for translating this video into Portuguese Narration: Bertrand Russell – …

 Digg  Facebook  StumbleUpon  Twitter  Google 

Ken Ham is Writing a Tell-All Book About His Debate with Bill Nye

Posted by admin | Posted in Anti-Religion | Posted on 18-09-2014


Ken Ham still thinks we’re all talking about his debate with Bill Nye.

Seriously. He thinks we’re all rethinking evolution because of stuff he said.

And he’s finally getting around to writing a tell-all book that will impress nobody.

I can’t believe he didn’t call it I Was There… (Edit: Okay, you all win. It should have been called There’s Another Book…)


Popular AiG speaker and author Bodie Hodge (my son-in-law) and I have written what we believe is a unique and powerful book about the debate — not just dealing with the content of the debaters, but detailing behind the scenes and personal information. We believe this publication (estimated to be well over 300 pages), will be a phenomenal teaching tool, and will be a fascinating read for what has been called by some as “the debate of the century.”

No scientist is calling it the “debate of the century.” Only you are calling it that. Maybe other Creationists. No one else.

And 300 pages?! What the hell happened behind the scenes that needs more than a few pages, tops, to explain? Bill Nye already wrote an article from his perspective (and gave a speech, too) and it wasn’t anywhere close to that length.

But really, what’s in the book?

Many people have lingering questions from the debate and are curious about how, if given more time than I had during the debate, I would have countered Mr. Nye’s claims. This new resource does just that. I encourage everyone who viewed the debate — believer or skeptic alike — to get a hold of this resource. Believers will be equipped to stand firmly on the authority of God’s Word and respectfully dialogue with others. Skeptics will be challenged with the truth of God’s Word, the bankruptcy of evolution and naturalism, and the abundance of scientific evidence for the biblical model of origins.

Okay. So this book is just a copy-paste version of all of his other books… and he’ll get a do-over on all the embarrassing answers he gave during the debate.. even though there’s no new information on his end. (Ken, time wasn’t the problem. Your answers were.)

Arguably, the most memorable moment of the debate was when Nye and Ham were asked what, if anything, would ever change their mind:

Ken Ham essentially said Nothing.

Bill Nye said “One piece of evidence.”

Can’t wait to hear how Ham tries to make up for that…

View full post on Friendly Atheist

 Digg  Facebook  StumbleUpon  Twitter  Google 

Fading Faith: The Rise of the Secular Age

Posted by admin | Posted in Anti-Religion | Posted on 10-09-2014


FADING FAITH chronicles the decline of religion in modern democracies and predicts that America is traveling this path to secularism. A profound transition is occurring, barely noticed. Slowly, imperceptibly, supernatural religion is shriveling. Pope Benedict XVI laments that ”Europe has developed a culture that, in a manner unknown before now to humanity, excludes God from the public conscience.” In Denmark and Sweden, fewer than 5 percent of adults are in church… More >>

Fading Faith: The Rise of the Secular Age

 Digg  Facebook  StumbleUpon  Twitter  Google 

Civilization and Its Discontents (Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud) [Paperback]

Posted by admin | Posted in Anti-Religion | Posted on 10-09-2014


Shows some signs of wear, and may have some markings on the inside. 100% Money Back Guarantee…. More >>

Civilization and Its Discontents (Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud) [Paperback]

 Digg  Facebook  StumbleUpon  Twitter  Google 

Morals: Dilemma for the Anesthetised Mind (Individual & Society)

Posted by admin | Posted in Anti-Religion | Posted on 10-09-2014


Is Religion the villain in modern democracies, or is the laic State more intrusive? If the State is laic but the majority of a population is not, how legitimate is legislation that usurps taxpayers’ money to pursue religiously questionable goals? Is mere pluralism the width and breadth of a genuine democracy? Should moral tolerance be infinite? What part does intolerance play? How elastic is the conscience of the individual that wants to “fit-in”? How legitimate i… More >>

Morals: Dilemma for the Anesthetised Mind (Individual & Society)

 Digg  Facebook  StumbleUpon  Twitter  Google 

The Martin Amis Interview (Excerpts from MOUTH Book 1)

Posted by admin | Posted in Anti-Religion | Posted on 10-09-2014


Introduced by Jordan Belfort’s foreword to Gambotto-Burke’s stunning interview anthology MOUTH, the Martin Amis interview – one of Gambotto-Burke’s first; she was only nineteen at the time – gives real insight into what it was to be Britain’s most notorious novelist. Gambotto-Burke interviewed Amis in his curtainless Notting Hill flat in 1985. They discussed fatherhood, the basing of characters on real people, and the novelist’s craft. “If you read Tolstoy,” he told… More >>

The Martin Amis Interview (Excerpts from MOUTH Book 1)

 Digg  Facebook  StumbleUpon  Twitter  Google 

Bertrand Russell on Logical Analysis

Posted by admin | Posted in Anti-Religion | Posted on 09-09-2014


This is an audiobook recording of the concluding chapter to Bertrand Russell’s “History of Western Philosophy” (1945). It’s a short introduction to the analy…

 Digg  Facebook  StumbleUpon  Twitter  Google 

A Debate on School Prayer Between an Expert and an Idiot

Posted by admin | Posted in Anti-Religion | Posted on 07-09-2014


The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal in Texas published a debate on the topic of school prayer in today’s paper. On one side, they have Arnold Loewy, the Chair of Criminal Law at Texas Tech School of Law.

On the other side, they have Donald May who wouldn’t know the law if it were spelled out right in front of him. Which it is.

Arnold Loewy (left) and Donald May

Let’s start with the sensible Loewy:

How, you might ask, can removing prayer from school possibly be good news for religious people? Well, in the first place, the Court did not remove prayer, it only removed school-sponsored prayer. There is a huge difference. Students are free to pray in school anytime they wish so long as they don’t disturb the class in doing so. So, if a group of two, 10 or 100 want to meet at school during lunch, recess, before or after school, or at any other free time and offer a prayer, they are free to do so.

We are so much better off today when students for whom a particular religious exercise is meaningful can participate in it on their own at school, unencumbered by the presence of others who neither revere nor understand their sacred blessings. Much of the objection to the school prayer decisions come from those who do not understand them.

Well said. Perfectly reasonable. Thank you, professor.

Now, let’s hear the rebuttal of Donald May, a failed congressional candidate who, proving Loewy’s point, doesn’t understand the law whatsoever.

Murray v. Curlett and Abington v. Schempp, two cases decided together in 1963, prohibited prayer and Bible reading in public schools. In doing so, the Court recognized atheism as a religion, gave it preference over Christianity, and established secular atheism as our national religion. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The educational achievements, discipline and manners of our youth have since been in a steep decline.

Not only does May wrongly think atheism is the law of the land, Loewy just explained why prayer and Bible reading is perfectly fine in public schools as long as it’s not school-sponsored. It’s clear May doesn’t know how to think; who knew he also didn’t know how to read?

Loewy tried one more time to explain this in simple terms:

The school prayer cases established neutrality, not atheism

Whether this was a good idea or a bad idea, it most assuredly was not an establishment of atheism. Indeed, if 100 years from now, we should become a majority atheist nation (and I certainly am not suggesting that would be a good thing), those of us who believe in God can rely on the school prayer decisions to preclude such atheistic tyranny.

Well, I think it’d be a pretty good thing to have a majority atheist nation, but point taken: The same law that prevents an establishment of Christianity as a national religion would also prevent an establishment of atheism.

What does May have to say about that?

Nothing. He’s still prattling on about how atheism is our national religion. Really.

Students are taught by the court-mandated presence of secularism and the absence of the Judeo-Christian religion in our schools that God’s laws and moral behavior are not important.

Our federal government has illegally imposed secular atheism as our national religion, redefined the free exercise of religion as “coercion” and prevented the voluntary exercise of religion in schools.

It’s telling that the guy whose ignorance is in full display is the one who ran for Congress.

I only wish I could see the facial reactions of Loewy as he read May’s “rebuttals,” knowing that the incoming students at his law school could very easily run circles around the dimwitted adult who thinks he can fix Washington.

(Thanks to Brian for the link)

View full post on Friendly Atheist

 Digg  Facebook  StumbleUpon  Twitter  Google 

Christopher Hitchens – Thomas Jefferson: Author of America (May 6, 2006)

Posted by admin | Posted in Anti-Religion | Posted on 29-08-2014


Christopher Hitchens talked about his book Thomas Jefferson: Author of America (May 6, 2006). He described both the public and private lives of Thomas Jeffer…

 Digg  Facebook  StumbleUpon  Twitter  Google 

Australia Pushes Ahead with $244,000,000 Federally-Funded School Chaplaincy Program That Excludes Secular Workers

Posted by admin | Posted in Anti-Religion | Posted on 27-08-2014


Ron Williams (below) wanted his children to attend a secular school in Australia, so you can imagine his surprise when his children told him they were attending “assemblies where the chaplain presided and a rap song was played extolling the virtues of chaplains over teachers as adults kids could trust.”

His lawsuit eventually went all the way up to Australia’s High Court, where, in 2012, they ruled that that it was illegal for secular schools to offer chaplaincy services for students through a government program that gave participating schools up to $24,000 each. The judges said no legislation allowed for this.

So the government, under then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard, quickly wrote up and passed legislation to rescue the program.

Earlier this summer, the High Court unanimously struck down that legislation as well. But there was still an opening:

Sydney University constitutional law professor Anne Twomey said on Wednesday that the federal government would be able to continue the chaplaincy program by providing grants to state governments rather than directly to schools.

“This is the only real option. They can do that and they probably will,” she said.

The fate of nearly $244,000,000 allocated for the next five years of the chaplaincy program hung in the balance based on what the government would do next.

Now we know their next steps.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott‘s government announced that the religious-only chaplaincy program would likely continue via those state grants:

In a bid to prevent another High Court challenge, the federal government will provide funding to state and territory governments to administer the scheme. This new arrangement strengthens the hand of the states and could see some demand an option for secular welfare workers or tougher qualification standards.

In a cabinet meeting on Monday, Abbott government ministers explored options to extend the scheme to include funding for secular welfare workers. This would have reversed the government’s existing policy that funding should be restricted to religious chaplains. During the cabinet discussion, Mr Abbott argued that the government should stand by its existing policy. Mr Abbott argued the scheme’s original intent was supporting pastoral care in schools and that should remain its focus. The chaplaincy scheme was also raised in the Coalition party room on Tuesday, where at least two government members argued the scheme should be broadened to include funding for secular workers.

Under the new scheme, chaplains can be of any faith, cannot proselytise and must meet minimum qualification standards.

In effect, though, that means nearly $244,000,000 will be allocated for religious chaplains in secular schools. As it stands, trained Humanist chaplains are excluded from the program and “secular welfare workers” are only being considered for inclusion.

It’s irrelevant that the program is voluntary. The message sent to students is very clear: Look to religious leaders for guidance, not anyone else. Even if proselytization is forbidden, religious groups are being handed a gift at the taxpayers’ expense.

There’s opposition from reasonable voices, but none that the government appears to be listening to:

Australian Education Union president Angelo Gavrielatos said the school chaplaincy scheme would “undermine the secular traditions of public education”. The $244 million funding over four years should be spent on more urgent needs, such as support for children with disabilities, he said.

When did Australia turn into the American South?

(Portions of this article were posted before.)

View full post on Friendly Atheist

 Digg  Facebook  StumbleUpon  Twitter  Google 

Powered by Yahoo! Answers