Cobourg Atheist - Canadian News and Resources. News and articles on Atheism and subjects of interest to atheists. Viewpoint is Canadian.

The Burqa is political not Religious

Details

Created on Thursday, 06 August 2009 01:43

Published on Thursday, 06 August 2009 01:43

Written by John Draper

Hits: 2355

Several Arab Columnists have supported French President Nicolas Sarkozy's statement that the burqa is a sign of subjugation of women.  According to Memri.

Columnists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt have supported Sarkozy and said that according to Islamist teachings, there is no requirement to wear  the Niqab, burqa or even the hijab and that those who do, are doing it because of political or cultural reasons.  They emphasise that covering women in this way signified subjugation, and thus these garments were not wanted in countries where women are respected [like Canada].

Read more: The Burqa is political not Religious

Honour Killings - a German view

Details

Created on Monday, 03 August 2009 01:11

Published on Monday, 03 August 2009 01:11

Written by John Draper

Hits: 2080

On November 18, 2006, Maryam Namazie spoke passionately (in English) about the appalling treatment given to women by Muslims.  The talk was given in Germany and was particularly concerned about the bad situation in Germany and urged everyone to fight against the intolerable situation.  The video of her talk is provided here.

Read more: Honour Killings - a German view

Is Atheism intolerant?

Details

Created on Tuesday, 04 August 2009 01:01

Published on Tuesday, 04 August 2009 01:01

Written by John Draper

Hits: 3157

Atheists often express intolerance of irrational thinking and unreasonable beliefs.  If you cannot prove something, why would any sane person believe it?  Yet the majority of the world's population have some form of religious belief - they have "faith".  The generally accepted definition of faith is that it is belief that does not require a rational proof. This is hard for a rational person to accept - it seems somehow less than human.  Aren't humans better than animals because we are capable of rational thought?  So atheists want all humans to act rationally and find it hard to be tolerant of non-rational behavior.  Yet reason tells us that it's not good (not moral) to be intolerant of other people's beliefs.  They too have a rational mind and are entitled to their opinion.  So in fact most atheists are tolerant but certainly not all - try a visit to Pharyngula!

Read more: Is Atheism intolerant?

Not all science is good

Details

Created on Saturday, 01 August 2009 20:22

Published on Saturday, 01 August 2009 20:22

Written by John Draper

Hits: 2644

Atheists all have a common view that the world should be viewed rationally and that science being a rational subject/method provides answers to rational questions - like does god exist and how did the world come into existence.  But many atheists take that one step further and say that science is always right.  Perhaps they have forgotten that Newton was once thought to have the answer on light and gravity and while his work is still a "special case", Einstein's theories superseded Newton's.  And quantum mechanics supersedes some of Einstein's work.   This is just one example of how scientific theories evolve and if you ask any scientist, they will all agree that there can be no certainty on any scientific theory - the best that can be done is to say it's highly probable.  For example, Richard Dawkins does not say that there is certainly no god, only that it is highly probable - so highly probable that it can be treated as a fact for practical purposes.

My point here is that scientific answers, unlike the irrational bible, cannot be taken as certainty and can also evolve (change) with time based on new or better understood evidence.

Another fallacy often put forth by non-scientific people is that the more scientists agree with a theory, the more likely it is to be right.  As Michael Crichton once said: Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.  Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.  In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

So I am very disappointed to see the highly respected blogger PZ Myers use his blog to attempt to destroy the credibility of Anthony Watts.  First, apart from being on the subject of science, I don't see what it has to do with atheism unless he thinks that only the PZ Myers version of science is acceptable.  Why would the opinion of Anthony Watts on Climate Change have any relevance to atheism?

Secondly, PZ Myers shows a video which uses personal ridicule and selected data to make the case. That's very poor arguing and is descending to the same level as creationists! If PZ would bother to look at the arguments by Anthony Watts, he might see that perhaps Watts made an error in his case about measurement data but one error does not destroy the whole argument.  There is no attempt to answer the rest of the case - there is just personal ridicule and a tie-in with the Heartland Institute which has a questionable background.  If we disputed everyone who had an axe to grind we would dismiss out of hand all evidence of atheism by Dawkins, Hitchens and others because they have books to sell.  Good scientists should look at evidence no matter its source and decide on its merits and not based on possible motivation by the writer.

For the record, my view is that Climate change was happening up to around 2001 but there has since been cooling and the jury is still out on the longer term trend although it currently appears the effect of AGW is very small. Skepticism is healthy and atheists are generally skeptical - why be selectively non-skeptical on climate change?   And before everyone tells me I'm wrong about the climate - maybe I am, but I don't stoop to the tactics of PZ Myers to criticize those who disagree.

Note that this article is categorized under "Using Reason" - it should also be posted under " some atheists stoop to the level of those they criticize" but I don't have such a category.