Charlie Hebdo rest in peace (RIP): Not all gods are equal, some are peaceful and some are terrorists

Copy of the January 2016 "Charlie Hebdo" The god of all religions a terrorist? I don't think so. Not all religions have the same god.

The original & only Charlie Hebdo rest in peace. The new Hebdo is not the same magazine as the old one. RIP Charlie Hebdo. Not all gods are equal nor are all religions. "Religion" as a concept is just as dangerous a thing when it flowers on the left as when it continues to exist on the right, and probably the leftist version is even more dangerous & denialist & dishonest.

[Charlie Hebdo’s anniversary edition proves Islamic terrorists won]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiFl7eo4nBw

Charlie Hebdo claims that the "god of all religions is a terrorist" as per a recent cover talked about in the video below. That's not true though.

The god the Jains is not a terrorist. The god of most Amish is not. Even the hippie god of leftie Christians/Unitarians is not (except in as much as that god says one must law down and let fascists thrive "in their own lands").

The god of Mormonism is a horny white & delightsome man who has sex with thousands of women every hour of every day [do the math: to make 10,000,000,000 spirit babies in say 1,000,000 years, that's 1 baby making activity even every hour].

The god of Scientology is an angry alien.

The god of Catholicism & Anglicanism is a mystical undefinable asexual parthenogenic blob, and in the case of Catholocism who really really hates making Jesuses via normal vaginal sex while at the same time really really liking perverted old fart virgin pedophile priests.

The god of Islam is vain & brutal & narcissistic & jealous & mean & evil. Check the links at:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/

Not all gods are equal nor are all religions.

--------

Related posts & additional notes:

On the god of Mormonism:

Advise for TBMs on porn: Why society accepts pornography but not littering?
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/advise-for-tbms-on-porn-why-society.html

We were all just sperm in god's balls:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/god's%20balls

Questions for Mormon missionaries (includes references to how the Mormon god had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus)
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/03/questions-for-mormon-missionaries-god.html

On the god of Catholicism (defined by a bunch of fucking mumbo jumbo):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Concept_of_the_Divine#Essence_and_attributes
and unlike Mormonism Catholicism firmly maintains the birth of Jesus was virginal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
God's wiener did not go anywhere near Mary's hoohaw, and in Catholicism God probably doesn't even have a wiener & to suggest as much would be sacrilege to Catholics.

On the god of Islam: the core text of Islam clearly states his intentions:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/
...on that page check out the following categories:

Injustice
Intolerance
Cruelty and Violence
Absurdities
Good Stuff
Women
Science and History
Contradictions
Interpretations
Family Values
Sex
Language

Whereas the god of Jainism is much different:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#God

Five main vows of Jains, which is a much different list from that of your average Mohamed lover:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Five_main_vows

Jains must be non-violence, but sometimes violence is called for:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/iraq

God of Scientology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4SBfhRmvzU
and http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21d8ks_south-park-what-scientologist-actually-believe_fun

Peter Singer is an amoral fuck -- speaking as an atheist. On morality, children, infanticide, and abortions.

Peter Singer is an amoral fuck -- speaking as an atheist. On morality, children, infanticide, and abortions...

Today I started watching a debate between David Silverman and Dinesh D'Souza:

Peter Singer:

 "...human babies are not born self-aware ... they are not persons ... the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

Silverman doesn't speak for all atheists. Atheism is not a religion per se, and we aren't required to join hands with everyone who may be classified as an atheist.

Merry Christmas. Happy Solstice. Merry Festivus. Whatever. I don't have a problem with any of these unlike Silverman. 

And Singer's past comments are disturbing, wrong, and amoral. Religion is a natural phenomenon. Whatever good comes from religion still is natural, not supernatural. So Dinesh should make note of that, if he can. And at the same time, being an atheist doesn't have to mean being a zero population growth ultra-leftie.

Singer is a fucking nut, speaking frankly...

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/

I don't have a problem with American Atheists as a group per se, but I'm not into leader-worship though. So Silverman is just plain wrong on the specific point of Singer's morality or lack thereof. Since atheism is not a religion per se we're not obliged to kowtow to arguments from authority.

There is a theme of relativistic amorality in the ivory tower. I agree with the assessment of Steven Pinker and Sam Harris about the state of higher education in America, with their belief in the blank slate, and advocacy for cultural & moral relativism so anally retentive that it's no problem for these people if religions oppress their own people. Who are we to say what's moral? We are. And not everything is relative...

Related links:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

''...the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled..."

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full#aff-1

While I agree that abortion in the first two trimesters should remain legal, I think there's good arguments to be made for highly discouraging the practice at the very least during that time, and good reason to bar it legally after the first two trimesters:

Pro-life atheists insist that a human life has intrinsic value, even though they don't believe in God.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/11/28/no-god-and-no-abortions.html

Hitchens on abortion:

So, I do differ with Singer. I'd rather see all the dogs and pigs on this planet destroyed than to see one innocent human child killed. So, how's that for atheist morality?

It's not the atheism or theism that's the issue here. Most people have built in morals, except for psychopaths and sociopaths, and people who've spent far too much time in the morally & culturally relativistic sewer of academia.

Sam Harris quote:

“For nearly a century, the moral relativism of science has given faith-based religion--that great engine of ignorance and bigotry--a nearly uncontested claim to being the only universal framework for moral wisdom. As a result, the most powerful societies on early spend their time debating issues like gay marriage when they should be focused on problems like nuclear proliferation, genocide, energy security, climate change, poverty, and failing schools.”

 and another from Harris:

"...the consequences of moral relativism have been disastrous. And science's failure to address the most important questions in human life has made it seem like little more than an incubator for technology. It has also given faith-based religion -- that great engine of ignorance and bigotry -- a nearly uncontested claim to being the only source of moral wisdom. This has been bad for everyone. What is more, it has been unnecessary -- because we can speak about the well-being of conscious creatures rationally, and in the context of science. I think it is time we tried."

 -------------------------

1-8-12 addendum:

Video commentary added:

And another blog post:


atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html

Rationalism, Naturalism, Cultural Relativism, and having an accurate view of the world

The rationalist may not enjoy admitting to the biological evolutionary naturalistic roots of what he concludes is "rational." A good analogy is how Spock was portrayed as viewing the world: logical until mating season came around, but even then his actions were in the end logical to him.

It's is indeed rational to eat, breath, have sex, love, make babies, have fun, and so on - so the rationalist will naturally conclude because his brain and being are coded to conclude as much. So be it. Humans aren't fully rational though, whatever the fuck rational may actually mean.

In any case, the idea that we can divorce ourselves from emotion is an illusion and is in many ways a potentially damaging self deception. Go without food long enough, or other of our primary biological needs, and the supposedly strict rationalist will very quickly go right off the rails. Pretend like you've got a "rational mind" divorced from your "emotional mind" and you're frankly drive yourself and others crazy.

On cultural relativism: I don't have a problem with judging how people acted in the past. There's a limit to my own tolerance regarding past behavior, and I believe everyone has a limit. My mentioning of Mohamed's 9 year old wife was to show one example. Maybe people did marry at 14 in the past more, but there's all sorts of things that used to happen which we now have concluded were incorrect actions. Incorrect now, and, incorrect then. For example: slavery, the oppression of women, having kings rule with an iron fist, and so on.

Pinker has spoken of an progressing moral zeitgeist as has Dawkins. Also Harris has some good ideas on a science of morality. Thank goodness we now have a much wider scope for our in group morality.

Down at BYU in the psychology & religion departments, they may strongly decry the "hedonistic" nature of "the world," and try to get their students to be wary. They go to their churches on Sunday where Mormon bishops interrogate youngsters about masturbation, and where all the youngsters learn to fear normal natural human sexuality. But, meanwhile, their founding prophets have been reasonably documented as doing things which the Mormon Church would excommunicate people for. So that's the point. Hypocrisy.

Don't masturbate Johnny, but meanwhile worship a god who had literal sex with the wife of another man. Don't have oral sex, Julie and Jim, but meanwhile Brigham & Joseph got to have sex with the wives of other men and with under age girls.

My own experience with Mormonism has made me more of a strong naturalist, on both sides of the cultural spectrum. So for example I'm all for people having as many babies as they want - if that's what deep down they feel like doing. The exuberance of the gays has a companionship with the exuberance of a large family. I try not to disparage either course of action because deep down people are doing what they feel included to do as animals. So be it. And, as rather intelligent animals maybe in the long term we can engineer and way to stay alive when the sun gets 10% hotter.

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/funeral-talk-that-i-gave-in-february.html

The bottom line is that I don't think everything is relative. All societies past & present can for example be evaluated against the following yardstick: How well did each help humans be happy & thrive, and how much did each hold people down & make them unhappy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality