Here’s your Canadian Atheist Weekly Update for to .
![[Chart showing groupings of cognitive biases, as devised by Buster Benson.]](/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/cognitive-biases-chart-buster-benson-john-manoogian-iii-200x160.jpg)
-
Buster Benson attempts to create a taxonomy of cognitive biases. The best part is the gorgeous graphic made by John Manoogian ⅠⅠⅠ. (Also check out the map made by Alexey Turchin at LessWrong.)
-
[] ”Islam is Evil: Atheists and Christians Find Common Ground”(Video: 11:33)
A wickedly clever video aimed at Christians. I recommend you watch it all the way through – if you’re really busy, okay, just watch it as far as the reveal that comes just after 6:44. Then share with every Christian you know who trash talks the barbarism in the Quran.
h/t Hemant Mehta
-
[] Why proportional representation is likely to produce better public policy
A couple years ago, I made a detailed case for why secularists, humanists, atheists, and freethinkers should support reforming Canada’s electoral system to a proportional representation system, and was shocked at how uninformed people were about the issue, and how so many claimed that it probably couldn’t be done for this or that reason. Well now electoral reform is really happening, so of course the denialism has begun in earnest – the Fraser Institute in particular has tried to discredit the idea of proportional representation as “bad for the economy”. Behind the Numbers lives up to its name, fact-checking that claim and backing it up with rigorous sourcing, and along the way they debunk other myths.
Canadian Atheist’s Weekly Update depends on the submissions of readers like you. If you see anything on the Internet that you think might be of interest to CA readers, please take a minute to make a submission.
I don’t even care if proportional representation produces anything better or worse.
It is unethical that our democratic system so inaccurately reflects the varied and competing wills of the Canadian electorate.
Even if proportional representation grinds parliament to a halt, parliament needs to represent Canadians, not take the shortcut of artificial majorities to ram through things that most Canadians do not want, time after time.
The ethics argument is enough to convince me, too. But some people seem to need a more mercenary justification for doing what’s right.
”Islam is Evil: Atheists and Christians Find Common Ground”
The problem with the argument, is that pretty much every human text of the time said exactly the same kind of things. Even the ones that didn’t mention God.
All too often, Atheists seem to slide out of the “God is an irrational idea” real, into the “Religion is the cause of all problems” realm, to the detriment of all econo-geo-political analysis.
This seems to be a big and curious problem. Verges on willful scapegoating.
Islam is a warlord’s tool just like Judaism and Christianity.
Islam and Judaism are more easily understood as such. Christianity has obscured its origins to the point that many people have been led to the conclusion that it was somehow created in opposition to the warlords. Even though it quite clearly states that Christians are to obey their rulers because God has chosen them to rule.
Atheism is not very threatening for non-religious people. The first step away from fear and threats is to recognise religion as a manmade creature-control tool composed to dominate and control the tribes. To go down the path away from religious domination the reader must ask, “why would anybody (not a deity) command such an evil thing?” Or. Why would anybody suggest that blind faith isn’t a completely foolish act?
That’s not a problem with the argument. That’s a problem with your understanding of the argument.
The argument is not “religion is evil because there are evil things in religious texts”. First of all, it is specifically directed at Christians, so there is no relevance to “all econo-geo-political analysis” – you know, it is possible to send a message specifically to one person or group, and for that message to be specific to a particular topic relevant only to that group; not everything you say needs to be for universal consumption, or have universal relevance.
Secondly, the argument is not as simplistic as you think it is. It is not simply: “Your religious texts has bad things in it so it’s bad, nyah nyah.” It is directed at Christians, and it is challenging their belief in their moral superiority: “You say your religion’s moral teachings are good, yet these are your religion’s moral teachings and they are abhorrent. There is a contradiction you must resolve: either your religion’s moral teachings are *not* good, or these are not your religion’s teachings, or they are not really abhorrent. You can’t deny 2. You really don’t want to disagree with 3. Which leaves you with option 1: your religion’s moral teachings are not good.”
After that, it makes the argument that since the morality in Christianity is not coming from its religious texts, it must be coming from secular ethics. All-in-all, it undermines the widely held belief (among Christians, the actual targets of the message, if you’ll recall) that you can’t have morality without Christianity by showing that Christians *actually* have morality *in spite of* Christianity.
err…
Asian elephants are more egalitarian because they have better, more predictable resources.
Elephants