Weekly Update: to

Here’s your Canadian Atheist Weekly Update for to .

[A panel from the Oglaf webcomic, featuring God in the Garden of Eden enraged and shouting: "Aw! Noooo! Come on– that’s just nasty! I… can’t even look at you people. Get out"]

Wait, why don’t you leave? You’re omnipotent; you are not going to suffer outside of the Garden of Eden.

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.

3 thoughts on “Weekly Update: to

  1. “why religious belief does not count as delusional”

    Very well constructed argument. Religious people are not delusional because they are analysing events according to their beliefs. Their bipolar wife isn’t mentally ill, she just needs to put her trust in Jesus.

    Ok, they’re not delusional. They are just hopelessly deluded.

  2. I must say for a Canadian Atheist site I found most articles to be dealing with religion. Not what I was expecting. I will say the articles do speak at least against religion mostly BUT I did start getting the odd sense there was more tolerance for Islam and Sikhism! Why is that? I would have thought an Atheist views would have been 100% for Separation of Church and State and not minimize the issue for “minority” religions.I am all for respecting people’s religious freedoms , even though I disagree with them. But I agree with the people from Quebec, who have learnt from History that our government needs to be neutral ESPECIALLY as we are becoming more and more multicultural and want to include everyone, even the Atheists!

    • I must say for a Canadian Atheist site I found most articles to be dealing with religion.

      There are several reasons for that, not least being that any atheism news is almost always lumped into the “religion” section of news sites. But the most important reason is that even when an article does directly relate to atheism, atheistic ideas, and atheists, the article is usually written not from the atheists’ perspective, but from the perspective of believers. Because that’s considered the “normal” perspective.

      I will say the articles do speak at least against religion mostly BUT I did start getting the odd sense there was more tolerance for Islam and Sikhism! Why is that?

      In a single word: nuance.

      While you’ll find most articles written or highlighted at CA are very critical of the many, many problems associated with religion, we don’t just blindly hate on religion. We will definitely point out when religion or religious believers are in the wrong… but when there are in the right, we will point that out too. We will vigorously challenge undeserved religious privilege and other religious bullshit… but when people are trying to unjustly take away the rights and freedoms of the religious, we’ll defend them.

      We stand for what is right; we don’t stand for merely bashing on religion. And while it is relatively rare, religion and religious people are on the side of right sometimes.

      I would have thought an Atheist views would have been 100% for Separation of Church and State and not minimize the issue for “minority” religions.

      We are 100% in favour of secularism, and make no exceptions for minority religions. The problem here may just be that you don’t understand what secularism really means.

      I am all for respecting people’s religious freedoms , even though I disagree with them. But I agree with the people from Quebec, who have learnt from History that our government needs to be neutral ESPECIALLY as we are becoming more and more multicultural and want to include everyone, even the Atheists!

      Those two sentences are completely contradictory. What Québec is doing clearly not “neutral”. There is no sane definition of “neutral” that can include Québec’s actions. When you’re taking action specifically to remove visible signs of religion from the public sphere, that’s the opposite of neutral. That’s taking a side.

      Also, your definition of “including everyone” is obviously bullshit, because Québec’s actions clearly exclude certain people. I mean, that’s obvious and undeniable; the only thing being debated is whether or not the justification for excluding those people holds up. But the fact is that people are being consciously excluded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Help

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15