The stupidest things religionists say...

[Alan H]

Let's start with this...

'Ban women drivers', say religious leaders in London

Religious leaders have provoked fury after suggesting pupils should be banned from lessons if their mothers drive them to school.
.
Credit: PA
The strict ruling came from rabbis in an orthodox jewish sect at Stamford Hill, in north London.

In a letter published on jewish websites, the Hasidic Belz rabbis say women drivers are 'contrary to the rules of religious modesty'.

The letter warns pupils will be barred from lessons unless there are medical reasons for their mother to behind the wheel of a car.

Dina Brawer from the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance described the ruling as draconian. She expressed her anger on Twitter.

Dina Brawer @DinaBrawer

Banning #women from driving? This is not my #Orthodox #Judaism #JOFAuk @jofaorg http://t.co/3JIYllkKsR

07:47 - 28 May 2015 Retweet Reply Favourite

Full translation of letter:

As a repercussion for a woman who drives in a car, she cannot send her children to be educated at institutions of the Belz Chasidim".

We therefore announce that as of Rosh Chodesh Elul (Aug 14th), a student who's mother drives will not be allowed to study in our institutions.

If a mother has no other choice and has to drive for extenuating reasons (for example medical), she should submit a request to the special committee to this effect and the committee shall consider her request.

– TRANSLATION OF LETTER
Last updated Thu 28 May 2015

[Dave B]

Well, wish I could ban all parents (90+% mothers) from dropping their kids of at the local faith school - but that is for health and safety reasons. When even the emergency services can't get to houses close to the school because the parents want to drop at the gates, and it's at the end of a cul-de-sac . . .

But this case has no rational reason. But that's religion for yer!

[Nick]

Memory a little hazy, but isn't there was a site called....err.... here it is!

http://www.fstdt.com/

Fundies Say The Darndest Things.

Ain't that the truth!

IIRC, the founder died young of a critical illness, hence its somewhat dated appearance.

[Compassionist]

I was shown the following image by a Christian. I tried to explain the difference between evolution and making sandcastles but he didn't understand it. May be I didn't explain it well. How would you respond to the image and the comment on the image about atheist logic?

[Alan H]

Falling on the floor laughing?

[thundril]

I was shown the following image by a Christian. I tried to explain the difference between evolution and making sandcastles but he didn't understand it. May be I didn't explain it well. How would you respond to the image and the comment on the image about atheist logic?

It is difficult to get through to Intelligent Design proponents, principally because the logical fallacy underlying ID is deep-laid and self-reinforcing: If something looks ordered, we humans have an inbuilt tendency to suspect that it has been made that way for some reason..

I usually resort to pointing out the really crap 'design' features of the human body; for example development of the infant jaw. Why would an intelligent designer actually want (or just not care) to see little children spending nights howling in agony while their teeth break through their gums? Could you actually love a designer who did that? Or would you just be very scared of 'Him'?

There is also a lack of clarity in many people's ideas of order and chaos, chance and causality.
You might try inviting the ID proponent to calculate the odds of rolling six sixes in six consecutive throws of a die. Then invite him/her to calculate the chance of rolling some other specific sequence, like 1,4,2,4,3,5.

The chance of rolling any specific sequence in six consecutive throws is 1/(6^6).
So 6,6,6,6,6,6 is no less likely to happen by chance than 1,4,2,4,3,5.
The former is more ordered than the latter; but its origin is equally random.

[Alan H]

Orthodox Jewish schools' ban on women driving 'unacceptable', says DoE

A ban on women driving their children to school issued by a Jewish education institution is "unacceptable", the Department for Education has said.

Leaders of the ultra-Orthodox Belz sect in north London wrote to parents saying "no child will be allowed to learn in our school" if their mother drives.

Women driving "goes against the laws of modesty within our society", it said.

The Home Office issued a response saying it was "developing a strategy to tackle extremism in all its forms".

The Belz, who originated in Ukraine in the early 19th Century, are an ultra-Orthodox sect who follow Haredi Judaism.

The letter, which was signed from the "spiritual management" of Belz institutions, said: "There has been an increase in incidences of mothers of our students who have begun driving cars, something that goes against the laws of modesty within our society."

This had led to "a lot of exasperation" among other parents", it said.

The group's leader in Israel, Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach, had advised that "if a woman is driving a car, she cannot send her children to be educated in Belz institutions", it said.

It added that women with a "specific reason" to drive could submit a request to a special committee.

'Extremism strategy'

Responding to the letter, Education Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, Nicky Morgan, said: "This is completely unacceptable in modern Britain.

"If schools do not actively promote the principle of respect for other people they are breaching the independent school standards.

"Where we are made aware of such breaches we will investigate and take any necessary action to address the situation."

A Home Office spokesman said it was "developing a strategy to tackle extremism in all its forms".

They added that Home Secretary Theresa May had "made clear that she is not prepared to write off any British citizen as if they deserve fewer rights than the rest of us just because of where they're born, who their parents are or what religion they happen to have and neither should anyone else".

[Compassionist]

I was shown the following image by a Christian. I tried to explain the difference between evolution and making sandcastles but he didn't understand it. May be I didn't explain it well. How would you respond to the image and the comment on the image about atheist logic?

It is difficult to get through to Intelligent Design proponents, principally because the logical fallacy underlying ID is deep-laid and self-reinforcing: If something looks ordered, we humans have an inbuilt tendency to suspect that it has been made that way for some reason..

I usually resort to pointing out the really crap 'design' features of the human body; for example development of the infant jaw. Why would an intelligent designer actually want (or just not care) to see little children spending nights howling in agony while their teeth break through their gums? Could you actually love a designer who did that? Or would you just be very scared of 'Him'?

There is also a lack of clarity in many people's ideas of order and chaos, chance and causality.
You might try inviting the ID proponent to calculate the odds of rolling six sixes in six consecutive throws of a die. Then invite him/her to calculate the chance of rolling some other specific sequence, like 1,4,2,4,3,5.

The chance of rolling any specific sequence in six consecutive throws is 1/(6^6).
So 6,6,6,6,6,6 is no less likely to happen by chance than 1,4,2,4,3,5.
The former is more ordered than the latter; but its origin is equally random.

Thank you for your suggestions. I will try them out. This website lists some unfortunate 'design' flaws in the human body. Also, there are many parasites (e.g. the African Loa loa eyeworm which burrows into human eyes) which infest and harm humans and other organisms. Not to mention the bloody predation that goes on to feed the carnivores and the omnivores. If God is real and designed life, then, God is also evil for causing so much suffering.

[Compassionist]

Falling on the floor laughing?

[Alan H]

Falling on the floor laughing?

Couldn't resist it!

Another one: Top 10 Design Flaws in the Human Body

[Compassionist]

Falling on the floor laughing?

Couldn't resist it!

Another one: Top 10 Design Flaws in the Human Body

Thanks Alan. Sadly, the Creationists are not interested in informed and rational discussion.

[animist]

I was shown the following image by a Christian. I tried to explain the difference between evolution and making sandcastles but he didn't understand it. May be I didn't explain it well. How would you respond to the image and the comment on the image about atheist logic?

It is difficult to get through to Intelligent Design proponents, principally because the logical fallacy underlying ID is deep-laid and self-reinforcing: If something looks ordered, we humans have an inbuilt tendency to suspect that it has been made that way for some reason..

I usually resort to pointing out the really crap 'design' features of the human body; for example development of the infant jaw. Why would an intelligent designer actually want (or just not care) to see little children spending nights howling in agony while their teeth break through their gums? Could you actually love a designer who did that? Or would you just be very scared of 'Him'?

There is also a lack of clarity in many people's ideas of order and chaos, chance and causality.
You might try inviting the ID proponent to calculate the odds of rolling six sixes in six consecutive throws of a die. Then invite him/her to calculate the chance of rolling some other specific sequence, like 1,4,2,4,3,5.

The chance of rolling any specific sequence in six consecutive throws is 1/(6^6).
So 6,6,6,6,6,6 is no less likely to happen by chance than 1,4,2,4,3,5.
The former is more ordered than the latter; but its origin is equally random.

excellent arguments. As far as the tendency to attribute intelligent design to things which in fact are not designed intelligently, this applies not just to religionists but to others, eg the believers in aliens around us. The so-called "Face on Mars", in the Cydonia region of Mars, is held by some to suggest a deliberated sculpting, but one can see lots of humanlike appearances in terrestrial geological formations - who sculpted these?

[Alan H]

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect's female driver ban 'unlawful and discriminatory'

[Nick]

As far as the tendency to attribute intelligent design to things which in fact are not designed intelligently, this applies not just to religionists but to others, eg the believers in aliens around us. The so-called "Face on Mars", in the Cydonia region of Mars, is held by some to suggest a deliberated sculpting, but one can see lots of humanlike appearances in terrestrial geological formations - who sculpted these?

Of course, you'd have to exclude spaghetti from that. What else could that be but the work of the FSM?

[animist]

as you imply, Compo, Creationists are not good at arguments, and some of the arguments (eg the second one on statistics mentioned by Thundril) are hard to grasp, though he explained it clearly. Maybe you should get these people to actually set out what they claim - rather than their just relying on a glib attempt at ridicule.

So in the case of the sandcastle, their argument is roughly: 1 Even atheists must agree that the sandcastle was intentionally designed. 2 Many other things are intelligently designed, ie designed by human beings. 3 Therefore, what is the atheist's problem in accepting that most things are designed? 4 And since humans could not have designed themselves or the universe they live in, the designer must be God.

The problems with the argument include: first, just because some things are designed it does not follow that others are. Second, does the theist really believe what he says? Does he believe that every feature of life, every bit of rock or water, was designed in its present state by God? In fact of course he does not; he knows that things are in constant change, and he uses our accepted notion of causation to explain this. So where does God's direct design begin and end? Third, I think you and all of us should always get opponents to define their terms. In the case of intelligent design, what exactly counts as design, or specifically intelligent design? What about not a sandcastle but a wasp's nest - this appears to have design features, so is it the result of design? And if yes, do the wasps collectively count as an intelligent designer?

[Altfish]

I was shown the following image by a Christian. I tried to explain the difference between evolution and making sandcastles but he didn't understand it. May be I didn't explain it well. How would you respond to the image and the comment on the image about atheist logic?

It is difficult to get through to Intelligent Design proponents, principally because the logical fallacy underlying ID is deep-laid and self-reinforcing: If something looks ordered, we humans have an inbuilt tendency to suspect that it has been made that way for some reason..

I usually resort to pointing out the really crap 'design' features of the human body; for example development of the infant jaw. Why would an intelligent designer actually want (or just not care) to see little children spending nights howling in agony while their teeth break through their gums? Could you actually love a designer who did that? Or would you just be very scared of 'Him'?

There is also a lack of clarity in many people's ideas of order and chaos, chance and causality.
You might try inviting the ID proponent to calculate the odds of rolling six sixes in six consecutive throws of a die. Then invite him/her to calculate the chance of rolling some other specific sequence, like 1,4,2,4,3,5.

The chance of rolling any specific sequence in six consecutive throws is 1/(6^6).
So 6,6,6,6,6,6 is no less likely to happen by chance than 1,4,2,4,3,5.
The former is more ordered than the latter; but its origin is equally random.

excellent arguments. As far as the tendency to attribute intelligent design to things which in fact are not designed intelligently, this applies not just to religionists but to others, eg the believers in aliens around us. The so-called "Face on Mars", in the Cydonia region of Mars, is held by some to suggest a deliberated sculpting, but one can see lots of humanlike appearances in terrestrial geological formations - who sculpted these?

The other issue that ID people do not understand about 'chance' is in the example of throwing 6 6s, in evolution if in the first throw you get a 6, you keep the 6 and only throw the other 5 dice.

[Dave B]

The other issue that ID people do not understand about 'chance' is in the example of throwing 6 6s, in evolution if in the first throw you get a 6, you keep the 6 and only throw the other 5 dice.

Altfish, just to get that straight in my mind: I assume that "6" is a desirable and stable survival trait. So that gets retained but you only have 5 more possible selections for this dicosaurus to survive in this environment?

[animist]

The other issue that ID people do not understand about 'chance' is in the example of throwing 6 6s, in evolution if in the first throw you get a 6, you keep the 6 and only throw the other 5 dice.

Altfish, just to get that straight in my mind: I assume that "6" is a desirable and stable survival trait. So that gets retained but you only have 5 more possible selections for this dicosaurus to survive in this environment?

he will answer for himself, but I think that is a good point and a new one to me

[Altfish]

The other issue that ID people do not understand about 'chance' is in the example of throwing 6 6s, in evolution if in the first throw you get a 6, you keep the 6 and only throw the other 5 dice.

Altfish, just to get that straight in my mind: I assume that "6" is a desirable and stable survival trait. So that gets retained but you only have 5 more possible selections for this dicosaurus to survive in this environment?

he will answer for himself, but I think that is a good point and a new one to me

Yes, sorry, I didn't make that clear, the '6' is the desirable trait.
It makes a hell of a difference in the selection process, because the odds on throwing a '6' when throwing six dice (should that be die? what's the plural of dice?) is pretty high, whereas the odds on throwing six 6s at once are very low.

[thundril]

The other issue that ID people do not understand about 'chance' is in the example of throwing 6 6s, in evolution if in the first throw you get a 6, you keep the 6 and only throw the other 5 dice.

Excellent point, Altfish. Very important in discussions around evolution. Don't know if applies quite so well to the Godsquad's other recent favourite, 'the fine tuning' argument. But then again, we can actually see evolution going on around us, whereas the selection of the fundamental constants happens before the Universe gets going. (If it 'happens' at all, that is.)