The Good Atheist 069


This week, friend of the site Jeff Jones came over to help me record an episode of the show while Ryan is away in Tennessee. On the agenda today is Kirk Cameron’s special edition of the Origin of Species, and we`ll also be talking about the controversial idea of banning the burqa. It’s bound to stir up lots of emotions, so be sure to give us your feedback!

Remember if you love the show, we also record a bonus podcast for paying members. For 20 bucks a year, you can enjoy our growing catalog of episodes! If you’re a fan, you don’t want to miss it.

Comments (10)

  • avatar

    Bob

    On the history channel, I remember a former nun saying that her veil was liberating because she didn’t have to mess with her hair and do a bunch of maintenance that is normally expected of women. Guys have a lot less maintenance to do than women and there is a lot less social stigma for guys for neglecting that stuff.

    If a Muslim women is married and not looking to get a little action on the side, it would probably be in her best interest to wear the burqua to avoid the hassle of doing tons of unnecessary shit just to look acceptable to our standards.

  • avatar

    greenseed

    jake did lose a bunch of low blow episodes too orrrrrr….

  • avatar

    Goon

    why did you delete my post?

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    No. It’s complicated, but there are two identical posts with different comments. I’m working on repairing this BS

  • avatar

    Dylan Kallioinen

    As a Christian I would never suggest suspending reason. In the podcast you mentioned that our buddy Kurt seeks to have people suspend reason and engages them on an emotional level. I would humbly confess that I am a fallible individual with a fallible intellect and my emotions are no more or less trustworthy than my intellect. That aside, If God is “God” all perfect and transcendent then I would have to say that some things have to be left up to mystery. If God wasn’t beyond us then God would cease to be God. Maybe it’s not that faith is irrational, but is supra-rational or beyond our reason. So while I encourage thought I think we all have our limitations. What do you guys think?

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    Well, I don’t see how anything can be so rational that we don’t understand it. The way I see it, it’s kind of like post-modernism: you can try to confuse people using language, but at the end of the day you haven’t actually said anything of value.

    This whole business of “God is perfect, and because we are imperfect we cannot comprehend his existence” takes for granted two fundamental things: one, that perfection exists (which I doubt), and two, it cannot be understood.

    Creating theories and ideas which inherently avoid the possibility of being disproved are ultimately not claims that we should bother to investigate.

  • avatar

    Dylan Kallioinen

    Would you say reason is the best perhaps only way to rightly comprehend reality? Do you think that a rational scientific approach to life can give someone full access to understanding aright external reality?

  • avatar

    david.ansell@live.ca

    TGA Podcast: Episode 54 on the topic of banning the burkha as a symbol of oppression:
    “You’re like ‘everybody should be allowed to do what they want’ and that kind of stuff. And, you know, to some degree I’ve always agreed with that, but then on the other side I know that we cannot allow everybody to do whatever the hell they want.”

    TGA Podcast: Episode 45 on the topic of banning public communication of hatred:
    “What it boils down to is we’re still at the end of the day, we’re going to say what we want. And yeah, you can try to stop me: just try, try to freakin’ stop me. And that’s what’s going to be really funny, I think, is that we’re becoming accustomed to saying what we want and to distribute that how we want it. And anytime people are going to start tweaking with that, we’re going to lose our minds. You know, that’s one of those freedoms that you just can’t mess with.”

    I’m confused. The argument was that people should not be given the choice whether to wear the burkha; that it should be banned completely. While I fundamentally agree with this statement, as we have banned the nazi bastardization of the swastika as a symbol of oppression and hatred, I find it contradictory to entirely ban one form of oppression and allow another. The only difference is that one pertains to restricting allowable clothing while the other restricts allowable communication. Incidentally, Canada has already banned the communication of hatred in 2004 with Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code – Public Incitement of Hatred. Whereas, I am sure you feel that they are imposing limitations on your freedom (to which there are already “reasonable limits” as prescribed in Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and to deny the right to wear the burkha if one should choose to do so is also a limitation. Just as with banning public hatred, banning the burkha is an imperfect solution to an imperfect situation, although arguably ultimatey necessary.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top