Friday, December 29, 2006
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Hurry, though, because some of your idiot bretheren have been there before you, such as Darlene, who posted these bon mots as part of her claim on the big bucks:
Quote: "Did you know that it is very reasonable to think that the Earth was made in 7 days — IF YOU KNOW HOW BIG GOD IS!!!!!
I was thinking about this the other day when a thought occurred to me.How long does it take you to make a salad? 15 minutes? About that, anyway.
Now suppose 2 ants were on the salad. Imagine one ant telling the other that you had made the salad in 15 minutes. The second ant might not believe it. After all, it would take an ant days to make that salad. He would think that making a salad in 15 minutes was IMPOSSIBLE, and an unbelievable claim. “15 minutes to make this whole salad? No way!” he might think. How could something that would take him days to make be done in 15 minutes?
But we are much, much bigger than the ant. The ant would have to assemble one piece of a lettuce leaf, then another piece, then another, and so on. But we are big and strong enough that we could assemble all of the lettuce at once, then all of the tomato at once, and so on. And so is God. Compared to God, we are mere ants or even smaller.
Could we make the world in 7 days? No way! Could something as big and strong as God make the world in 7 days? No problem." Unquote.Now before you all hurt yourselves falling about laughing at Darlene's homespun idiocy, I'm willing to bet that none of you can produce any less risible arguments to support your so-called beliefs in this delusion which you like to call god.
Hurry now, for the prize goes to the first successful candidate.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Admittedly Savage was not referring to all churchgoers, which suggest that her conclusions are hardly worth the paper they are printed on, since it is a generally held view amongst those psychological researchers with any professional integrity that all religious beliefs are delusional and prima facie evidence of "neurotic personality disorders bordering on the psychotic". However, she attempts to redeem herself, somewhat, when she states that all churches elicit bad behavious from their parishioners, such as status seeking, fawning, bullying, passivity, blaming others and gossiping, though it is notable that she omits to mention the most important things that they DO encourage - hypocrisy and mendacity! Still, as the Archbishop of Canterbury himself was one of the contributors to the report, it is hardly surprising that she was so meally-mouthed in her criticisms and was totally silent regarding the obvious!
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
The young man in question is Alan Mackenzie, a self-styled 26 year old autodidact, and his blog, Rank Atheism, is both a delight and an education to read.
I thoroughly commend it to you all, since it puts men of letters to shame!
Visit and enjoy.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Naturally this creep will likely escape all retribution or punishment for his reprehensible behaviour, as neither the police nor his boss, the Archbishop of Canterbury, are likely to do anything about someone who lies for a profession!
Fucking hypocrites, all of them.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Recently he spoke out against the teaching of 'creationism' in schools in a lengthy interview with the Editor of 'The Guardian', Alan Rusbridger.
The full text of that interview can be found here, but the relevant extracts are reproduced below:-
Rusbridger: Are you comfortable with teaching creationism?
Williams: Ahh, not very. Not very. I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories.
Rusbridger: So it shouldn't be taught?
Williams: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.
This puts the Archbishop in direct opposition to that mendacious charlatan, Professor Andy McIntosh, of the risibly-named 'Truth in Science' organisation, which I have previously exposed here.
Friday, December 08, 2006
According to 'The Daily Telegraph' today, Sentamu made his strongest assault yet on attempts to purge Christianity from public life, saying that 'aggressive secularists' were undermining the country's cultural traditions; apparently his comments reflect the growing fury of Church leaders at reports of companies banning Christmas decorations and schools leaving Jesus out of nativity plays. "Aggressive secularists are trying to pretend that it is possible to enter into the true meaning of Christmas by leaving out Jesus Christ," he said.
He also signalled his intention to declare all-out war on secularists, who he claimed were unfairly blaming other faiths to advance their own anti-religious agenda.
Listen here, Mr Stupidity, since none of you mendacious religious twats have ever been able to provide any credible evidence whatsoever that this geezer you call Jesus Christ ever existed, the REAL meaning of the festival you call christmas is complete nonsense per se!
Furthermore, your made-up festival was simply imposed on the ancient pre-xtian practises around the winter solstice when people began to feel thankful that the back of winter had been broken and that their hopes of surviving it for another year were more likely to be achieved.
As for your claim that your moronic religion is being persecuted by anti-theists like me, quite simply that is as valid as the evidence that your imaginary god exists - and since you will be too dumb to understand that point, what it means is that your claims are a complete fabrication!
Of course you are well aware how threadbare your stupid and irrelevant claims are, since the best defence for them that you can put forward is the following ridiculous statement: "Why don't the aggressive secularists and illiberal atheists listen to the great wisdom of Sir John Mortimer, playwright and atheist, who writing in The Daily Telegraph on April 28, 1999, said 'Our whole history and culture in Europe is based on Christianity, whether you believe in it or not. Our culture is Christian; Shakespeare, Mozart – all that makes life worth living is part of the Christian tradition' ."
First, Mortimer never demonstrated what I would consider to be 'great wisdom' in any sphere, but anyone who claimed that "all that makes life worth living is part of the Christian tradition' " is clearly an ignorant and insensitive buffoon, rather like yourself.
Second, what has Mortimer's irrelevant and spurious claim got to do with the real issue - that the silly festival which you call xmas is a totally unreal and fabricated event celebrating a non-existent person, ignorance and superstition, and that those who do not share your stupidity, mendacity or delusional psychosis have a right (some would say duty), to object to it.
Third, anyone who considers Mortimer's statement represents 'great wisdom' has clearly had a very circumscribed education.
In conclusion, your claim that, "This aggressive brand of secularism is trying to undermine the cultural traditions of this country by using flawed arguments about 'multi-faith, multi-culturalism' whilst at the same time trying to negate faith groups all together." - I reject that in it's entirety since I hold that ALL faiths are a completely irrelevant fabrication and that none of them are entitled to ANY respect whatsoever (and neither are their practitioners, per se).
Furthermore, since you object so strongly to changes in the cultural traditions of this country, perhaps you would like us to return to the days when salvery was the norm, not to mention bull-baiting, or sending small-children up chimneys to clean them, or for the 'droits de seigneur' when the likes of you could rape our children without us having any redress?
At best you are a mendacious hypocrite, John Sentamu, but that is the least you are guilty of.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
So, you want to engage in truthful dialogue do you Benedict? Well here's your starter for 10:-
Why is it that in over 2000 years Xtians have never been able to provide any credible proof that this god of yours actually exists apart from as a figment of your collective delusional psychopathology?
Too hard a question? Then try this one:-
And why is it that in over 1300 years Muslims have never been able to provide any credible proof that this god of theirs actually exists apart from as a figment of their collective delusional psychopathology? (And don't bother being clever and telling me that it is one and the same god; I know that, but neither of you have been able to prove its existence!)
Failed again? Unsurprising really, since the real truth of the matter is that everyone who sincerely believes in a supernatural being which you monotheists call god is demonstrably a delusional psychopath, and those others who do not believe but claim that they do in order to manipulate others are undoubtedly sociopaths.
Somehow I don't think that this the kind of truth that you like to hear!
Tough shit, arsehole!
Fortunately, the Department for Education & Science is pressurising schools to ignore this pernicious stuff. As it said in a recent statement, "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum. The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction."
However, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which oversees the development of the national curriculum, in effect guiding exam boards, said discussions of "intelligent design" or "creationism" could take place in science classes. The National Curriculum Online website says for science at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level): "Students should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example Darwin's theory of evolution)." Classes should also cover "ways in which scientific work may be affected by the context in which it takes place (for example, social, historical, moral, spiritual), and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted."
The QCA's argument is supported by Nick Cowan, a chemistry teacher at Liverpool's Blue Coat School, who says the packs promoting intelligent design are useful in debating Darwinist evolution. He continued by saying they the packs are "very scholarly" and could be extremely useful in helping children understand the importance of scientific debate. Mr Cowan also told the BBC, "Darwin has for many people become a sacred cow. There's a sense that if you criticise Darwin you must be some kind of religious nut case. We might has well have said Einstein shouldn't have said what he did because it criticised Newton."
Both the QCA and Cowan's position are dismissed by James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University's school of education. He told the Times Educational Supplement: "This opens a legitimate gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact and theory. I'm happy for religious theories to be considered in religious education, but not in science where consideration could lead to a false verification of their status as being equal to scientific theories."
The only thing I would add is this: if 'intelligent design' is the explanation being offered by certain scientists to explain the existence of various phenomena, what scientific evidence do they offer for the a priori existence of that force - unless, of course, they wish to assert that it existed simply as a 'cause without cause'?
It seems to me that unless such evidence is forthcoming from them, then their claims are simply an ill-formed and untested hypothesis that verges on the completely spurious. Empiric proof that self-delusion, mendacity and duplicity are their real motivations!
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
For example, the new Afghanistan government has passed a law as recently as 2004 making it illegal to discriminate against women, yet were it really true that women were equal to men under Islam, the necessity for such a law would not only be totally un-necessary but a complete dead-letter ab initio!
What's more, this evening on the UK's Channel 4 News, Christana Brautigam, the spokesperson for the UN Division for the Advancement of Women who has recently returned from a fact-finding mission to Afghanistan confirmed that the Afghanistan parliament ratified the UN 'Convention Against Discrimination Against Women' only in 2003, which confirms that prior to that date, at least, Sharia law did not recognise women as equal to men.
The whole video of the current state of women under Islam in Afghanistan can be viewed here (click on the link 'Watch the report' immediately below the picture of the two women in the central pane). Despite the rather mealy-mouthed comments by Brautigam,the sad conclusion of the UN's Mission (which took place in August of this year), was that equality for women in Afghanistan was "still to be come a priority in the political and social agenda , once again belying the Muslim claim that Allah and the Qur'an treats women as equals!
Mind you, there have been improvements recently: one of the women interviewed for the report was raped, but when she complained to the authorities she was incarcerated in jail on a charge of adultery because the man in question denied it, naturally, and under Sharia law she needs 4 other men to come forward as witnesses for her story to be believed. However, thanks to the adoption of the UN 'Convention Against Discrimination Against Women', she is no longer facing the death penalty, only having her young son taken into care whilst she undergoes a lengthy prison sentence! Now that's what I call equality under Allah!
Give the Afghanis their due, however; the burkha is no longer obligatory for women there, unlike for the stupid women in the UK who claim, spuriously, that they have to wear it 'for religious reasons'!
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
The BBC maintain that in a recent broadcast, he claimed that the 7/7 London bombers were "in paradise", but in actual fact I have obtained a copy of his real message, which he has asked me to quote here "in order to put the record straight!"
He commenced our interview by rejecting that his claim that he was promoting Muslim terrorism when he had stated that the 7/7 London bombers were in Jannah (what we kafirs call 'paradise'). As he said, "According to Hadith 2562, Muslim men who are admitted to Jannah will be rewarded with a minimum of 72 wives and 80,000 servants and given a tent half the size of Saudi Arabia to live in - but anyone who believes that nonsense is a reward should be blown up!"
But what about the innocent people these madmen take with them, I asked? Bakri Mohammed's response was stark: "Look, you Westerners just don't understand, do you! Islam has kept everywhere it has touched in the Dark Ages. The only way we can modernise it at all is by exterminateing all the dyed-in-the-wool fundamental loonies, and what better way to do that than by encouraging them to blow themselves up!"
Well, you could just tell them the truth, I opined.
"OK," he said, "You've asked for the truth, well here it is...", and that's when he said those immortal words quoted above!
Monday, November 13, 2006
Sounds of resounding laughter!
The Old Git says, since none of you have ever been able to produce any credible proof whatsoever that this god you have in common has ever existed, it is indisputable to any rationally minded person that you are just as mendacious and duplicitous as any politician has ever been.
What's more, since both the greatest political leaders the world has ever seen, George Dubya Bush and Toney Baloney Blair, both admit to being directed by god himself, their actions are indistinguishable from the 'higher good' that you religous leaders claim is your own exclusive province.
However there is definitely one thing that politicians and religious leaders have in common - complete and total lack of intellectual integrity!
Apparently, at some fancy ceremony due to take place in Istanbul, UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, is to be presented with a plan of action to ease increasing polarisation of Muslim and Western societies. This plan was formulated by by 20 prominent minds who are international figures from a variety of religions (but no atheists)!
To call anyone who believes in religion a 'prominent mind' is risible in the extreme, since the only thing notable about their intellectual capacity is their ability to delude themselves (and others) that religion is anything other than a product of human ignorance and psychopathology!
Is there no-one intelligent enough and with any authority over the rest of us going to stand up and point out that the increasing polarisation of Muslim and Western societies is almost entirely due to religion, and that ALL religions are nothing other than ignorant superstition, unworthy of ANY respect whatsoever?
Instead of the UN calling the arrangement the 'Alliance of Civilizations' they should have called it the 'Conspiracy of Ignorance'!
No doubt one of their proposals is that it should be illegal to question, criticise, mock or ridicule the superstitious nonsense and unsubstantiatable claptrap that ALL religious believers delude themselves with, and use as an excuse to attack others not of their faith.
Next step will be to make it illegal to be an atheist at all!
Let's all live in ignorance and superstition; after all, these tools have been used successfully over the millennia by those few in power who wish to subjugate the rest of us.
The rule of the clerics is in the ascendant: intelligent life on earth really will soon be extinct!
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The reasons for this wish to appease the aggressively superstitious Muslim minority is not clear, though some of the background has been covered here.
However, many of us who have actually taken the trouble to read the Qur'an and the Hadith are of the opinion that it is correct to describe a repressive and ignorant world-view that sanctions the beating of women who do not obey their husbands, the denial of freedom and education to women, the denial of equal rights to women, the exhortation to kill all unbelievers and apostates, the commands to ignore any laws but God's laws and hence the denial of democracy etc., etc. as "wicked and evil."
As for the oft heard claim that 'Islam is a religion of peace' is complete nonsense; the etymology of the word 'islam' actually means submission [to god's will], and the Qur'an exhorts true believers to murder those who refuse to do so.
Next they'll be telling us that Adolf Shicklegruber was a nice man because he liked dogs!
PS: 'Kafir' is how non-Muslims are referred to in the Qur'an, and is not a white racist epithet!
Saturday, November 11, 2006
This is only one of many recent attacks on atheism by prominent church figures. Earlier this week Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Catholic leader Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor launched a joint attack on what they called intolerant public atheism. In their foreword to 'Doing God: A Future for Faith in the Public Square', a report by new religious think tank Theos, they argued against limiting religion to the private sphere. They said that campaigners against religion in public life had an "intolerant faith position".
Well I have some news for you, gentlemen. Atheists who speak up against the intrusion of religious beliefs into government, legislature, education etc., do not have an 'intolerant faith position' as you claim, because by definition they do not have a faith, only your lot does! What's more, what can be more intolerant than the way that you try to force your unsubstantiatable superstitious beliefs onto others? And your beliefs are pure superstition, totally indistinguishable from tales of fairies and hobgoblins, leprechauns, Cthulthu and the Elder Ones, and other such made-up nonsense!
Naturally you will deny this, after all, you are all making an extremely comfortable living and enjoying considerable wealth and power from your respective 'ministries'. Yet if you want respect, then all I ask of you is this: produce credible evidence that stands up to rational and logical examination that (a) this object you call god exists, (b) that it is the 'cause-without-cause', the 'prime-mover' and the 'creator' of the cosmos and all that is in it.
But until such time as you do, I and others have the right to question your claims that your otherwise irrational beliefs are somehow worthy of respect and that they should be free from criticism or ridicule.
To paraphrase Professor Georges Rey, at some level you are all liars!
Or as that other Professor of Philosophy, AC Grayling said recently, "It is time to refuse to tip-toe around people who claim respect, consideration, special treatment, or any other kind of immunity, on the grounds that they have religious faith, as if having faith were a privilege-endowing virtue, as if it were noble to believe in unsupported claims and ancient superstitions."
Furthermore, the actions of you clergy would be questionable even were you to restrict this egregious fraud that you claim to believe in on the credulous and ignorant to within the confines of your churches, but the fact that you demand the right to peddle your lies and untruths in public whilst demanding that rational, non-delusional members of society show you respect is risible in the extreme.
Frankly, I think Professors Rey and Grayling have been too kind to you, since it seems absolutely indisputable that anyone who claims to believe in religion is either a delusional psychotic or a manipulative sociopath.
But hey, prove me wrong; produce credible evidence that this thing you call god actually exists. After all, it shouldn't take you long, seeing as how your lot have had millennia in which to find it!
Yet without such evidence, your 'faith' is no more than ignorant superstition, and unworthy of any respect whatsoever.
And that sad fact is what really worries you, and why you are uniting to try and force through a law making it illegal to criticise, question, mock, or ridicule your stupid beliefs!
Monday, October 23, 2006
Initially, in evolutionary terms, it was due to ignorance - being unable to explain natural phenomena by natural means - and I dare say that still prevails in parts of the world where people are still primitive, in the anthropological sense of that word. However, as societies become less primitive, the real ‘engine’ of this desire to believe in a supernatural world is the psychopathology of the individual in question.
The word ‘psychopathology’ is used accurately, because belief in a god or gods fulfils the diagnosis and aetiology of psychosis, as described in the ‘Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases (TR IV)’.
Anyone who does not accept this fact has only to substitute the words “the Invisible Pink Unicorn” in their so-called ‘holy book’ in place of the name of their god, and then go around claiming that the IPU created the cosmos et al; they will rapidly find themselves incarcerated in an institution for the care of the mentally disturbed, even though they are saying and doing nothing other than any other theist does.
Furthermore, any psychiatrist will confirm that one of the most intractable mental illnesses to deal with is psychosis, which explains why most theists are totally resistant to rationality. Unfortunately, this means that often the only hope for those who are afflicted with this particular illness is long-term treatment with anti-psychotic medication.
The only people who proclaim that they are theists who are not psychotics are those who are simply exploiting those who are! However, even they must take care; after years of pretending to believe in that irrational and unsubstantiatable nonsense, the chances are that they, in turn, will develop psychosis too!
Unquote.Fortunately, Risperidone is a uniquely effective anti-psychotic used to great effect in dealing with delusional psychosis. Unfortunately, most psychotics do not want to take it of their own free will, so it has to be administered to them, often with some measure of compulsion.
They have removed the reasoned and urbane response by Caroline Devilliers to their puerile and offensive anti-atheist article without commenting or being willing to engage with her.
Fortunately I have reiterated Caroline's response here .
Her comments, and the subsequent removal of them by the so-called xtians at 'Christian Aloud' show conclusively that most theists are neither capable nor willing to involve themselves with anyone capable or intelligent enough to be able to demolish their unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable) claims!
How pathetic is that!
Sunday, October 22, 2006
- 'Eventually you will be told that it is “Christians like you” that made them an atheist.'
- 'You will be called a hypocrite.'
- 'You will be told that you are “shoving” your beliefs down their throat.'
- 'You will be told that the atheist “lacks belief” not “disbelieves” in God.'(sic)
- 'Your statements will be mischaracterized.'(sic)
- 'You will be told you are being insulting, even when absolutely no insults have been issued.'
Quote: "I have never said, ‘…it is “Christians [or Muslims, Jews, or any of the other 4,821 ‘faiths’ in the world] like you” that made [me] an atheist’, though I do admit to the fact that being of sound mind, with the ability to think rationally, able to construct validly logical arguments, and accept empiric scientific evidence are the reasons why I am an atheist. What’s more, I have never encountered a fellow atheist who would use such a puerile argument for being atheist when there is such overpowering reasons for being one.
As for believers being hypocrites, well that is self-evident and undeniably true, since the word refers to someone who is feigning to be better than one is or to be what one is not, since no believers of any faith show any respect for the faiths of others or, more importantly, respect for those (i.e. atheists) who do not believe in a supernatural force which allegedly created the cosmos.
As a dedicated anti-theist and misoclere, I react violently to believers of all descriptions since it is they who initiated the ’shoving of ideas down the throats of others’ - whether those others be of different faiths or none. Accordingly, I see it as my right and obligation to do my utmost to defend mankind from these people. However, whenever I contradict their dogma and/or invalid logical arguments which they claim ‘justify’ their belief in (their own particular) god, and even though I use irrefutable evidence and logic to do so, they ultimately resport to the childish response that I am somehow trying to force rationality on them. If there is something harmful in that, then every psychiatrist is wilfully trying to harm their patients.
I do not ‘lack belief’ in any one of the thousands of gods which have littered the human landscape over the millennia since these gods are simply the invention of the psychopathology and ignorance of those who believe in them. As a sane, rational, free-thinking human being, I have no need for such nonsense in my life.
Nor do I ‘mischaracterize’ the statements of believers, whatever the accuser means by this, since I rely exclusively on empiric evidence, rationality and cold-ineluctable logic to prove that their claims are spurious nonsense.
All believers are being insulting to me when they speak to me about their beliefs since they are implying that I am as mentally deranged and intellectually incapacitated as themselves. However, that is not sufficient for them, for they must also threaten me with the eternal punishment of their invented god for daring not to share in the psychopathic delusions that it exists. Whilst believers may consider that my speaking the truth to them is insulting, I do not.
In conclusion, the points put forward by this self-styled xtian are entirely spurious and without a shred of merit. Unsurprising, really, since neither the xtian poster, nor anyone else, has ever been able to produce a single shred of evidence that his alleged god exists, and neither have any of them been able to put forward a valid logical argument in support fo their claims."Unquote.
Will be interesting to see how our xtian psychopath reacts to that!
One thing's for sure - the response is unlikely to involve intelligent debate.
Or perhaps it will be just simply gratuitously offensive, like the claim by the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, Sir Jonathan Sacks, when he proclaimed in The Times on 21st October that "...there are good reasons why God created atheists."
If that's not a perfect example of a believer 'shoving his belief down another person's throat', I don't know what is, and it is thoroughly and deliberately insulting!
So, here is the truth in simple words for those who could not be bothered to plough through the above: all who believe in a god or gods are either delusional psychopaths or frauds, swindlers, and exploiters of the weak and gullible whom they deliberately prey on!
Thursday, October 12, 2006
The word "Coatlicue" is Nahuatl for "the one with the skirt of serpents". She is referred to by the epithets "Mother Goddess of the Earth who gives birth to all celestial things."
She she was magically impregnated while still a virgin by a ball of feathers that fell on her while she was sweeping a temple. She gave birth to Quetzalcoatl and Xolotl. In a fit of wrath her four hundred children, who were encouraged by Coyolxauhqui (her daughter), decapitated her. The god Huitzilopochtli afterward emerged from Coatlicue's womb fully grown and girded for battle and killed many of his brothers and sisters, including decapitating Coyolxauhqui and throwing her head into the sky to become the Moon. In a variation of this legend, Huitzilopochtli himself is conceived by the ball-of-feathers incident and emerges from the womb in time to save his mother from harm.
One of the most striking features of the worhsip of Coatlicue and her kindred gods and godesses was that of human sacrifice - on one occasion alone over 80,000 humans were sacrificed over the course of 4 days for the dedication of a temple.
Nowadays, if I was to say that I worshipped Coatilcue as I consider her to be the most important god of all, greater even than Jayweh or Allah, and demanded the right to sacrifice humans to satiate her demands that she be recognised as the greatest god of all, I would rightly be classified as a dangerous psychopath and locked away in an institution for the incurably insane.
So why are Muslims who demand the extermination of those who do not share their beliefs about Allah or Muhammad not locked away?
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
BTW, these devout Muslims have committed haraam by posing for their photographs to be taken. Haraam is an act forbidden by Allah and is punished by him; it constitutes what in the Christian tradition is called a sin.
Funny how so-called religious people can dispense with the duties imposed on them by their so-called gods when it suits their other interests to do so.
Yet they all expect those who don't share their psychopathic delusion that their invented god exists to show them respect simply because they refuse to acknowledge reason!
Mind you, one has to be particularly careful speaking rationally to Muslims; they are likely to murder one for doing so.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
What the Pope really means is that rational people should not point out to the intellectually dishonest and mentally feeble who believe in a religion of one stripe or another that their entire 'faith' system is the fruit of their delusional psychopathology and that they are being manipulated by charlatans, liars and scoundrels who no more believe in the utter crap they espouse to their demented followers than I do.
And in saying this I do not "mock the sacred", as the Pope would have it, for the fact is that there is nothing to mock that is sacred since all religions are just a complete fabrication from beginning to end. This is why the fundamental doctrine of the purveyors of all religions is encompassed by the Latin term 'sacrifium intellectus', the sacrifice of the intellect - silencing the voice of reason in favour of blind faith.
True freedom comes from being able to determine for oneself what is a moral and decent way to live, and having the integrity, courage, independence and self-sufficiency to do so. This was, after all, part of the original message of the Cynics in the 3rd century BCE.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
In his address to the British Association Festival of Science in Norwich yesterday, Professor Hood said, "The human mind is adapted to reason intuitively, so that it can generate theories about how the world works even when mechanisms cannot be seen or easily deduced. While this is ultimately responsible for scientific thinking, as in the discovery of invisible forces such as gravity, it also leaves people prone to making irrational errors. But because intuitive theories are based on unobservable properties, such theories leave open the possibility of misconceptions. I believe these misconceptions of naive intuitive theories provide the basis of many later adult magical beliefs about the paranormal.”
Hood suggests that credulous minds may have evolved for several reasons, and that superstition may also give people a sense of control that can reduce stress. He said, “I don’t think we’re going to evolve a rational mind because there are benefits to being irrational. Superstitious behaviour — the idea that certain rituals and practices protect you — is adaptive."
He concluded his address, “I want to challenge recent claims by Richard Dawkins, among others, that supernaturalism is primarily attributable to religions spreading beliefs among the gullible minds of the young. Rather, religions may simply capitalise on a natural bias to assume the existence of supernatural forces.”
Tell us something we don't know, Prof!
Those who are interested can read a report on his speech here.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Sunday, July 23, 2006
"The Enlightenment idea that beliefs should be based on evidence and reason is losing ground. Many Westerners claim the right to believe whatever they like - from Christianity to astrology to homeopathy - whether or not their views are supported by even a shred of evidence.
And despite their intellectual frivolity, they also claim a right to be taken seriously. They expect their prejudice (or "faith", as they prefer to call it) to be protected by limitations on free speech and to be pandered to in tax funded hospitals and schools.
Tony Blair is eager to oblige them. Of course, he is himself a man of superstition. But even among more rational politicians I sense a drift towards the idea that state services should reflect the distribution of stupidity in the population. It is a shame. Nothing could be less in need of government subsidy than stupidity."
Couldn't have said it better myself, Jamie. And on the strength of that article, I hereby elect you to a lifelong membership of 'The Anti-Theist and Misoclere Society'.
Chartres, the third most senior bishop in the Church of England, has stated, "Making selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin. Sin is not just a restricted list of moral mistakes. It is living a life turned in on itself where people ignore the consequences of their actions.”
Unsurprisingly the Bishop doesn't think that it is a sin to lie to people about the existence of his make-believe god that he claims to serve, and that it is all right for him to pontificate about how we should live our lives whilst he enjoys all the trappings of wealth and power for himself.
Bet the same hypocritical Bishop doesn't tell his darling Prince Charles - who hopes soon to be the Head of the Church of England - that it is a sin for him to own a fleet of gas-guzzlers, jet about everywhere in private helicopters and planes, and run several large homes that consume vast amounts of energy between them.
If Chartres was really interested in reducing global warming, he and his ilk should stop spouting all their mendacious hot air and get themselves a real job doing something useful for a change.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Those who refuse to serve under women clerics are using some obscure interpretation of so-called 'holy scripture' to disguise their misogyny and to hide their petty and ridiculous actions behind.
Isn't it amazing just how selective these complete phoneys can be when it comes to using 'holy scripture' to justify themselves?
What's the matter, dearies - just why are you so frightened of women, and affronted at the idea of one of them serving your malignant and pathetic invention you call god?
All intelligent people capable of rational thought already know that all religious people are phoneys and liars, but anyone still in any doubt only has to look at they way that they behave towards each other and the rest of us to see them for what they really are.
Marx correctly stated that religion is the opium of the people, but clerics are the vile drug pushers who are poisoning them for their own profit and self aggrandisement.
"Be off with their heads," as the Queen of Hearts was want to say.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
"The Times June 21, 2006:
Gender, sin and the Anglican Communion
Sir, We are told by some bishops that the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori to lead the US Episcopal Church shows the Holy Spirit in action and is theologically sound (reports, June 20). Others strongly dissent.
Many bishops find biblical support for their belief that homosexuality is an abomination. Others find same-sex love a gift from God. These days most bishops ignore the Bible’s recommendation that neighbours who work on the Sabbath should be put to death (Exodus xxxv, 2).
I wonder if the bishops would care to offer any criteria for correct biblical intepretations, gifts from God and how to spot the Holy Spirit in action. Or are the ways in which they reach their conflicting conclusions as mysterious as God’s?
Humanist Philosophers’ Group
London W1 "
Amusing though that letter is, it nevertheless raises some doubt in my mind as to Mr Cave's fitness to be a member of the Humanist Philosophers' Group since he has failed signally to appreciate that whilst it is an empiric fact that this god to whom these clerics refer does not exist, it is also an empiric fact that all clerics are deceivers of themselves and others. In other words, this god is simply a figment of their own psychopathology which they then adopt as a means to cope with their own inadequacy and to control others.
In a word, they are all liars!
However, whilst their antics do provide much amusement for those of us who are capable of thinking for ourselves and have the courage to face up to reality, it is a great pity that these vile clerics be allowed to poison the minds of those incapable of analytical thought or unwilling to accept reality.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
My only criticism of the site: it extends to theists more consideration than they extend either to each other or atheists.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
This is a depiction from the 1st century BCE of the god Cernunnos, who was also known as the 'Horned One' because of the antlers sprouting from his head. Cernunnos was worshipped throughout much of Western Europe as the god of nature, i.e. creation by another name, but the early christians claimed he was the Devil or Anti-Christ because he posed a threat to the claims that they made for their god.
So, next time some whingeing christians, jews, or muslims bleat on about respecting their beliefs, tell them that you worship Cernunnos and demand that they show you the same forbearance and toleration that they demand for themselves!
Go on, expose them for the hypocrites that they are. Should be good for a laugh, at least.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Not being a liar, or a swindler, or a duper of those intellectually less capable than myself, I do not need to profess to believe in a magick force or being whom it is claimed allegedly created the cosmos and everything that exists in it; for this I am glad to be godless.
Not being capable of of perpetrating the ignorance, bigotry, and the desire to control others, which are the quintessential aspects of those who claim to believe in a magick force or being whom it is claimed allegedly created the cosmos and everything that exists in it, I do not acknowledge the need to respect the views of those who support such wicked characteristics; for this I am glad to be godless.
I show respect to no-one and no-thing that does not demonstrate personal integrity, intellectual rigour, and the courage to exemplify these attributes; for this I am glad to be godless.
Gods are the inventions of those who would control you. Open your mind, think for yourself, and perhaps you too can one day claim that you are 'Glad To Be Godless!'