Sunday, December 30, 2007

Archbishop Rapes Immigrants

At lease, that's the claim made by leading Polish community leaders in today's 'The Sunday Telegraph'

Apparently, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, urged the Polish community to do more to learn English and integrate into local parishes, claiming the Catholic Church in the UK was in danger of dividing along ethnic lines as the number of Polish-speaking churches rose. The Cardinal Archbishop went on to say:
"I'm quite concerned that the Poles are creating a separate church in Britain. I would want them to be part of the Catholic life of this country."
But Grazyna Sikorska, of the Polish Catholic Mission for England and Wales, said the community had been upset. She told the Catholic newspaper 'The Tablet':
"How can he demand that we stop praying in Polish? Is it a sin? I feel my inner conscience has been violated, leaving me spiritually raped."
So, there you have it folks, now the Roman Catholic church is moving on from raping altar-boys to raping Polish immigrants.

Not to be outdone in the taking-of-umbrage stakes, Fr Tadeusz Kukla, the vicar-delegate for Poles in England and Wales, said:
"If we lose our national identity, we lose everything."
Well here's a thought for you, Tadeusz: Why don't all you delusional psychotics fuck-off back to where you brought your national identity and shoddy religion from instead of setting up your inwardly-looking Polish ghettoes here and changing our national identity, you hypocritical, delusional fuckwit?

Thanks to your lot, there has been an increase in weekly Mass attendance from 917,500 in 2005 to 927,154 last year, and you are apparently turning Britain into a catholic country according to a recent report.

As if we haven't got enough problems with our own home-grown delusional theists (with apologies to my knowledgeable readers for the oxymoron), without inviting even more of you to our shores.

Oh dear, now Grazyna can add the spurious charge of having been spiritually offended to that of having been spiritually raped.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Good News: Bishops Face Sack

According to 'The Daily Telegraph' today, the good news is that 1 in 5 of the Church of England's 113 bishops faces the sack because the Church is top heavy and the bishops too costly, while congregations are shrinking and parishes are strapped for cash. Apparently last year's bill for these useless, time-wasting parasites and out-of-works was nearly £25 million.

Under new proposals being considered by the Church Commissioners, they would fund only 2 bishops per diocese - at the moment nearly half of them have between 3 and 6. Talk about over-manning - makes you wonder that there's enough choir-boys and catamites to go around them all.

Interesting enough, though congregations and church attendances have shrunk dramatically since 1900, in that year there were 57 bishops and about 24,000 clergy, while there are now 113 bishops and only 9,000 full-time parish clergy, supplemented by a similar number of part-time clergy and licensed lay people. Some may think that is definitely a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians, but most impartial observers would recognise that it is approximately 18,000 too many sinecures.

Good riddance to all of them, I say.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Britain Is Now A Catholic Country

That is a headline taken from 'The Sunday Telegraph' , and according to it Britain has now become a Catholic country as Roman Catholics have overtaken Anglicans as the country's dominant religious group. More people attend Mass every Sunday than worship with the Church of England, according to figures seen by that newspaper. The article continues:
This means that the established Church has lost its place as the nation's most popular Christian denomination after more than four centuries of unrivalled influence following the Reformation.

The statistics show that attendance at Anglican Sunday services has dropped by 20 per cent since 2000. A survey of 37,000 churches, to be published in the new year, shows the number of people going to Sunday Mass in England last year averaged 861,000, compared with 852,000 Anglicans ­worshipping.(These totals are a risibly insignificant percentage of our 60 million population, you will notice, Dear Reader.)
Presumably this fact was known to Tony B-liar and was contributory to him announcing his recent conversion to Roman Catholicism (see here), since he has always been one to ditch whatever or whoever he sees are losers and to latch on to whatever or whoever he perceives to be in the ascendant - today Roman Catholicism, tomorrow perhaps Islam, if the fundamentalists get their way and succeed in forcing a caliphate onto we kuffars and infidels (that is, if they don't murder us first).

"But that can't be true", you say, "Tony's not like that, he supported George Dubya Buffoon through thick and thin over Iraq even though the electorate here didn't support him and it was a definite vote loser". To which I reply that you are forgetting that Toney Baloney is primarily a delusional psychopath (see here) and was instructed by the same 'God' that The Buffoon was to offer him mutual support and launch their criminal and illegal invasion of Iraq together.

Meanwhile, that dysfunctional charlatan the Rev Alister McGrath (see here), prof­essor of historical theology at Oxford University, said that the church attendance findings from the organisation Christian Research should act as a wake-up call to the Church of England. Personally, Alister, I would have though that a more fruitful field of research for the organisation Christian Research would have been to try to discover ANY credible objective evidence whatsoever that (a) that this 'God' of your exists, (b) ditto for this person you refer to as 'Christ' ever existed, (c) ditto that (b) was the son whilst being the same as (a), and that (a) (b) and (c) created the cosmos and everything in it.

Frankly, it should matter not one whit which bunch of religious lunatics, morons, credulous buffoons, manipulative sociopaths and sundry dysfunctional personalities are in the ascendant, since NONE of you should have ANY say in the running of this country. Your faith should be a private matter, shared between you and your invented 'God' and your co-religionists in the privacy of your own homes, meeting places, and places of worship. But unfortunately you are not content with having those freedoms - no, you all want to impose your own particular form of delusional psychopathy onto those of us who are capable of seeing you and your egregious charade for what it is.

To paraphrase Professor Georges Rey: At some level you are all liars!

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Saint Baloney, Complete Phoney

Well, I was going to write a piece on the total hypocrisy of Toney Baloney (left) - and, yes, I do know that Our Tone doesn't spell his forename that way but it looks better that way - but my good friend Paplazarou has beaten me to it and said all that needs be said. So, this will have to suffice from me - except to direct you to Papalazarou's superior comment.

Mind you, not all Roman Catholic's are happy about Tone's apparent conversion either - already this evening on TV we've had Anne Widdicombe and the Editor of the 'Catholic Herald' fulminating on the subject, and no doubt at this minute they're dipping their respective quills in vitriol and penning something scurrilous to say about it in the press over the weekend.

Actually, the real reason that Toney Baloney converted now was so that he could take advantage of the Pope's recent offer of relief from purgatory. But there's only one thing wrong with that, Tone: you are destined to live in the hell of your own creation, you hypocritical mendacious fuckwit.

Still, it'll make for nice cosy Sunday mornings for you and Cherie as you indulge in you cannibalistic, sympathetic-magic, delusional rituals.

Another Archbishop Archbuffoon Bleats

The lying buffoon pictured in none other that the Archbishop Archbuffoon of Wales Sheep-shaggers, Dr Barry Morgan, who, according to the BBC, has been bleating on behalf of his flock of sheep that what he calls "atheistic fundamentalism" is exposing his faith delusional psychosis for the complete irrational madness that it undoubtedly is.

What Bazza the Buffoon is complaining about is that he claims that athiests advocate: ''
...that religion in general and Christianity in particular have no substance, and that some view the faith as "superstitious nonsense".
But it IS superstition, you moronic, delusional buffoon - unless you can actually provide some credible empiric evidence that this so-called 'god' you bleat on about exists, but then you can't, and neither can any of your kind. In short, you are a complete fraud, and a sanctimonious one at that.

Bazza Morgan also moans that:
"[Fundamentalism] leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours."
But here's some news for you, you Bonzo, Bazza - atheists do not believe in this 'God' you keep banging on about, therefore, your implication that 'atheist fundamentalism' is synonymous with religious fundamentalism' is a piece of arrant nonsense - but then one would expect no less from a man who has made it his life's work to live as a charlatan, mountebank, and complete fraud. Or perhaps you wish to maintain that you actually believe all that irrational, unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo that you claim to believe in, in which case you are a simple delusional psychotic in desperate need of sectioning under the Mental health Act and some effective anti-psychotic medication.

Some more examples of Bazza's complete irrationality: are demonstrated by his pronouncements:-
  • God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety. (So 'God' is on the side of atheists and Muslim suicide-bombers, is he then Barry?)
  • [It is] perfectly natural to have a coherent and rational debate about the tenets of the Christianity. (My 'God', you can't even speak 'proppa' English, you Drongo - the definite article 'the' is completely unneccessary in that phrase of yours - but I do agree that it is possible for sane people to have a coherent and rational debate about the mental illness known as 'Christianity')
  • Virulent, almost irrational attacks on [Christianity are] dangerous because they refused to allow any contrary viewpoint and also affected the public perception of religion.(The only 'irrationality' in evidence here is your religious faith, and the only 'danger' is that pointing that out simply encourages those in society less-capable of critical though and who are normally preyed upon by manipulative clerics like yourself to see religion in its true light - manipulative delusion, the sole purpose of which is social control for the benefit of those who wish to impose it on the rest of us.)
In short, you are simply another duplicitous cleric who is bleating because you are losing your power and prestige as society at large becomes wise to the fact that the whole religious edifice is a complete and utterly unsubstantiated sham, and people like you are nothing other than cheap mountebanks selling snake-oil at some fairground side-show.

But go on, prove me wrong, Bazza - produce credible objective evidence (a) that this 'God' of your exists, (b) ditto for this person you refer to as 'Christ' ever existed, (c) ditto that (b) was the son whilst being the same as (a), and that (a) (b) and (c) created the cosmos and everything in it.

Oh, and whilst you're at it, prove that you're not mentally ill.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Are All Americans Mad?

Since it seems that one has to be some sort of religious lunatic in order to stand a chance of being elected to the office of President of the United States, the question asked in the title is a fair one: Are All Americans Mad?

The buffoon pictured, for example, is none other than Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas and Presidential candidate who is, to us on this side of the pond, just another delusional psychotic fundie Southern Baptist minister from the town of Ignorance (though the locals refer to it as 'Hope'), Arkansas.

Naturally, 'The Huckster' is well-qualified to be President, with a batchelor's degree(magna cum laude) in religion from that impressive seat of learning, Ouachita Baptist University, though, subsequently, he did have to leave the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary after only a year of further attempted study.

Recently, 'The Huckster' took part in a TV debate in the US (see the clip here) where he had to defend himself on his stance regarding evolution. Some of Huckabee's responses were as follows (and note how they conform strictly to the pattern adopted by religious fraudsters and delusional psychopaths):-
  • "God created the heavens and the earth."
  • "Either you believe that God created the process or it was an accident and that it all happened on its own."
  • "How God did it I don't know because I wasn't there."
  • "We're all the unique creations of God who knows us and loves us and who created us for his own purpose."
  • "But you know, if anyone wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate they are certainly welcome to do it. I don't know how far they will march that back."
Now, whilst one just might be prepared to vote for a candidate for the Presidency who did not believe in evolution but credited his invented 'God' with having created everything, except itself, one would at least expect Huckabee to know that he is, de facto, the descendant of primates, for not only is he one, but so are his mother and father and all their antecedents right back to the earliest hominids!

So, it looks like 'the greatest nation on earth' is on track to get yet another irrational, non-scientific, ignorant, delusional, superstitious Xtian fundie to take it down the road to the oblivion that it so justly deserves - let's just hope that it doesn't drag the rest of us along with it.

And in answer to the opening question: a resounding "YES" to all of them who vote for fuckwits and manipulative swindlers like 'The Huckster'.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Theists Evade The Issues - What A Surprise.

The looney-tunes, fundie, Xtian apologist, US-based encycolpaedia on the web, 'Conservapedia' (which risibly entitles itself 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia'), reproduces survey findings from the 'American Sociological Review' in 2006 and claims that this showed that the group 47.6% of American society "relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family" are atheists.

What 'Conservapedia' fails to mention is that this implies that 52.4% of American society are of the opposite persuasion, but then 'Conservapedia' has never been an organisation which lets facts stand in the way of its propaganda and Xtian dogma.

A couple of examples quoted from them will suffice to demonstrate the totally fallacious claims made by this sorry excuse for an encyclopaedia - hardly surprising, however, since it's real purpose is simply to propagate fundie Xtian claims:-
  • "As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since World War II have been atheists.Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many debates have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States". (accessed 20/12/07, here.)
  • "According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

    After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical".(accessed 20/12/07 here).

Oh, and just one other thing - the contributors to 'Conservapedia' are adamant in their opinion that the onus to disprove that these entities called 'gods' do not exist rests solely and squarely on atheists, and they quote this in support of their position:
In the article, Is Atheism Presumptuous?, atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels which is one of the principle websites for atheists, agnostics and skeptics on the internet, states that "I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."
Well, I'm sorry to have to disagree with Lowder, Copan, and the scribes at 'Conservapedia', but neither this atheist nor any other atheist is obliged to assume the mantle of disproving that which theists initiated de novo.

Theists invented the concept of 'gods' ab initio, so your lot have to prove your case. Your attempt to divert the onus onto atheists by quoting that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy define 'atheism' as 'the denial of the existence of any God or gods' is completely irrelevant and thoroughly spurious. After all, the Oxford English Dictionary (arguably the most definitive dictionary in the world) defines 'atheism' as: "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God".

In other words, the word 'atheism' encompasses the simple state of someone who acknowledges that there is no credible evidence to support the claims made by theists that this 'god' they refer to exists; or, as philosophers and psychologists have it, that theism is not a 'justified true belief', so there is absolutely no onus on those who do not accept theism to disprove the claims made by theists that their particular 'god' exists, or even to disprove that there are any other so-called 'gods'.

Au contriare, as Voltaire would have it - and you do like quoting him when it suits you, don't you - the onus is not only on you to prove that this particular 'god' whom you refer to as 'God' exists, but that you must also prove all the other specious claims you make for this entity - such as that it is the 'First Cause but itself Uncaused', or that it is actually any more credible than any of the thousands of other 'creator-gods' that mankind has deluded itself into believing over the millennia.

Oh, and pointing out that your 'God' tells you in his 'Holy Bible' to eschew all other 'gods' is not sufficient proof of anything other than the collective delusional psychopathology of those who wrote and subsequently those who claim to believe in those fairy-tales in the first place.

Next, some other theistic loonie will be telling me that Cthulhu really exists, and that the 'Necronomicron' of the Seer and Prophet Abdul Al-hazred is really 'holy scripture' and that it is up to me to disprove their claims.

On second thoughts, let the Xtian apologists who contribute their drivel to 'Consevapedia' disprove it for, according to their own arguments, the onus is on them to do so, since the 'Necronomicron' states that Cthulhu is THE 'Elder One' and therefore it must, by definition, have existed prior to the 'God' of Xtians; the corollary to this is that unless Xtians can disprove the claims made for Cthulhu, then they are unable to demonstrate that their 'God' is the 'First Cause' or THE 'Elder One'.

Delusional psychotics, the lot of them.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

So-Called Atheist, Real-Time Hypocrite

This is a photograph of Nick Clegg, the newly elected leader of the Liberal Democrats, pontificating in the way that politicians love to do.

During an interview today on BBC radio, Clegg stated "No" in reply to the question, "Do you believe in God", but went on to add, subsequently, that he has...
"...enormous respect for people who have religious faith, I'm married to a Catholic and am committed to bringing my children up as Catholics. However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind."
Now how's that for a piece of outstanding hypocrisy and duplicity?

If you really don't believe in this mythical figure referred to as 'God, Mr Clegg - and, remember, you said initially that you didn't - then not only do you not have the right to allow your children to be indoctrinated into the delusional faith shared by your wife and the Roman Catholic Church, but you are actively participating in child abuse.

And as for your subsequent mealy-mouthed utterances that you are not an 'active believer' what exactly do you mean to convey by that: that you do believe in this mythical entity called 'God' but simply don't worship it, that you are really an agnostic , or that you are too pusillanimous and duplicitous to reiterate your initial, categorical and atheist "No"?

Furthermore, it is impertinent of you to imply that those of us who are neither intellectually sub-normal nor psychologically dysfunctional to talk honestly or think rationally about the delusional psychopathology that is religion have taken such a stand due to us having " a closed heart or a closed mind". On the contrary, it is only those people who do have an open heart and an open mind who can acknowledge there there is absolutely no credible objective evidence whatsoever that any of the thousands of so-called 'gods' which mankind has invented over the millennia have ever existed, far less the one that the Abrahamic religions refer to as 'God', the supreme and only creator of the universe and all that exists in it.

But then I'd hardly expect you to be familiar with the concept of personal integrity, Nicky-boy, and your latest little piece of duplicity as reported by the BBC simply confirms that.

Oh, by the way, don't count on my vote.

No, belay that; count on my vote, just hold your breath until you get it.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Does God Cause Global Warming?

So, according to this report, scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report in February saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man. However, there are those, not least the devout Xtians amongst us who proclaim that these scientists are wrong, since the Xtians argue that their 'God' made everything which, by definition, includes global warming. After all, there is evidence to show that the Xtians are correct and that the scientists are wrong. How else could the 4 major ice ages that the planet we call 'Earth' has endured and which passed be explained if it was not due to" God's Global Warming"? And then we come to the warming which brought to an end the Little Ice Age (1500-1850).

As the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' has it:
"The mean solar activity was quite low [during this period], but positive fluctuations occurred around 1540–90 and 1770–1800. The main westerly storm belts shifted about 500 kilometres to the south, and for much of the time the northern latitudes came under cool continental conditions. Observed temperature series in Europe from Paris to Leningrad show large fluctuations until 1850.

Glacier advances are recorded in the Alps, in the Sierra Nevada, and in Alaska. Corresponding low sea levels are recorded by early tide gauge records in The Netherlands and Germany. Even in equatorial latitudes there are traces of mountain glacier advances (as in the Andes of Colombia)."Holocene Epoch. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved December 17, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition:

Whilst I do not consider for a moment that this mythical entity that theists refer to as 'God' caused the global warming that brought these ice ages to and end, I am still waiting to be convinced by the scientists who claim that mankind is mainly responsible for our current state of affairs - and also how they explain the previous episodes of global warming since it is clear that mankind was not responsible for those.

I am also left wondering how many of those scientists are themselves theists, and what role they ascribe to their 'God' for the current situation.

As for our politicians - here in the UK at least it's quite clear that they have another agenda entirely, which I suspect is the social control much beloved by so-called 'socialists', and that they are using the spectre of global warming to further their own political ends. Evidence of this is far too voluminous to recount here,so a single example will have to suffice, though I'm sure, dear reader, that you can come up with a few more of your own:-
  • Why does the government not impose a ban on manufacturing, selling, or using internal combustion engined vehicles that can do more than, say, 56MPH (the speed at which most vehicles are designed to be most economical with regard to fuel burn/emissions)? For example, an average of around 131,000 cars a month were produced in the three months to July 2007 (ONS), and ALL of those were capable of exceeding that limit, thereby impacting directly on fossil-fuel waste and greenhouse gas emissions.
I'm also intrigued why it is that those who claim to be the most concerned about the impact the hoi-polloi are having on global warming find so many reasons for excusing themselves from the strictures that they want to place of the rest of us.

But then hasn't it always been that way, with the self-appointed 'high-priests' of whatever movement is fashionable telling their flocks how to live their own miserable lives whilst they themselves live high on the hog.

Perhaps 'global warming' is the new theism and the IPCC Report the new 'holy scripture'?

Sunday, December 16, 2007

A Pastor Admits, "God Doesn't Exist"

The obvious madman in the photograph is none other than the Rev. Klaas Hendrikse, the Dutch Protestant cleric who claims that he does not believe in God's existence in his best-seller, 'Believing in a God Who Does Not Exist: Manifesto of an Atheist Pastor', which is currently being reprinted for the third time, according to 'The Times' yesterday.

According to Klaas, "The non-existence of God is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in God".

Hendrikse then begins to wax lyrical:
"I am an atheist believer. God is for me not a being, but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, 'I will not abandon you' and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright(sic) to call that God."
Hmmm, interesting theory: 'God' is not an entity, the creator of the cosmos and all that is in it, but simply a transaction between people when an intention or action is declared and fulfilled. In other words, for Hendrikse, 'God' is not a noun but a verb. Thus, according to his definition, someone who says "I'm going to kill you", and subsequently does it, is 'God'.

Interesting stuff, indeed, but there's just one small problem with your definition, Klaas.

The word atheist is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as:

1.One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
So, if you are using the word atheist in either of its proper meanings, what right have you, Klaas, to hold yourself out as an ordained minister of religion and spout all that rubbish you do?

Perhaps that's why the general secretary of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, Bas Plaisier, has criticised Hendrikse for treating Christian belief as a "dogma that can be put out with the rubbish". Still, according to 'Ecumenical News International', the denomination is not planning at present legal or disciplinary steps against the pastor, Plaisier said.

In other words, the church doesn't mind it's pastors lying to their flocks of sheep, but would prefer them to maintain the fiction that their 'God' qua 'God' does in fact exist.

Seems that Klaas is not the only madman in the Netherlands, then.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

The Soul Exists - But Only In The Mind.

In the 17th Century, René Descartes was the first to claim that the pineal gland was the 'seat of the soul', without so much as demonstrating that there was anything that could be shown objectively to be 'the soul'.

Descartes arrived at his conclusion because he believed that (a) the soul was given by the Xtian 'god' to homo sapiens, (b) that the soul is one substance, and (c) he had observed from anatomical studies that the pineal gland appeared to be unique among brain structures in that it was not divided into two halves.

Descartes was wrong on that account too, for closer examination has proved that the tiny gland does in fact have both a left and right hemisphere.

Like other hubristic theists (with apologies for the oxymoron), Descartes believed also that that animals could not have a pineal gland because his religious faith had taught him that only humans have souls, though it is an inconvenient fact that many animals do have them too - pineal glands, that is.

Not that Descartes would have let such a tedious fact divert him from his spurious endeavours to prove that his 'God' existed and that homo sapiens had been created by 'Him' and in 'His' image. But then Descartes is a much over-rated philosopher - and an even worse scientist - and perhaps his most egregious endowment to the history of critical thought is his famous, and wrong, dicta: 'cogito ergo sum' . Even a callow schoolboy could have told him that he'd got it completely the wrong way round and it should have been - 'I am therefore I think'. Still, what can one expect from a devout Jesuit.

Last month, however, an interesting paper was published in 'Nature Precedings', which bills itself as 'a journal for pre-publication research and preliminary findings'. The paper is entitled "Correlation between Pineal Activation and Religious Meditation Observed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging" by a team at the National Taiwan University in Taipei, which may be downloaded as a PDF file from this link.

Whilst scientists say there is no evidence that our so-called immortal connection to the afterlife exists - or as Gautama Buddha pointed out some 2,600 years ago, "There is no soul" - brain scans using the latest fMRI technology now suggests the area surrounding the pineal gland is activated when people meditate.

The study co-leader Dr Jyh-Horng Chen said that:
"There is no definition of 'soul' in the scientific field."
He went on to conclude:
"But our results demonstrate a correlation between pineal activation and religious meditation which might have profound implications in the physiological understanding of mind, spirit and soul.

Whether this correlation is merely a psychological effect or a real physical phenomenon remains to be further explored."
Incidentally, the subjects of the study - 11 men and 9 women - were all practitioners of the esoteric 'T'ienti Teachings', also known as 'Chinese Original Quiet Sitting', and it should be noted that the T'ienti Teaching movement describes itself as an international religious organization which also goes by the name of 'The Lord of Universe Church'

In other words, the population chosen for the study is (a) statistically insignificant, (b) completely unrepresentative, and (c) already believe in ancient esoteric mumbo-jumbo that has no basis in the objective world, science or logic - despite claiming to be over 5,000 years old.

Some of the other claims made by the movement are:
"Chinese Original Quiet Sitting is the sole legacy, passed down 5,000 years from Chinese ancestors, that strengthens bodies and genes, nurtures life, gives longevity, and makes mankind unify with Heaven. For ancient Taoists it was the prime practice for tempering soul and body, taking them beyond constraints of the physical world to a marvelous(sic) integration of spirit and flesh. In it they found everlasting life."
The movement then goes on to state:
"Chinese Original Quiet Sitting was personally imparted by the First-Appointed Master Emissary of the T'ienti Teachings, Mr. Lee Yü-chieh(1901-1994)..."
From which one is forced to conclude that the "everlasting life" claimed by the adherents of the T'ienti Teachings is not to be taken literally.

However, if one is not to take that claim literally, what evidence is there for any of the other claims made by 'The Lord of Universe Church'?

And why should we take the paper "Correlation between Pineal Activation and Religious Meditation Observed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging" seriously?

Monday, December 10, 2007

Evil Atheists Murder Rightly Religious

Yes, it's true, wicked atheists have murdered decent religious folks in two incidents in Colorado this weekend, according to the BBC. In the first, a gunman shot five people in the car park of the New Life Church, Colorado Springs, killing one and wounding 4 others, whilst in the second in a Denver missionary training centre another gunman shot 4, killing 2 of them. (Incidentally, New Life Church was set up by the drug-fiend and promiscuous pederast Ted Haggard, the well-known phoney-preacher, charlatan, mountebank and swindler who you might remember for having had the temerity to call Richard Dawkins arrogant during the latter's TV programme 'The Roots of Evil'.)

Admittedly the BBC don't actually lay the blame for the rampages (can killing 3 people and wounding 6 others in 2 separate incidents be called 'rampages'?) on atheists, nor do they suggest that atheists are wicked or evil, but I'm sure that it is only a matter of time before the religious right in Jesusland (the USA to the rest of us) do - if they haven't already. After all, they've effectively blamed the Columbine murders amongst other such incidents on atheism - see the moronic diatribe by the dysfunctional psychopath Ken Ham in the risibly-named site 'Answers in Genesis' where he claims:
"You see, when millions of students have been told in their classes that there is no God, that man is just an animal, and that death, bloodshed, and violence (similar to what we observe in today’s world) are a natural part of the evolutionary mechanisms that produced man, then let’s be honest about the logical consequences!"
So, there you have it folks - fail to teach indoctrinate children with the exclusive Xtian fairy-tale and they simply go off and do whatever they like, including the mass-murder of their fellow man.

But just a minute - isn't George Dubya Buffoon a devout Xtian? "Course he is", is the reply (and 'course' is the word, but that's another matter), "But he hasn't murdered anyone yet". True, but then all he did was to order the poor suckers in the forces he commands to do it for him - mass murder by proxy, as it were, but that doesn't count because the Iraqis aren't Xtians and so they don't matter anyway (Besides, George was on a holy crusade to steal their oil, until Tony 'God-Told-Me-To-Do-It-Too' B-liar muscled in on Georgie's little game - hardly surprising really, since it was the same 'God' who advised them both.)

Not that these niceties will stop the loonie Xtian right-wing from blaming atheists and atheism for these two terrible events in Colorado this weekend - even if the killers happen to have been inmates of the religious institutions where these atrocities took place - and using them as an excuse to issue more special pleading for the forced indoctrination of so-called 'Xtian values' and the introduction of even greater rights and privileges for Xtians.

After all, wasn't the Twin Towers incident ('9/11' to my American friends) perpetrated by atheists?

What d'you mean, NO!

But the guys that did it weren't Xtians, so they must have been atheists - and, besides, they were evil.

'Nuff said.

Sunday, December 09, 2007

The Price Of Islam's Brutal Heritage

A recent survey by the think-tank 'Policy Exchange' found that 36% of young Muslims in the UK believe that those who leave Islam should be killed.

Unsurprising, really, when 'The Daily Telegraph' reports that there is considerable support for those barbaric and ignorant views in the Qur'an and other sacred Islamic texts - which may explain why, out of the 57 Islamic states in the world today, seven have a legal code that punishes Muslims who leave the religion with death and Pakistan is currently considering a Bill that would make apostasy a capital crime for men and one carrying a sentence of imprisonment for women.

Patrick Sookhdeo was born a Muslim, but later converted to Christianity. He is now international director of the Barnabas Fund, an organisation that aims to research and to ameliorate the conditions of Christians living in countries hostile to their religion. He says:
"All four schools of Sunni law, as well as the Shia variety, call for the death penalty for apostates. Most Muslim scholars say that Muslim religious law - sharia - requires the death penalty for apostasy.

In 2004, Prince Charles called a meeting of leading Muslims to discuss the issue. All the Muslim leaders at that meeting agreed that the penalty in sharia is death. The hope was that they would issue a public declaration repudiating that doctrine, but not one of them did."

As 'The Daily Telegraph' article concludes:

Given the acceptance by some that Muslim religious law does indeed require that apostates be killed, it is hardly surprising that many ordinary Muslims think that it is their religious duty to carry out that punishment - or at least to threaten it.

But not all Muslims in Britain agree with that conclusion.

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), says that it is "absolutely disgraceful behaviour… In Britain, no Muslim has the right to harm one hair of someone who decides to leave Islam." And Inayat Bunglawala, also a spokesman for the MCB, insists that such behaviour in Britain is "awful and quite wrong. The police should crack down on it." However, Mr Bunglawala's words have to be seen in their proper context, since he subsequently refused to condemn those Muslim states which impose the death penalty for apostasy, claiming that such barbaric and ignorant treatment was "a matter for those states".

What is perhaps more surprising is that these spokespersons for the MCB do not appear to be aware of what is happening in their own mosques in this country.

According to Denis MacEoin's report for 'Policy Exchange' the following is just typical of the documents found in influential mosques here:

Fatawa Islamiyah - Islamic Verdicts, volume 5, which states, inter alia:

And if he apostatises after that, his head should be chopped off, according to the Hadith: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him'[emphasis added].(in the East London Mosque; the London Central Mosque and Islamic Centre
Frankly, the real problem with Islam is that it makes much of it's barbaric past as if it is relevant today. Furthermore, there is little consensus among Muslims about many aspects of their faith and no supreme imam to rule on their differences of interpretation. Nor does there appear to be any Muslim with sufficient moral authority and gravity amongst the ummah to act as arbiter. Consequently, it is unsurprising that so many ordinary Muslims are frightened to speak out against the barbaric and inhumane punishments ordered in the name of Islam - for they themselves could become the next victims of the brutal misanthropes who hide behind their religious texts and use these as justification for their vile atrocities.

Nevertheless, that does not excuse the actions of the Muslim leaders who refused to issue a public declaration repudiating the doctrine that the punishment for apostasy is death.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Claim Anything You Want - As Long As It Supports Religion

Scott Stephens declared in 'Eureka Street' that Christopher Hitchens' recent book 'God Is Not Great' contemptuously strips religion of its nobility and dislodges it from its pride of place as the noble founding gesture of civilisation by ignoring that:
"[religion represents] the moment when Homo sapiens, driven by its emerging thirst for transcendence, takes the first step out of the domain of primates by investing certain ritualised practices with meaning."
Unfortunately, Stephens doesn't offer a single shred of empirical evidence to substantiate his claim that homo sapiens was "driven by its emerging thirst for transcendence" or even that this represented the "first step out of the domain of primates", whatever he means by those terms.

Having dismissed Hitchens, Stephens then attacks Dawkins, who is generally credited with creating the notion of the religious meme (though not by Stephens), but Stephens dismisses Dawkins by quoting that Daniel Dennett dismissed Dawkins' theory of the meme as mere 'philosophy' and, anyway, Stephens claims that Marx had already referred to the meme as "full of theological subtleties and metaphysical niceties". Nevertheless, I have to agree with Stephens and disagree with Dawkins; there is no empiric evidence that the meme qua meme exists, but all that means is that Dawkins has not nailed the reasons for the continued existence of religious faith and in no way evidences that religion is (a) necessary, (b) noble, (c) the first step out of the domain of primates, or (d) anything else that is intrinsically worthy per se. (I also have to admit that it is some 70+ years since I read Marx, but I do not recollect him referring to the meme as such, and I suggest that Stephens is in all likelihood 'egging the pudding').

Frankly, I find Stephens' argument weak to the point of non-existence. If, as he appears to be maintaining, religion represents homo sapiens' "thirst for transcendence", that seems to me to be an admission that religion is simply the wish-fulfilment of a primitive psychological need for meaning and permanence - a need which those of us who continue to develop and mature psychologically realise is as unnecessary and as meaningless as the so-called answers that religion claims to give. (NB. I am also intrigued at the hubris of those who believe that primates and other species do not have a need for meaning and permanence, unlike homo sapiens, but perhaps they are more capable of divining the inner life of other species than I am).

In conclusion, Stephens and his kind are unable to give any evidence demonstrating the necessity for religion per se, and attacking people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Marx or Uncle Tom Cobbley when they dismiss the validity of religion does nothing to make religion anything other than a symptom of the primitive psychological needs of insecure and dysfunctional people. However, his attack does prove that one can say anything one likes, as long as it supports religion - unless, of course, one is a fundamental Muslim who claims that it is God's will that unbelievers and apostates be murdered (not to mention the Xtian 'pro-life' murdrerers).

No-one Knows Where Jesus Was Born - Or If He Ever Was.

Theos, the special-pleading Christian 'think-tank' held a survey last month which indicated that over a quarter of adults (27%) do not know where 'Jesus' was born. Commenting on the results of the survey, Paul Woolley, Director of Theos, said:
"These findings provide us with a good snapshot of our national relationship with Christianity.

They show that the Christmas story, in its classic formulation is still very much in our cultural blood stream, as indeed is the Christian story as a whole.

However, when you probe in any depth, you discover that our knowledge and understanding is rather more shaky.

The fact that younger people are the least knowledgeable about the Christmas story may reflect a decline in the telling of Bible stories in schools and the popularity of Nativity plays.

No-one seriously thinks that being a Christian or a member of the established Church is the same thing as being British today. But, at the same time, if we are serious about social cohesion we can't afford to ignore the stories that have bound us together as a culture for a thousand years.

Attempts to down-play the Christmas story in order to help social cohesion are likely to be counterproductive(sic)."
Actually, Paul, all your results demonstrate is how effective up until recently the Xtian tradition of brain-washing children in schools to believe the Xtian mythology has been for no-one, over the millennia, has ever been able to produce a single credible shred of empiric evidence that this fellow you refer to as 'Jesus' ever existed.

Furthermore, 'The Jesus Seminar', which was set up in 1985 by Robert Funk, concluded by the year 2000 that some 82% of the sayings attributed to 'Jesus' were simply fictionalised by the Gospel writers. Indeed, as R. Joseph Hoffmann, Chair, Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion said in a famous article published in 1993 in the secular humanist magazine 'Free Enquiry':
“The Jesus of the [Jesus Seminar] is a talking doll with a questionable repertoire of thirty-one sayings. Pull a string and he blesses the poor.”
Having established that at least 82% of the sayings attributed to this person called 'Jesus' were pure fiction, the next question raised was: 'Did Jesus exist?' and so 'The Jesus Project' was set up in January 2007, with a project lifespan of 5 years and its first session scheduled for this month.

The aim of the project is a probable reconstruction of the events that explain the beginning of Christianity — a man named Jesus from the province of Galilee whose life served as the basis for the beginning of a movement, or a sequence of events that led to the Jesus story being propagated throughout the Mediterranean. The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion finds both conclusions worthy of contemplation, but asserts that as we live in the real world—of real causes and outcomes, only one can be true. Their aim, like Pilate’s (John 18:38), is to find the truth.

Nevertheless, even if 'The Jesus Project' does conclude that 'a man named Jesus from the province of Galilee' really did exist and that his life 'served as the basis for the beginning of a movement', it would not be able to prove that this 'Jesus' was either (a) 'the son of God' or (b) that this so-called 'God' had ever existed in the first place.

Nevertheless, the special-pleading Christian 'think-tank' Theos is unlikely to be bothered by the fact that it's poll questions were deliberately misleading and loaded in order to produce the answers it wanted, for the fact remains that no-one, over the millennia, has ever been able to produce a single credible shred of empiric evidence that the person that theists refer to as 'Jesus' ever existed. But then religious types have never been ones to let truth and fact stand in their way.

Friday, December 07, 2007

Holiday in France - Save Time In Hell.

OK, so the headline isn't quite accurate, but it is lot more so than the silly nonsense put out by the Roman Catholic church and Pope Benedict XVI yesterday.

According to the Vatican, Il Poopoo is offering relief from purgatory to Roman Catholics who travel to Lourdes over the next year, but when I want relief, I prefer something that is guaranteed to work, like cassia angustifolia, (senna pods to you), rather than the magical mumblings of a moronic misologist like Benny Ratsarse.

For those of you who are not as daft as the average catholic - or as willing to prey on the dysfunctional and delusional amongst us as the average cleric - Il Poopoo's deal allegedly works like this:
Pilgrims to the shrine of 'Our Lady of Lourdes' will be granted 'plenary indulgences' from Benny Ratsarse, which the catholic church multi-national business which he runs says will reduce the time spent being 'washed' of sin after death. The indulgences will be available from this weekend until Dec 8, 2008, providing you drop enough dosh into the maw of the church's coffers.
But those of you who can't make the trip to the extremely unpleasant little town of Lourdes needn't worry, for Il Excrementia has another plan to shear you from your dosh:
For those who cannot make the journey to France, the Pope will also grant indulgences to Catholics morons who pray at places of worship dedicated to the 'Madonna of Lourdes' from Feb 2 to Feb 11. Indulgences may also be granted under special circumstances to people too sick to visit the shrine, the Vatican said.
Now isn't that heart-warming! The catholic church will prey on those who are unable to pray at the real deal - Lourdes, the place where 150 years ago a half-mad, delusional and sexually-abused illiterate peasant girl claimed that the mythical figure of the 'Madonna' appeared to her in a vision. Well, at least that stopped all her male relatives shagging her as they realised that they could make more money out of exploiting her mad tale instead and, naturally, the catholic church was quick to jump on the money-making bandwaggon.

And so, the prosperity of a rather ugly and extremely unpleasant little town in south-west France was assured, as was the continued exploitation of the gullible, dysfunctional and just downright mad by the Roman Catholic church - a tradition which Benny Ratsarse, Il Poopoo Benedict XVI continues to this day.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Religion: Sacrificium Intellectus or Simply Delusional Psychosis

Sacrificium Intellectus: the sacrifice of the intellect, silencing the voice of reason in favour of blind faith is, according to Ignatius Loyola, the duty of those who believe in god. Though Loyola was a Jesuit, the followers of all religious cults and ideologies renounce reason with alacrity. These people are true misologists, haters of reason, a type excoriated by Plato and subsequently by Kant in his 'Critique of Pure Reason' and 'Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals', though he owes much to Bayle who argued in his 'Historical and Critical Dictionary' that religion is not preferable to atheism and that atheists can be morally upright members of society - a view sadly still denied today by the soi disant god-fearing dupes, weirdos, sickos, psychos, liars, fraudsters and swindlers who would like you to believe that their beliefs are paramount, and that we should respect them for no other reason than they claim to believe the vile and irrational nonsense which they spout.

Not to be outdone by Loyola, some 300 hundred years later the philosopher and devout Christian, Soren Kierkegaard, acknowledged that whilst one cannot know or prove that ‘God’ exists, Christians must simply and passionately commit themselves to make a ‘leap of faith’ that ‘He’ does. Further, he insisted that this leap of faith could not be based on rational reasons, but that it was simply the result of subjective or personal necessity and passionate commitment on the part of the religiously minded. What Kierkegaard failed to point out was that the ‘leap of faith’ he insisted was necessary for one who claimed to ‘believe’ in ‘God’ was nothing other than a symptom of delusional psychopathology.

Over the years, there have been a number of influential studies into the reasoning processes of deluded and delusion-prone individuals. Most of these studies used an approach consistent with the prevailing diagnostic definition of delusions, according to which delusional beliefs are based on an “incorrect inference about external reality” - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, International Version (DSM-IV) p. 783.

One of the most recent of these studies, published 2006, was entitled Need for Closure, Jumping to Conclusions, and Decisiveness in Delusion-Prone Individuals, by McKay, Langdon & Coltheart, where ˜need for closure” refers to a motivated need for certainty, whilst ˜jumping-to-conclusions” bias refers to the gathering of minimal data when making overconfident probabilistic judgements; both of these constructs have been associated independently with delusion-proneness.

The methodology involved the use of standard tools, such as the Peters et al Delusion Inventory, the Huq et al experimental beads task, the Milgram and Tenne scales of decisional procrastination, and the Kruglanski et al. need for closure scale, amongst others.

Whilst it was the view of some earlier researchers that the need for closure motivates a jumping-to-conclusions bias, leading, in turn, to delusion-proneness, no study to date has provided evidence of a direct relationship between greater need for closure and jumping to conclusions.

The findings of this study were that the various facets of need for closure proved to be independent; e.g. intolerance of ambiguity correlated positively with delusion-proneness, whilst decisiveness correlated negatively. The finding that delusion-prone individuals are more indecisive in everyday life was replicated using different scales. Delusion proneness is associated independently with jumping-to-conclusions bias on experimental reasoning tasks, intolerance of ambiguity, and indecision concerning real-life dilemmas.

The results indicated that the jumping-to-conclusions bias may be associated more specifically with a propensity to hold implausible beliefs with unwarranted conviction. Results also indicated that need for closure (NFC) is not a unitary construct in relation to delusion-proneness, i.e. NFC intolerance of ambiguity and NFC decisiveness dissociated, whereas intolerance of ambiguity correlated positively with all aspects of delusion-proneness, decisiveness correlated negatively. However the researchers noted here that it was primarily heightened distress concerning implausible thoughts that predicted indecision concerning real-world dilemmas, as assessed using the NFC decisiveness scales. Furthermore, in the case of implausible ideas that come to consciousness as self-generated notions, these might also be associated with an inappropriate sense of heightened salience, leading to the unwarranted sense of conviction. This suggest that delusional and delusion-prone people express unwarranted conviction in their implausible ideas and jump to conclusions on an reasoning task because they attach inappropriate heightened salience to whatever presents to consciousness as an internally generated first-person representation of reality,

The conclusion is that these results suggest that, if anything, delusion-proneness, or at least delusional distress, is associated with indecisiveness concerning real-life dilemmas. They also suggest that delusion-prone individuals attach an inappropriate heightened salience to whatever presents to immediate consciousness as an internally generated (first-person) representation of reality. The authors of this paper draw on the findings of previous researchers which suggest that it might be this inappropriate salience that then causes the unwarranted conviction in implausible ideas, the jumping-to conclusions bias on an experimental probabilistic reasoning task, and the intolerance of ambiguity and indecisiveness concerning real-life dilemmas that they found in relation to delusion-proneness.

Whilst this abstract does not do justice to a fine highly technical paper, it is interesting to see how many of these summarized conclusions apply to so-called religious beliefs and those who claim to hold them. If theists so-called ‘belief’ in ’God’ is not a motivated by their need for certainty, or that their claims that their ‘God’ is the first cause and prime-mover is not the making of overconfident judgements on minimal data, or the fact that they claim that the rules for living a decent life can only come from their ‘God’ indicate that they are unable to act decisively for themselves, then they must provide rational, objective reasons for their faith, otherwise they must accept the evidence of Loyola, Kierkegaard and McKay et al: religious belief is delusional activity.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

UK 'Must Celebrate Christianity'

That, at least, is the headline in the BBC's report of the debate led in parliament today by that delusonal psychotic and moron, Mark Pritchard, referred to here in an earlier blog.

During the time-wasting debate, apparently some buffoon bearing the ridiculous title of 'community cohesion minister' called Parmjit Dhanda told MPs that Xtianity had had a "significant impact" in securing people's rights and freedoms.

Obviously, Mr Dhanda is completely unaware of the continued and ongoing attempts by Christians to silence those who call their delusional beliefs regarding the existence of their so-called 'god' and this mythical person they call 'jesus' into question. I refer, of course, to the decision in the High Court today, reported here, when a group of religious fascists known as 'Christian Voice' failed, yet again, in their attempts to prosecute the BBC for the screening of 'Jerry Springer - The Opera' in 2005. Naturally these soi-disant Xtians claim to speak on behalf of all Xtians, and they have announced that they intend to continue with their attempts to silence anyone who criticises or holds their ridiculous religion up to the ridicule that it rightly deserves. So much for Xtians promulgating free speech and freedom for those of us who are not party to their dysfunctional needs, eh Mr Dhanda?

Now Mark Pritchard wants Christians to be granted "full minority rights" (whatever THAT means), because:"
"Most Christians feel they are not getting a fair hearing."
However, Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, called the debate "a waste of precious parliamentary time", and concluded:
"Christians are not being pushed out of public life. If anything they are over-represented."
Hardly surprising really that they should take on so, however, as Xtians have always claimed that they have been badly done by ever since their make-believe messiah and non-existent 'jesus' was supposedly crucified by a bunch of non-believers.

Nevertheless, I fully support Mark Pritchard's call for Xtians to be given a fair hearing - except that it should be during the course of a structured professional interview from a competent psychiatrist, for the sooner that these poor delusional psychotics are treated properly with modern anti-psychotic drugs the better it will be for them, not to mention for the rest of us who are, by his own admission, the majority.

In conclusion, we, the majority, are becoming increasingly tired of Xtians' constant wailings and bleatings that they deserve more power to dictate to the rest of us, as well as their constant refrain we should respect their delusional faith despite the fact that it is actually a diagnosable mental illness.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

How Do I Stop My Son Praying To Santa Claus?

Yes folks, that's a genuine headline taken from this week's 'Catholic Herald' which bills itself as "Britain's Leading Catholic Newspaper".

Goodness knows what the conclusion was, for the cheapskates on the Catholic Herald don't provide free access to the article. However, allow me to provide my own solution:-

Teach your son that Santa Claus is a mythical creature, just like the entity you call 'god', and 'jesus' and 'mary magdalene' you dumb fucking bitch!

Christian Apologist Speaks Bleats

According to the BBC today, the Tory MP for Wrekin, Mark Pritchard (pictured) has called for a debate in parliament on Wednesday to protest about what he calls 'Christianophobia', or the marginalising of what he calls "the Christian tradition of this nation".

Perhaps Mr. P isn't aware of the latest research which indicates that only 20% of the population of these Isles attend a religious service in a church 'once a year or more'.

He continues his bleatings with this:
"If mainstream political parties do not recognise and protect the Christian tradition of this nation then other more extremist parties will.

If that happens, we are in danger of Christianity being hijacked by these ambitions."

However, Pritchard fails to address the real issue, viz: Why should we protect "the Christian tradition" per se?

Indeed, why should we protect ANY religion?

The only attempt that Pritchard makes to defend his position as far as I can see is the old canard:
"Freedom of speech and of religion are fundamental principles of any liberal democracy".
Naturally Pritchard conveniently ignores the fact that those of a religious persuasion DO have freedom to pursue their faith, but there is NO good reason why they should be allowed to impose their delusional psychopathology on those who do not share their psychotic behaviour.

But Pritchard hasn't finished with his silly little sqealings, for he concludes:
"Some people seem to want to forget the Christian tradition going back to the first century and its contribution to arts, culture and science.

It's gone far enough. If there are those who want to see the Christian church reduced to the margins in this nation they should have the courage to say so, rather than using the rights of other religions as an excuse."

Perhaps he would care to advise me exactly what contributions the Christian church qua the Christian church has made to science, since I cannot think of a single one - and whilst he's answering that point, perhaps he'd also like to mention which version of the "Christian church" he has in mind when he refers to it as such.

As for the "Christian traditions" let us not forget that much of the abominations we visited on other tribes/nations/races/countries was a direct result of those so-called 'Christian traditions' - why, even our quondam leader, Tony B-liar, consulted the Christian 'God' before undertaking his illegal and murderous invasion of Iraq in our name - so I see NO reason why we should vaunt the delusional psychopathy that is religion in our public life.

And another thing: I do not need to use "the rights of other religions as an excuse [for attacking Christianity]", because I recognise that ALL religions are simply a form of delusional psychosis. However, providing these unfortunate, mentally ill theists keep their insecurities to themselves, all is well and good - the problem comes when morons like Pritchard want to visit their delusional faith on the rest of us.

I hope he loses his debate, but I bet our politicians are too pusillanimous to stand up and ridicule him and the "Christian tradition" he wants to foist onto the 80% of us who do share his faith.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Is The Pope Certifiably Insane?

The mad liar, Pope Benedict Ratsarse is at it again with his mendacious ways and duplicitous arguments.

According to 'The Times', the swindler Benny Ratsarse declared in Spe Salvi (translates as 'Saved by Hope Lies!') that atheists argued that:
“A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God”. Since there was “no God to create justice”, atheists said, Man himself was called on to establish it on Earth. This protest against God was understandable, the Pope said, but “the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false”.
Well, I've got some news for you Benny - your whole declaration is "presumptuous and intrinsically false”, since:-
  • Atheism does not concern itself with the entirely meaningless question as to whether the entity you refer to as 'god' is good, bad, or indifferent, as atheism is the 'justifiable true belief' that there is no god whatsoever.
  • As no-one over the millennia has ever been able to produce a single scintilla of credible evidence that this entity which you refer to as 'god' exists, it is a deliberate perversion of language for you to dismiss atheism as a "protest against God".
  • People who claim to believe that an imaginary entity called 'god' objectively exists despite there being no credible evidence to support that belief - which means that it is not a 'justifiable true belief' - are genuinely mentally ill.
  • The concept of 'justice', like that of 'god' is also a man-made phenomenon, for there is no such thing - unless you trying to tell us, for example, that the barbaric punishments handed out in the name of 'God's justice' by Muslim clerics under Sharia Law should be applied universally as you all claim to believe in the same 'god'.
  • Man does "do what no God actually does or is able to do" every moment of every day, since that which does not objectively exist can do nothing in the real world nor is it able to.
Of course Benedict knows that what I am saying is verifiably true, unlike his specious nonsense quoted above, which is why he has to develop his theme by resorting to even more mendacious and duplicitous claptrap in his 76 page address to "Catholics... Protestants, Orthodox Christians and non-Christians", according to his arse-licking apologist and sycophant, Cardinal Albert Vanhoye, the Vatican biblical scholar who presented the document madman's scribblings.

Those who wish to waste their time reading any more of the Pope's lunatic fabrications and distortions of veracity can follow the link given above, but for those who still require convincing that Il Poopoo is undeniably insane, I will leave you with his conclusion:
"[Many people reject faith today] simply because they do not find the prospect of eternal life attractive. What they desire is not eternal life at all, but this present life, for which faith in eternal life seems something of an impediment. To continue living forever – endlessly – appears more like a curse than a gift. [He concluded that Eternity was] not an unending succession of days in the calendar but an encounter with Christ after death which is like plunging into an ocean of infinite love, a moment in which time, the before and after, no longer exists”.
If that is not the ravings of a poor creature suffering from delusional psychosis and tormented by his madness, I don't know what is.

Or, to answer the question posed in the title: Yes. Absolutely.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Who Said Islam Is A Religion Of Peace?

According to 'The Telegraph', Sheikh Abdul Jalil Karuri, a leading Sudanese cleric and adviser to President el-Bashir on cultural and religious matters, whipped up a crowd attending Khartoum's Martyrs' Mosque yesterday by telling them Gillian Gibbons had deliberately named her class's teddy bear Mohammed "with the intention of insulting Islam." Not so, you mentally defective Muslim moron, had she wished to insult Islam she would have chosen a pig as the class's mascot and named that Mohammed.

Later the protesters joined other worshippers to congregate in Martyrs' Square, in the centre of Khartoum, where they chanted "Shame, shame on the UK" - as if we are somehow responsible for their delusional psychopathic religious beliefs - "execute her" - demonstrating just how barbaric and misogynistic their stupid religion is - and "those who insult the Prophet of Islam should be punished with bullets" - as if that power-mad delusional paedophile was somehow worthy of any respect whatsoever.

Whilst 'The Times' reports "Preachers used loudhailers to goad the demonstration into angry Arabic chants of “No tolerance – execution” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad” - which only proves the truth of the famous dicta by the Nobel Laureate psysicist, Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things, but it takes religion for good people to do evil things".

Whereas 'The Guardian' pointed out:
"There was little doubt the protest had been carefully orchestrated. The banners waved by marchers and tied to the front of vehicles had all been pre-printed. Before the verdict, imams across the city also focused on the case in their sermons. One address, broadcast on national radio, accused Gibbons of purposefully comparing the prophet to a bear - an animal that was "alien" to Sudan, he said. "She deserved what she got," he added.

The police did not intervene, indicating that the protest received the official approval of the authorities".
Finally, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri pops up again in 'The Independent' who describe him as a prominent hardline cleric based at the Martyrs' Mosque near where the demonstration took place, and it quotes him as saying: "Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion. This is an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Mohamed."

Quite clearly Abdul and his ilk do not consider that Islam is a religion of peace, but rather that it is to be used as a vile, barbaric instrument of repression, torture, misogyny and hatred, the sole purpose of which is to enable them to impose their own psychopathic personalities on others under the false-cloak of religious respectability.

In one respect, however, Adbul is correct: Islam does not mean 'peace' despite what the mealy-mouthed apologists for that religion would like to have us believe - it means 'submission'. And whilst this submission is ostensibly to the 'will of god', what it actually means in practice is submission to the will of evil nutters like Abdul and his kind.

After all, how else could it be otherwise, for no believer has ever been able to produce a single scintilla of credible evidence that this entity which they refer to as 'god' ever existed - and not even the ramblings of a power-mad delusional paedophile called Mohammed who lived in the Dark Ages (and many of his followers still do) merits cognisance as anything a rational mind would apply the word 'truth' to.

Meanwhile, the last word in this sorry tale belongs to Gillian Gibbons herself. According to the BBC, her son, John Gibbons, told told The Associated Press on Friday:
"One of the things my mum said today was that 'I don't want any resentment towards Muslim people'.

She doesn't want people using her and her case as something to stoke up resentment towards anyone, towards Sudanese people, towards Muslim people or whatever.

You know, that's not the type of person she is, that's not what she wants."
Seems that the Gibbons family have much they could teach ignorant bastards like the imam Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri.