Found this article randomnly. It's very funny, if you've ever wanted to know what the 9 most badass bible passages are.
Enjoy.
Friday 7 December 2007
Wednesday 28 November 2007
God's Timeline
Whilst returning home two days ago, I noticed this flyer on one of the noticeboards near my house. Unfortunely I missed the 'debate', but I was intrigued to find out what position was being taken, though my instinct pointed towards creationism.
Well what would you know, my instinct was right. The church has a page where you can listen to some talks by the eminent Paul Garner. I haven't gotten round to listening to them (thank you very much dial-up), but I'm sure they'd be worth a laugh.
It's a common strategy for creationists to try and make a big thing of the scientific credentials of their speakers. here we have Paul Garner with BSc (Hons), FGS (which I thought at first meant For Gawds Sake). But no, turns out he has the BSc for Environmental sciences (Geology and biology) and he's a fellow of the Geological society. How I don't know. However his next club is a little more predicatable.
The BCM have a page on their beliefs. Basically they're a bunch of young earthers. Really it dulls the brain. But we do find common ground on one point:
We reject the ‘two books’ concept which suggests that God’s revelation in nature can be approached independently from God’s revelation in Holy Scripture. We reject the idea that knowledge may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ truth.
They're right. Knowledge cannot be divided into secular and religous. There is only the truth. And it certainly isn't what they think it is.
Well what would you know, my instinct was right. The church has a page where you can listen to some talks by the eminent Paul Garner. I haven't gotten round to listening to them (thank you very much dial-up), but I'm sure they'd be worth a laugh.
It's a common strategy for creationists to try and make a big thing of the scientific credentials of their speakers. here we have Paul Garner with BSc (Hons), FGS (which I thought at first meant For Gawds Sake). But no, turns out he has the BSc for Environmental sciences (Geology and biology) and he's a fellow of the Geological society. How I don't know. However his next club is a little more predicatable.
The BCM have a page on their beliefs. Basically they're a bunch of young earthers. Really it dulls the brain. But we do find common ground on one point:
We reject the ‘two books’ concept which suggests that God’s revelation in nature can be approached independently from God’s revelation in Holy Scripture. We reject the idea that knowledge may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ truth.
They're right. Knowledge cannot be divided into secular and religous. There is only the truth. And it certainly isn't what they think it is.
Saturday 10 November 2007
Two months later, and a unrelated rant
Well, it's been over two months since I wrote anything here. Two months seems to be a reoccuring time period of my blogging breaks. Hopefully I will be able to actually stick with the damn thing this time.
Anyway, what better way for me to start again then with one of my favourite activites: ranting. Nothing like a good rant to get me back into the blogging spirit. However this has really nothing to do with religion, hopefully some more of those will come later. No this has to do with tabbed browsing.
Now for those of you who don't know (and are probably still using steel and flint for fire-lighting), tabbed browsing is fantastic. It allows for multiple websites to be opened in the same browser window, bypassing the horrific clutter found with opening new windows for each page. It is not unusual for me to have up to 20+ websites open at one time, which would be impossible to navigate normally. So tabbed browsing is a real blessing.
So imagine my frustration when I find a website which doesn't agree. It decides that tabbed browsing is too good for me., 'No you can't open that window in a new tab. I want you to use a new window. Tabbed browsing is far too good for you. Look at you. You can't read all those websites. No it's a new window for you, I'm afraid'. It's like the past few years of web browsing advancement have been conveniently forgotten, and some idiot is trying to sell me Netscape Navigator as the browser of the future.
This ties in with my hatred of computers telling me what to do, or what they think I want to do, one of my pet hates about Windows. "No Word, I don't want you annoying steel wire shit telling me how to write a letter. No I don't want to send an error report to Microsoft, I want an application that doesn't think it has the right to boss me around and then sulkily crash when I finally get my way".
I could probably continue this rant for much longer, and probably will at some point, but you get the picture.
Anyway, what better way for me to start again then with one of my favourite activites: ranting. Nothing like a good rant to get me back into the blogging spirit. However this has really nothing to do with religion, hopefully some more of those will come later. No this has to do with tabbed browsing.
Now for those of you who don't know (and are probably still using steel and flint for fire-lighting), tabbed browsing is fantastic. It allows for multiple websites to be opened in the same browser window, bypassing the horrific clutter found with opening new windows for each page. It is not unusual for me to have up to 20+ websites open at one time, which would be impossible to navigate normally. So tabbed browsing is a real blessing.
So imagine my frustration when I find a website which doesn't agree. It decides that tabbed browsing is too good for me., 'No you can't open that window in a new tab. I want you to use a new window. Tabbed browsing is far too good for you. Look at you. You can't read all those websites. No it's a new window for you, I'm afraid'. It's like the past few years of web browsing advancement have been conveniently forgotten, and some idiot is trying to sell me Netscape Navigator as the browser of the future.
This ties in with my hatred of computers telling me what to do, or what they think I want to do, one of my pet hates about Windows. "No Word, I don't want you annoying steel wire shit telling me how to write a letter. No I don't want to send an error report to Microsoft, I want an application that doesn't think it has the right to boss me around and then sulkily crash when I finally get my way".
I could probably continue this rant for much longer, and probably will at some point, but you get the picture.
Monday 3 September 2007
Fucking ridiculous
Over at the Spanish Inquisitor, John P wrote a good post about Kenneth Foster, and the complete unfairness of his death sentence. Though I have recently heard his sentence has changed to life imprisonment, the entire thing is a fiasco.
However it did remind me of a story I read before that made me think the USA must truly be mad. The story is about a girl called Nicole Dupure. She is one of 2,270 children sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in the US. Tried as adults in an adult court, they will never be set free, and will live the rest of their long lives behind bars.
Nicole's story is unbelievable. It amazes me that any country that could call itself just, would allow it. Here are the relevant paragraphs:
At school she [Dupure] had aspirations to become a medical lab technician, specialising in the treatment of heart defects. Her background was far from typical for a lifer - no criminal record, no history of alcohol or drug abuse, a high school graduate with mainly B grades. Her next step was to be college.
A chance encounter when she was 17 changed everything. She was working in the holidays to earn petrol money at a grocery store near her home in Michigan's St Clair County. There was a 19-year-old working there called William Blevins who was funny and charismatic - they started dating. "I wasn't able to see the warning signs. My mum did. She said he didn't seem like a good kid and I shouldn't be around him as he would bring me down. I didn't listen to her. I thought like any teenager that she just didn't want me to have a boyfriend."
When Blevins was thrown out of his home by his parents, Dupure, by then pregnant, left home to be with him. "I just didn't want him to be alone," she says. They went looking for a motel room to rent. On April 23 2004 they stopped off at Big Boy, a fast-food restaurant she knew well because it was near the apartment of her great-aunt's best friend, Shirley Perry. Perry, who was 89, used to babysit for Dupure when she was very young; Dupure and Blevins had been to her flat several times, offering to help her with shopping and odd jobs.
At this point the official version parts company with Dupure's. In court, the prosecution alleged that the teenagers plotted together to kill Perry for her money. They took just $30 from her flat to pay for motel fees and two milkshakes at Big Boy. Dupure actively participated in the murder, striking the old woman on the head with a cooking pot and fetching the kitchen knife Blevins used to kill her.
Dupure insists she was not in the apartment at all, but waited in the restaurant, oblivious to the events unfolding, while Blevins went off on his own. What is certain is that Blevins murdered the old woman, stabbing her several times and strangling her. Under police questioning he admitted it, saying he acted alone. But shortly before he went on trial he changed his evidence and put Dupure alongside him at the scene of the murder. In return, the prosecution agreed he should be given the lesser charge of second-degree murder and avoid lifelong incarceration. Under cross-examination, he conceded to the jury, "I never had intentions to pin it on her until I ran out of options."
Blevins got 20 to 50 years, with the hope of reducing his sentence through good behaviour. Dupure got life without parole, with no forensic evidence tying her to the crime and entirely on the strength of Blevins' testimony.
So the real murderer, who admitted to killing Perry alone, changed his evidence to pin Dupure to get a reduced sentence. Dupure, with no evidence other than the accusation by Blevins, who had an obvious incentive to accuse Dupure, gets life without parole. What the fuck is up with that!? How could anybody with an ounce of a brain not see the obvious bullshit.
There are only five countries which mete out this sentence to children: Israel, South Africa, Tanzania, Somalia and the US. The first three together have only 12 prisoners with this sentence. The US has 2,270.
If you wish to read the full article, it can be found here.
However it did remind me of a story I read before that made me think the USA must truly be mad. The story is about a girl called Nicole Dupure. She is one of 2,270 children sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in the US. Tried as adults in an adult court, they will never be set free, and will live the rest of their long lives behind bars.
Nicole's story is unbelievable. It amazes me that any country that could call itself just, would allow it. Here are the relevant paragraphs:
At school she [Dupure] had aspirations to become a medical lab technician, specialising in the treatment of heart defects. Her background was far from typical for a lifer - no criminal record, no history of alcohol or drug abuse, a high school graduate with mainly B grades. Her next step was to be college.
A chance encounter when she was 17 changed everything. She was working in the holidays to earn petrol money at a grocery store near her home in Michigan's St Clair County. There was a 19-year-old working there called William Blevins who was funny and charismatic - they started dating. "I wasn't able to see the warning signs. My mum did. She said he didn't seem like a good kid and I shouldn't be around him as he would bring me down. I didn't listen to her. I thought like any teenager that she just didn't want me to have a boyfriend."
When Blevins was thrown out of his home by his parents, Dupure, by then pregnant, left home to be with him. "I just didn't want him to be alone," she says. They went looking for a motel room to rent. On April 23 2004 they stopped off at Big Boy, a fast-food restaurant she knew well because it was near the apartment of her great-aunt's best friend, Shirley Perry. Perry, who was 89, used to babysit for Dupure when she was very young; Dupure and Blevins had been to her flat several times, offering to help her with shopping and odd jobs.
At this point the official version parts company with Dupure's. In court, the prosecution alleged that the teenagers plotted together to kill Perry for her money. They took just $30 from her flat to pay for motel fees and two milkshakes at Big Boy. Dupure actively participated in the murder, striking the old woman on the head with a cooking pot and fetching the kitchen knife Blevins used to kill her.
Dupure insists she was not in the apartment at all, but waited in the restaurant, oblivious to the events unfolding, while Blevins went off on his own. What is certain is that Blevins murdered the old woman, stabbing her several times and strangling her. Under police questioning he admitted it, saying he acted alone. But shortly before he went on trial he changed his evidence and put Dupure alongside him at the scene of the murder. In return, the prosecution agreed he should be given the lesser charge of second-degree murder and avoid lifelong incarceration. Under cross-examination, he conceded to the jury, "I never had intentions to pin it on her until I ran out of options."
Blevins got 20 to 50 years, with the hope of reducing his sentence through good behaviour. Dupure got life without parole, with no forensic evidence tying her to the crime and entirely on the strength of Blevins' testimony.
So the real murderer, who admitted to killing Perry alone, changed his evidence to pin Dupure to get a reduced sentence. Dupure, with no evidence other than the accusation by Blevins, who had an obvious incentive to accuse Dupure, gets life without parole. What the fuck is up with that!? How could anybody with an ounce of a brain not see the obvious bullshit.
There are only five countries which mete out this sentence to children: Israel, South Africa, Tanzania, Somalia and the US. The first three together have only 12 prisoners with this sentence. The US has 2,270.
If you wish to read the full article, it can be found here.
Saturday 7 July 2007
The Daily Wail stands up for God
The Daily Mail, that infamous tabloid, has decided to stand up for God. All those mean atheists have been giving him a hard time recently, and the Mail has decided they must step in to stop this deity bullying. Now I don't usually read articles in the Daily Mail, frankly because hitting myself over the head with a brick is more enjoyable, and far more enlightening, but I thought I would cross into the void and see if there was an sense. What do you think I found?
The article starts off with the depressingly common fallacy of equivocating Dawkins and Hitchens to the militants blowing themselves up. As I wrote in the comments (which may not be there as the Mail reserves the right to disregard comments that don't agree with them),
The article is unfair to call Hitchens and Dawkins militant atheists. Militant is a term that has connotations of violent attack, whereas Hitchens and Dawkins have only attacked religion with words, in a book. Also the idea that they "want to destroy the faith of believers.", is inaccurate. Once again it gives the connotation that they wish to enforce their views or others, whereas they are both against this, and indeed Dawkins says in his book he wishes to raise 'peoples consciences'.
Then that old chestnut is put out to roast. Yep you guessed it, Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Ooh isn't atheism bad. This is what I wrote in my comment:
The idea that Nazi Germany was an atheist state is ludicrous. It could be argued strongly that Hitler was a Catholic, or at least believed in some kind of god or 'providence'. Also most Germans at the time would have been Christian.
Stalin was an atheist, but the idea that the horrors of the Stalinist regime were done because of atheism is ridiculous. Stalin was a paranoid, violent control freak. He replaced the religion of the USSR with his 'Cult of personality'. Religion was just another threat.
And that was all I was able to write. The Mail only gives you 1000 characters to be censored by them, which at least saved me wasting my time writing a longer comment to them.
However I digress. They do agree with me by saying that,
It is not difficult to show the absurdities of the Old Testament myths
but they go on to spoil it by saying
But Hitchens and Dawkins fulminate as though every believer has to accept wildly improbably episodes as 'gospel' along with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, which are the heart of the matter.
But they do! It's the book of their god, is it not? How dare they pick and choose from the word of their god! And what about Judaism and Islam? I'm pretty sure the 'teachings of Jesus' are not the 'heart of the matter' to them.
We have another fallacy creep up when they compare the Bible to the Illiad and the Odyssey.
Does he refuse to read the Iliad and the Odyssey because Homer's existence is uncertain historically, as is the siege of Troy? [On Hitchens]
The thing is nobody is saying that the Illiad and the Odyssey are the words of an almighty god, who must be obeyed, unless a fiery pool is your delight.
And of course no tirade against atheism wouldn't be complete without a tirade against science would it? Well what do you expect from the paper that stirred up bullshit about the MMR vaccines?
Now most of us believe in science. We are happy to pay homage to the saints of scientific breakthrough - to Pythagoras (sic) and Archimedes, to Galileo and Newton, to Darwin and Einstein, Crick, Watson and the rest, remembering always that their work was bound to be superseded by those who came after. The final Theory of Everything seems as far away as it ever did.
Oh and atheism is nihilism, if you didn't know:
As for the other great question - what is the point, or purpose, of it all? - the current answer from science is that there isn't one. Dawkins again: 'The universe has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.'
So atheism is a belief in pointlessness. As Hitchens observes, the views from the Hubble telescope are more awe-inspiring than any medieval vision of Hell.
Damn these guys are good. However, what is more nihilistic then saying everything is pointless, unless it has a purpose? I do not need the stars to have some ulterior purpose, for me to admire the sheer beauty and vastness of them.
And again we have the accusation the atheists are aggresively attacking believers. Why is it that criticism of religion is treated as a personal affront? If you are really secure in your beliefs, why would criticism effect you? Have you no good arguments for your beliefs?
For the grand finale, we have their trump card. The one man willing to stand up and combat Dawkins and his ilk, and fight the good fight. This atheism killer is none other than.... Alister Mcgrath? Really? Is that the best they could do? Him? Oh dear.
I will point to Tobe's review of 'The Dawkins Delusion' over at A Load of Bright on why I mock McGrath so.
And finally there are the commentators. Only five last time I checked, but all but one supporters of this kind of drivel. One of them, Mike, annoyed me with his little remark against evolution, I wish I had had the space to post a comment against what he said. This is what I would have said:
To Mike: Evolution put falsely is 'survival of the fittest'. The term is no longer used in modern evolutionary science because it is a bad description. Survival of the stable is a much better description, as those who are adapted to their environmental niche, are more likely to propagate and pass on their genes. You say if we are just intelligent animals we should act like Ghengis Khan. Well I have to say I have never seen an animal act like Ghengis Khan. The variety of animal behaviour makes this statement ridiculous. If we're all just animals, why don't we act like starfish and eat through our arse? Some people are already half-way there anyway.
But I guess he is just ignorant of the facts, and I shouldn't read to much into his comment.
Why don't any readers go to the website and try to register your comments. I suspect if enough people try they may not censor them all.
But frankly I've wasted enough time talking about this rubbish, though I guess writing this was somewhat cathartic. Apologies if you don't enjoy rants.
The article starts off with the depressingly common fallacy of equivocating Dawkins and Hitchens to the militants blowing themselves up. As I wrote in the comments (which may not be there as the Mail reserves the right to disregard comments that don't agree with them),
The article is unfair to call Hitchens and Dawkins militant atheists. Militant is a term that has connotations of violent attack, whereas Hitchens and Dawkins have only attacked religion with words, in a book. Also the idea that they "want to destroy the faith of believers.", is inaccurate. Once again it gives the connotation that they wish to enforce their views or others, whereas they are both against this, and indeed Dawkins says in his book he wishes to raise 'peoples consciences'.
Then that old chestnut is put out to roast. Yep you guessed it, Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Ooh isn't atheism bad. This is what I wrote in my comment:
The idea that Nazi Germany was an atheist state is ludicrous. It could be argued strongly that Hitler was a Catholic, or at least believed in some kind of god or 'providence'. Also most Germans at the time would have been Christian.
Stalin was an atheist, but the idea that the horrors of the Stalinist regime were done because of atheism is ridiculous. Stalin was a paranoid, violent control freak. He replaced the religion of the USSR with his 'Cult of personality'. Religion was just another threat.
And that was all I was able to write. The Mail only gives you 1000 characters to be censored by them, which at least saved me wasting my time writing a longer comment to them.
However I digress. They do agree with me by saying that,
It is not difficult to show the absurdities of the Old Testament myths
but they go on to spoil it by saying
But Hitchens and Dawkins fulminate as though every believer has to accept wildly improbably episodes as 'gospel' along with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, which are the heart of the matter.
But they do! It's the book of their god, is it not? How dare they pick and choose from the word of their god! And what about Judaism and Islam? I'm pretty sure the 'teachings of Jesus' are not the 'heart of the matter' to them.
We have another fallacy creep up when they compare the Bible to the Illiad and the Odyssey.
Does he refuse to read the Iliad and the Odyssey because Homer's existence is uncertain historically, as is the siege of Troy? [On Hitchens]
The thing is nobody is saying that the Illiad and the Odyssey are the words of an almighty god, who must be obeyed, unless a fiery pool is your delight.
And of course no tirade against atheism wouldn't be complete without a tirade against science would it? Well what do you expect from the paper that stirred up bullshit about the MMR vaccines?
Now most of us believe in science. We are happy to pay homage to the saints of scientific breakthrough - to Pythagoras (sic) and Archimedes, to Galileo and Newton, to Darwin and Einstein, Crick, Watson and the rest, remembering always that their work was bound to be superseded by those who came after. The final Theory of Everything seems as far away as it ever did.
Oh and atheism is nihilism, if you didn't know:
As for the other great question - what is the point, or purpose, of it all? - the current answer from science is that there isn't one. Dawkins again: 'The universe has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.'
So atheism is a belief in pointlessness. As Hitchens observes, the views from the Hubble telescope are more awe-inspiring than any medieval vision of Hell.
Damn these guys are good. However, what is more nihilistic then saying everything is pointless, unless it has a purpose? I do not need the stars to have some ulterior purpose, for me to admire the sheer beauty and vastness of them.
And again we have the accusation the atheists are aggresively attacking believers. Why is it that criticism of religion is treated as a personal affront? If you are really secure in your beliefs, why would criticism effect you? Have you no good arguments for your beliefs?
For the grand finale, we have their trump card. The one man willing to stand up and combat Dawkins and his ilk, and fight the good fight. This atheism killer is none other than.... Alister Mcgrath? Really? Is that the best they could do? Him? Oh dear.
I will point to Tobe's review of 'The Dawkins Delusion' over at A Load of Bright on why I mock McGrath so.
And finally there are the commentators. Only five last time I checked, but all but one supporters of this kind of drivel. One of them, Mike, annoyed me with his little remark against evolution, I wish I had had the space to post a comment against what he said. This is what I would have said:
To Mike: Evolution put falsely is 'survival of the fittest'. The term is no longer used in modern evolutionary science because it is a bad description. Survival of the stable is a much better description, as those who are adapted to their environmental niche, are more likely to propagate and pass on their genes. You say if we are just intelligent animals we should act like Ghengis Khan. Well I have to say I have never seen an animal act like Ghengis Khan. The variety of animal behaviour makes this statement ridiculous. If we're all just animals, why don't we act like starfish and eat through our arse? Some people are already half-way there anyway.
But I guess he is just ignorant of the facts, and I shouldn't read to much into his comment.
Why don't any readers go to the website and try to register your comments. I suspect if enough people try they may not censor them all.
But frankly I've wasted enough time talking about this rubbish, though I guess writing this was somewhat cathartic. Apologies if you don't enjoy rants.
Saturday 30 June 2007
Planet Atheism
I really meant to do this earlier, but I guess better now than never.
Planet Atheism, for those who don't know is a blog aggregator for, you guessed it, atheist and non-religion related blogs. It was set up by Pedro Timóteo, who has a blog over at Way of the mind. If you have a blog that you feel may fit the criteria, check it out and see if you can join.
Anyway, thanks to Pedro for setting up Planet Atheism, and letting me join it, it was greatly appreciated.
Planet Atheism, for those who don't know is a blog aggregator for, you guessed it, atheist and non-religion related blogs. It was set up by Pedro Timóteo, who has a blog over at Way of the mind. If you have a blog that you feel may fit the criteria, check it out and see if you can join.
Anyway, thanks to Pedro for setting up Planet Atheism, and letting me join it, it was greatly appreciated.
Thursday 28 June 2007
Saturday 16 June 2007
Ain't this rich
Ain't this rich. Over at the Rapture Ready forums, a bizarre twilight world, we learn that Mormonism is just an American version of Islam, as shown by this list:
1. "Holy" Cities - Muslims venerate Medina where Mohammed was born, and Mormons venerate Palymyra where Joseph Smith grew up. Also, Salt Lake City is to the Mormons what Mecca is to Muslims - the "promised" land.
2. Founded by a "prophet" - mohammed for islam, Joseph Smith for Mormonism. Both of these men were born poor and were uneducated when they invented their religions.
3. Additional "Scripture" that overrides God's Word - Koran for muslims, Book of Mormon, D&C, and other "revelation" handed down through "prophets".
4. Both require the wearing of all-white, special religious clothing for certain religious rituals.
5. Both have believed in the concept of "religious war" and have raised religious armies to fight these wars.
6. Strange Dietary laws for both religions, including forbidding of alcohol for either religion (and this rule is routinely broken by both religion's practitioners, as well).
7. Both of them attempt to establish Theocracy wherever they are by taking over the government, which they do by flooding a town with residents of their religion - this goes for both Muslims and Mormons. Examples - Muslims in Lebanon do this, and Mormons in California and Arizona and Idaho do this. Also, both religions have already established huge theocracies (i.e. Saudi Arabia for muslims, Utah for Mormons).
8. Both are based on paganism.
9. Both consider Jesus as "important", but they both also lower Jesus to be lower than the One True God.
10. Polygamy is accepted in both.
11. The founding prophets of both not only had many wives, but they both married young girls as well.
12. Both religions believe that there will be sex in the afterlife and it will be a reward
13. Both religions have buildings and rituals which they exclude "outsiders" from."
What I found ironic is how easily a lot of these could be applied to many other Christian or religious denomination:
1. Holy Cities: Jerusalem.
2. Prophets: Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, etc. Poor and uneducated? You decide.
3. New Testament is often considered to override the Old Testament. How else do we avoid the stoning of Sabbath breakers? (Exodus 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.
4. Special clothing: I seem to remember special clothes for christenings, weddings and perhaps we could even consider the crucifix a special piece of religious apparel.
5. Holy Wars: Oh come on! Crusades.
6. Strange dietary laws: Okay, forbidding alcohol and allowing alcohol are raised somewhere in the bible, but I can't remember where. Goat in its mothers milk anyone? (Deuteronomy 14:21) "You must not boil a kid (baby goat) in its mother's milk". Seashells? (Leviticus 11:12) "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
7. Theocrazy: Washington DC for evangelicals. How else would Bush have got in, unless he had the votes of the Religious Right? Plus, since then there have been all kinds of crazy faith based initiatives, for example abstenience only sex-ed.
8. Pagan roots: Horus, Dionyses, Mithraz. The pagan roots of Christianity is stamped all over it.
9. No Gods but me: Now I'm not sure where Evangelicals stand on the Trinity, but the Catholics sure have a strange idea of a ONE true god.
10. Polygamy was accepted by the early prophets, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon of the Old Testament as well.
11. Virgins: Oh come on again! (Numbers 31:18) 'But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves' And this is from Moses himself.
12. Sexy Heaven: Now I'm unsure about what Evangelicals do think about heaven, but I doubt it's any less strange or perverse.
13. Kicked out of church: Again I don't know the particulars of this, but I'm sure that there are some people they would turn away, for example gays, atheists, etc.
Irony, eh?
If there are any mistakes, I'd appreciate corrections.
N.B. Theocrazy is an intentional mistake, I thought it was appropriate.
1. "Holy" Cities - Muslims venerate Medina where Mohammed was born, and Mormons venerate Palymyra where Joseph Smith grew up. Also, Salt Lake City is to the Mormons what Mecca is to Muslims - the "promised" land.
2. Founded by a "prophet" - mohammed for islam, Joseph Smith for Mormonism. Both of these men were born poor and were uneducated when they invented their religions.
3. Additional "Scripture" that overrides God's Word - Koran for muslims, Book of Mormon, D&C, and other "revelation" handed down through "prophets".
4. Both require the wearing of all-white, special religious clothing for certain religious rituals.
5. Both have believed in the concept of "religious war" and have raised religious armies to fight these wars.
6. Strange Dietary laws for both religions, including forbidding of alcohol for either religion (and this rule is routinely broken by both religion's practitioners, as well).
7. Both of them attempt to establish Theocracy wherever they are by taking over the government, which they do by flooding a town with residents of their religion - this goes for both Muslims and Mormons. Examples - Muslims in Lebanon do this, and Mormons in California and Arizona and Idaho do this. Also, both religions have already established huge theocracies (i.e. Saudi Arabia for muslims, Utah for Mormons).
8. Both are based on paganism.
9. Both consider Jesus as "important", but they both also lower Jesus to be lower than the One True God.
10. Polygamy is accepted in both.
11. The founding prophets of both not only had many wives, but they both married young girls as well.
12. Both religions believe that there will be sex in the afterlife and it will be a reward
13. Both religions have buildings and rituals which they exclude "outsiders" from."
What I found ironic is how easily a lot of these could be applied to many other Christian or religious denomination:
1. Holy Cities: Jerusalem.
2. Prophets: Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, etc. Poor and uneducated? You decide.
3. New Testament is often considered to override the Old Testament. How else do we avoid the stoning of Sabbath breakers? (Exodus 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.
4. Special clothing: I seem to remember special clothes for christenings, weddings and perhaps we could even consider the crucifix a special piece of religious apparel.
5. Holy Wars: Oh come on! Crusades.
6. Strange dietary laws: Okay, forbidding alcohol and allowing alcohol are raised somewhere in the bible, but I can't remember where. Goat in its mothers milk anyone? (Deuteronomy 14:21) "You must not boil a kid (baby goat) in its mother's milk". Seashells? (Leviticus 11:12) "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
7. Theocrazy: Washington DC for evangelicals. How else would Bush have got in, unless he had the votes of the Religious Right? Plus, since then there have been all kinds of crazy faith based initiatives, for example abstenience only sex-ed.
8. Pagan roots: Horus, Dionyses, Mithraz. The pagan roots of Christianity is stamped all over it.
9. No Gods but me: Now I'm not sure where Evangelicals stand on the Trinity, but the Catholics sure have a strange idea of a ONE true god.
10. Polygamy was accepted by the early prophets, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon of the Old Testament as well.
11. Virgins: Oh come on again! (Numbers 31:18) 'But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves' And this is from Moses himself.
12. Sexy Heaven: Now I'm unsure about what Evangelicals do think about heaven, but I doubt it's any less strange or perverse.
13. Kicked out of church: Again I don't know the particulars of this, but I'm sure that there are some people they would turn away, for example gays, atheists, etc.
Irony, eh?
If there are any mistakes, I'd appreciate corrections.
N.B. Theocrazy is an intentional mistake, I thought it was appropriate.
Monday 11 June 2007
Christopher Hitchens on R4
If you live in Britain, then at 9:00am next monday (the 18th), you can listen to Hitchens talk about his latest book, 'god is not Great: How religion poisons everything', on Radio 4's 'Start the week'. If you're not in Britain, you should be able to find it on the BBC website for at least a week after broadcast.
Thursday 7 June 2007
Back again...Farmer Ants
Well, yes. I know it has been a while since I last wrote anything. But it has been a hectic past couple of weeks, so you must forgive me. But anyway, onto the post.
Rereading Carl Zimmer's 'Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea', which I have in the glorious illustrated edition, I came across a short section on Leaf-cutter ants. These ants it seems are the true original farmers, beating us by around 50-65 million years. They use an interesting system of ant-fungus mutualism, whereby the ants actively cultivate the fungus, much like the way we cultivate corn, wheat or any other crop plant. The fungus obviously gets the benefit of protection deep within the ant's nest, and they also get their nutrients brought to them. They have become so dependant on the ants, that they can no longer survive without them.
But what is the benefit to the ants, I hear you cry? Well, each day a host of big ants stream out of their nest across the rain-forest floor. Their goal; to collect leaves and other organic matter. Once collected, the big ants pass the plant matter to a smaller ants, who tear up the leaves. These are past to even smaller ants who chew the leaves further. This continues until the leaves become a fine paste which is then spread onto the fungus. The fungus breaks down the plant matter in a way the ants cannot. The ants however can harvest the most nutritious parts of the fungus.
But it doesn't stop there; they even have their own fungicides. You see, an entire beneficial fungus plantation can be wiped out by an infestation of fungi which attack their fungus. This is where the fungicide comes in. The ants have a thin powdery layer of a bacteria called Streptomyces. This bacteria produces compounds that kill off invading fungi. But the fungi can evolve resistance to the fungicide, in much the same way pests evolve resistance to our pesticides. But handily as the bacteria is also living, and thus also subject to evolution, it can mutate, keeping its ability to kill the unwanted fungi. We could do well to learn from this, as Zimmer puts it, "In other words, ants are using the laws of coevolution to their advantage, while we end up turning them against us".
Sources:
1) Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, p 204-207, Carl Zimmer, ISBN 0 434 00909 I
2) Wikipedia, Ant-fungus mutualism
3) Wikipedia, Leaf-Cutter ants
Rereading Carl Zimmer's 'Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea', which I have in the glorious illustrated edition, I came across a short section on Leaf-cutter ants. These ants it seems are the true original farmers, beating us by around 50-65 million years. They use an interesting system of ant-fungus mutualism, whereby the ants actively cultivate the fungus, much like the way we cultivate corn, wheat or any other crop plant. The fungus obviously gets the benefit of protection deep within the ant's nest, and they also get their nutrients brought to them. They have become so dependant on the ants, that they can no longer survive without them.
But what is the benefit to the ants, I hear you cry? Well, each day a host of big ants stream out of their nest across the rain-forest floor. Their goal; to collect leaves and other organic matter. Once collected, the big ants pass the plant matter to a smaller ants, who tear up the leaves. These are past to even smaller ants who chew the leaves further. This continues until the leaves become a fine paste which is then spread onto the fungus. The fungus breaks down the plant matter in a way the ants cannot. The ants however can harvest the most nutritious parts of the fungus.
But it doesn't stop there; they even have their own fungicides. You see, an entire beneficial fungus plantation can be wiped out by an infestation of fungi which attack their fungus. This is where the fungicide comes in. The ants have a thin powdery layer of a bacteria called Streptomyces. This bacteria produces compounds that kill off invading fungi. But the fungi can evolve resistance to the fungicide, in much the same way pests evolve resistance to our pesticides. But handily as the bacteria is also living, and thus also subject to evolution, it can mutate, keeping its ability to kill the unwanted fungi. We could do well to learn from this, as Zimmer puts it, "In other words, ants are using the laws of coevolution to their advantage, while we end up turning them against us".
Sources:
1) Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, p 204-207, Carl Zimmer, ISBN 0 434 00909 I
2) Wikipedia, Ant-fungus mutualism
3) Wikipedia, Leaf-Cutter ants
Saturday 26 May 2007
Comments for all
I have now enabled comments for all people, regardless of whether they have a blogger account. A few rules though. Comments should be relevant to the post, and all constructive criticism is welcome. Just sheer hate-mail will be removed and posted elsewhere for mine (and others) amusement. Your comment may be removed at my discretion (though I will try to avoid this). Sorry to sound Orwellian about this, but I want a bit of decorum on this blog. Many thanks.
Tuesday 22 May 2007
The wrecking of British Science
Yes I know this is the third Guardian link in as many posts but this is a truly interesting, if some what disturbing article. Written by Harry Kroto, winner of a Nobel prize for chemistry, in today's Education supplement he paints a sad indictment of the level of science teaching in Britain today. I won't say much more than that as you should really read the article in it's entirety. Hopefully it will be of interest.
Link:
* Original Article
Link:
* Original Article
Thursday 17 May 2007
Darwin's Letters
In today's Guardian there was a nice article about Darwin's letters. A new database of over 5,000 of Darwin's correspondence has recently gone live, and these letters reveal a uniquely personal look at one of the giants of science. Among the many letters include support for a friend who's son had Scarlet-Fever,
"I grieve to hear about the Scarlet-Fever: my poor dear old friend you are most unfortunate. The tide must turn soon... Much love much trial, but what an utter desert is life without love".
On a lighter note he shows incredible humility at his own mistakes. After asking naturalist John Lubbock to make observations about clovers and bees to test his theory about the evolution of bees, he wrote an abashed letter apologising for the data which turned out to be useless,
"I do so hope you have not wasted any time for my stupid blunder - I hate myself, I hate clover and I hate bees".
Also, to put to rest once and for all the talk of Darwin's support of racism and slavery we have his views on the Tories (Conservative party of Britain),
"I would not be a Tory, if it was merely an account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian Nations, Slavery".
The site can be found at here, and it looks like an interesting diversion for those who have read the 'Origin of Species', or any of Darwin's books, or even those just interested in a Victorians' take on his own time.
Links:
* Original article
"I grieve to hear about the Scarlet-Fever: my poor dear old friend you are most unfortunate. The tide must turn soon... Much love much trial, but what an utter desert is life without love".
On a lighter note he shows incredible humility at his own mistakes. After asking naturalist John Lubbock to make observations about clovers and bees to test his theory about the evolution of bees, he wrote an abashed letter apologising for the data which turned out to be useless,
"I do so hope you have not wasted any time for my stupid blunder - I hate myself, I hate clover and I hate bees".
Also, to put to rest once and for all the talk of Darwin's support of racism and slavery we have his views on the Tories (Conservative party of Britain),
"I would not be a Tory, if it was merely an account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian Nations, Slavery".
The site can be found at here, and it looks like an interesting diversion for those who have read the 'Origin of Species', or any of Darwin's books, or even those just interested in a Victorians' take on his own time.
Links:
* Original article
Wednesday 16 May 2007
Falwell dead...who?
Well of course I had heard of Jerry Falwell before the news of his death. Even a brief visit to the countless sites on evolution and atheism will undoubtedly mention Falwell. The notorious creationist and evangelical was well known for his attacks against minority groups, especially the gay and lesbian community.
But frankly I do not care for him. I will not feign sorrow for his passing. But neither will I gloat at it. He is dead, and the dead cannot answer the challenges of the living. There are many criticisms that can, should and have been made against him. But I think the best thing that can be done is to forget him. He is (hopefully) a sad, bigoted blip in a greater push towards a better and more reasonable world.
There are enough like him, who are still alive, that we should worry about, and not waste our energies on him. Consign Falwell to the rubbish heap of other such nonsense spewers and no-one in twenty years will remember him.
He wasted his life hating those who were different. Hopefully he and his views will be soon be forgotten, so we can all say truthfully "Falwell...who?".
But frankly I do not care for him. I will not feign sorrow for his passing. But neither will I gloat at it. He is dead, and the dead cannot answer the challenges of the living. There are many criticisms that can, should and have been made against him. But I think the best thing that can be done is to forget him. He is (hopefully) a sad, bigoted blip in a greater push towards a better and more reasonable world.
There are enough like him, who are still alive, that we should worry about, and not waste our energies on him. Consign Falwell to the rubbish heap of other such nonsense spewers and no-one in twenty years will remember him.
He wasted his life hating those who were different. Hopefully he and his views will be soon be forgotten, so we can all say truthfully "Falwell...who?".
Tuesday 15 May 2007
Cristina Odone on Richard Dawkins
In last Sunday's Observer there was a short article in the Comment section by Cristina Odone. Called "Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins", it discusses the conversation she had with Dawkins whilst in the country. He started off by proposing a hypothetical dilemma,
"You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?".
She replied that she would shoot the elephant, at which:
"He was outraged by my answer: man, beast, they were all the same to him and the priority must be to protect the endangered species. He berated me for my foolish belief in the specialness of humanity for its soul".
To be honest I disagree with Dawkins here merely for the fact if the elephant is the last of its species then it is extinct anyway, but I feel he was merely trying to make a point about the human centric view many people take.
However later on in the article things take a turn. She admonishes Dawkins, as well as Christopher Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for their "secularist extremism". First, what the hell is "secularist extremism", no special treatment; to the extreme? Obviously she is merely trying to use word with obvious religious overtones, a technique which seems endemic among those who criticise the critical. She continues to do this in the article for example: "the tenets of Dawkins dogma", "Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism" and "The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers".
However I find this particular part extremely telling so I will quote it in full. I apologise for the repeats.
"Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism. Christopher Hitchens is similarly critical of religion; so is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch MP who received death threats for her criticism of Islam. But Hitchens and Ali now operate primarily in America, a nation where 95 per cent of citizens believe in God and church attendance is growing, not dwindling. They can jab God and his followers, but theirs is only a faint note of discord, overwhelmed by the church choir." (My emphasis)
Evidently it seems anybody who criticises religion is a secularist extremist! And yet there is no such condemnation of the death threats Ayaan Hirsi Ali received. Does this not seem backwards? Why is criticism of religion seen as such an extreme action, comparable with acts of mass murder (*2)? This is even more irritating as after having recently watched the second episode of 'A rough history of disbelief', which I thoroughly recommend, I learnt that three or four hundreds years ago, I would have been executed for 'Atheism and disbelief'. Is this not insane, that these old portents of horrific intolerance are forgotten so quick, in the rush to brand any person who has a differing opinion on religion as a bigot?
Odone then goes on about how this 'faith-bashing' is extremely damaging in Britain as belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot. Because the religious are so downtrodden that they have to scuttle around in fear of persecution. What rubbish. A case could be made for an increase discrimination against Muslims in Britain, but that is a complex issue I will no doubt address in a later post. No what this really is about is religious people like Odone not getting the respect they crave. Any differing view is just bigotry disguised in logical arguments.
Finally she states that if it wasn't for religious "persecutors" like Dawkins, the religious:
"would see no need for hard-line posturing. They would once again feel like ordinary citizens rather than a hunted species that must bare its fangs to survive."
I have no idea in what way believers are a hunted species. This is hardly Nazi Germany, where believers are made to wear their religious icons sewn into their clothes (though many choose to wear identifiers by choice). Maybe she is confusing the lessening of belief in this country to an actual attempt at extermination of belief. And the idea that without Dawkins suddenly every believer would become a religious moderate is just laughable. Where was the Afghani Dawkins to force the Taliban to "bare its fangs to survive"?
Really, the unwilling nature of religion to actually deal with criticism is beyond belief. If believers want to float their exotic ideas about how life should be run and the wills and powers of god(s), they should be prepared with some well thought out rational arguments to respond. As well as some evidence. Just labelling criticism as intolerance is asking for special treatment, which is one thing this "secularist extremist" is wholeheartedly against, for any idea.
Links:
* 1 - Original Article
* 2 - See third paragraph
"You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?".
She replied that she would shoot the elephant, at which:
"He was outraged by my answer: man, beast, they were all the same to him and the priority must be to protect the endangered species. He berated me for my foolish belief in the specialness of humanity for its soul".
To be honest I disagree with Dawkins here merely for the fact if the elephant is the last of its species then it is extinct anyway, but I feel he was merely trying to make a point about the human centric view many people take.
However later on in the article things take a turn. She admonishes Dawkins, as well as Christopher Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for their "secularist extremism". First, what the hell is "secularist extremism", no special treatment; to the extreme? Obviously she is merely trying to use word with obvious religious overtones, a technique which seems endemic among those who criticise the critical. She continues to do this in the article for example: "the tenets of Dawkins dogma", "Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism" and "The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers".
However I find this particular part extremely telling so I will quote it in full. I apologise for the repeats.
"Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism. Christopher Hitchens is similarly critical of religion; so is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch MP who received death threats for her criticism of Islam. But Hitchens and Ali now operate primarily in America, a nation where 95 per cent of citizens believe in God and church attendance is growing, not dwindling. They can jab God and his followers, but theirs is only a faint note of discord, overwhelmed by the church choir." (My emphasis)
Evidently it seems anybody who criticises religion is a secularist extremist! And yet there is no such condemnation of the death threats Ayaan Hirsi Ali received. Does this not seem backwards? Why is criticism of religion seen as such an extreme action, comparable with acts of mass murder (*2)? This is even more irritating as after having recently watched the second episode of 'A rough history of disbelief', which I thoroughly recommend, I learnt that three or four hundreds years ago, I would have been executed for 'Atheism and disbelief'. Is this not insane, that these old portents of horrific intolerance are forgotten so quick, in the rush to brand any person who has a differing opinion on religion as a bigot?
Odone then goes on about how this 'faith-bashing' is extremely damaging in Britain as belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot. Because the religious are so downtrodden that they have to scuttle around in fear of persecution. What rubbish. A case could be made for an increase discrimination against Muslims in Britain, but that is a complex issue I will no doubt address in a later post. No what this really is about is religious people like Odone not getting the respect they crave. Any differing view is just bigotry disguised in logical arguments.
Finally she states that if it wasn't for religious "persecutors" like Dawkins, the religious:
"would see no need for hard-line posturing. They would once again feel like ordinary citizens rather than a hunted species that must bare its fangs to survive."
I have no idea in what way believers are a hunted species. This is hardly Nazi Germany, where believers are made to wear their religious icons sewn into their clothes (though many choose to wear identifiers by choice). Maybe she is confusing the lessening of belief in this country to an actual attempt at extermination of belief. And the idea that without Dawkins suddenly every believer would become a religious moderate is just laughable. Where was the Afghani Dawkins to force the Taliban to "bare its fangs to survive"?
Really, the unwilling nature of religion to actually deal with criticism is beyond belief. If believers want to float their exotic ideas about how life should be run and the wills and powers of god(s), they should be prepared with some well thought out rational arguments to respond. As well as some evidence. Just labelling criticism as intolerance is asking for special treatment, which is one thing this "secularist extremist" is wholeheartedly against, for any idea.
Links:
* 1 - Original Article
* 2 - See third paragraph
Wednesday 9 May 2007
In the beginning...
Well if this is truly to be a blog about religion, and lack thereof especially, it seems prudent to explain how I fell from religion.
Within a few months of my birth I was christened into the Church of England. I still have the bible given to commemorate it. Of course I had no choice in the matter, and I still somewhat feel that my acceptance of such affairs was taken as a given. I think the main reason though, may have been to assure my grandmother I wasn't headed for Hell or Purgatory, if I happened to die too young. Being Catholic I'm sure that was a fear. Growing up until about the age of four I can't remember any overt religious presence, but then I was very young and may just have taken it as make believe.
Anyway fast forward to Primary school and I enter into a Church of England school. It was the local school, so I don't believe this was an attempt at early indoctrination, but it certainly worked that way. There were bible stories in the Year 2 reading section, all Samson and David and Goliath, but I don't think I ever read them. There were hymns sung at assemblies and visits to the local church on special occasions. But all in all I would say there was little proselytising.
However by Year 4, we began R.E. Religious Education. I thought at first this was great fun, and it was in many ways. We learnt all about Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. Its only now when I look back that I realise there was questioning of God. No mention of doubt. It was all certain.
Thus I went through the first years of my life blissfully unaware of the possibility of 'God's' non-existence. Yet all it took was the nonchalant question of whether I still believed in 'God', by my (slightly older) next door neighbour. This opened a flood gate. Suddenly there was a world without 'God', that before I had no idea could exist. What's more, I could think of to good reason to why I believed.
However this was not enough to end my faith. It took a personal tragedy to do that. Not too long after that fateful conversation, my Godmother died. It was really hard for me to understand. How could it have happened? She left behind two of her own children, and I felt such sadness for them, and just the sheer thought of losing a loved one. I shouted and cried and prayed to 'God' to bring her back. If he was there 'He' had the power, 'He' could do it. But 'He' did not. From then on I saw no good in this 'just' god. If he could let such suffering happen, then he was inhuman and I had no time for him.
Yet I still had a belief in him. But instead of the great purveyor of love, justice and peace which many Christians see in God, I saw only a crippled old man; too weak or evil to help mankind. This belief eventually faded and agnosticism took over. I neither knew nor cared, but I still had a strong dislike for Christianity, due to past experiences. But I was still searching for answers that would fit with my rational understanding of the world, and thought I had found them in Taoism. However that proved short lived, due to the endless backwards and forwards of Taoist belief.
I later stumbled upon my own form of Pantheism, though I didn't know it as that. My belief was of a god that was the universe, detached and uncaring about humanity, not sentient at all. This belief survived in one form or another up until my reading of 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. This book opened my eyes to what I had really believed in all along. My early attempts at trying to find some kind of answer in spirituality, was due to the importance and sanctity our culture gives to such ideas. He's book changed my views about how we as a society view and treat religion, and I urge you to read it. It may not convince you outright, but it may just open you to the possibility of a world without gods or superstition of any kind. And that is a view I would thoroughly recommend.
Within a few months of my birth I was christened into the Church of England. I still have the bible given to commemorate it. Of course I had no choice in the matter, and I still somewhat feel that my acceptance of such affairs was taken as a given. I think the main reason though, may have been to assure my grandmother I wasn't headed for Hell or Purgatory, if I happened to die too young. Being Catholic I'm sure that was a fear. Growing up until about the age of four I can't remember any overt religious presence, but then I was very young and may just have taken it as make believe.
Anyway fast forward to Primary school and I enter into a Church of England school. It was the local school, so I don't believe this was an attempt at early indoctrination, but it certainly worked that way. There were bible stories in the Year 2 reading section, all Samson and David and Goliath, but I don't think I ever read them. There were hymns sung at assemblies and visits to the local church on special occasions. But all in all I would say there was little proselytising.
However by Year 4, we began R.E. Religious Education. I thought at first this was great fun, and it was in many ways. We learnt all about Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. Its only now when I look back that I realise there was questioning of God. No mention of doubt. It was all certain.
Thus I went through the first years of my life blissfully unaware of the possibility of 'God's' non-existence. Yet all it took was the nonchalant question of whether I still believed in 'God', by my (slightly older) next door neighbour. This opened a flood gate. Suddenly there was a world without 'God', that before I had no idea could exist. What's more, I could think of to good reason to why I believed.
However this was not enough to end my faith. It took a personal tragedy to do that. Not too long after that fateful conversation, my Godmother died. It was really hard for me to understand. How could it have happened? She left behind two of her own children, and I felt such sadness for them, and just the sheer thought of losing a loved one. I shouted and cried and prayed to 'God' to bring her back. If he was there 'He' had the power, 'He' could do it. But 'He' did not. From then on I saw no good in this 'just' god. If he could let such suffering happen, then he was inhuman and I had no time for him.
Yet I still had a belief in him. But instead of the great purveyor of love, justice and peace which many Christians see in God, I saw only a crippled old man; too weak or evil to help mankind. This belief eventually faded and agnosticism took over. I neither knew nor cared, but I still had a strong dislike for Christianity, due to past experiences. But I was still searching for answers that would fit with my rational understanding of the world, and thought I had found them in Taoism. However that proved short lived, due to the endless backwards and forwards of Taoist belief.
I later stumbled upon my own form of Pantheism, though I didn't know it as that. My belief was of a god that was the universe, detached and uncaring about humanity, not sentient at all. This belief survived in one form or another up until my reading of 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. This book opened my eyes to what I had really believed in all along. My early attempts at trying to find some kind of answer in spirituality, was due to the importance and sanctity our culture gives to such ideas. He's book changed my views about how we as a society view and treat religion, and I urge you to read it. It may not convince you outright, but it may just open you to the possibility of a world without gods or superstition of any kind. And that is a view I would thoroughly recommend.
Sunday 6 May 2007
Coming soon... A change of direction
As you can see its been over two months since I last posted, well anything, here on The Bad News Bible. Originally this blog was started as my comedic take on world affairs. Sadly it wasn't very funny. And I lost interest. But now I'm back (hopefully), with a new ax (or several) to grind. It is now religion. I have certain views about religion, which having moaned about ad nauseum to my family and friends, I have decided to spare their collective minds, and moan out loud to the internet. Well its not like anyone will read it anyway. Plus the title of my blog is almost prophetic.
So anyway, as soon as I find time in my busy schedule I will begin my full on rants. Fun. Hopefully there will still be my 'comedic' takes on all things current, but that remains to be seen.
So anyway, as soon as I find time in my busy schedule I will begin my full on rants. Fun. Hopefully there will still be my 'comedic' takes on all things current, but that remains to be seen.
Thursday 1 February 2007
Vista is eating itself
There are somethings which just make me laugh. Family Guy, The Thick of It, stupid people getting confused by lifts. But top of the list is seeing Microsoft tripping up. Especially if there's blood. Case in point, Microsoft's new operating system, Vista. First of all it was to have five, yes count them, five new features. This gradually decreased until it became the three 'Columns of Vista'. And then I believe they had to also get rid of those. Despite the slogan 'The wow starts now' I've yet to see anything that makes me think anything other than "Wow that's really stupid". Take for example the news that with MP3 files, crackers would be able to make Vista permanently delete files, using Vista's speech regonition. That's just dumb beyond belief. Mind you what do you expect from Microsoft? Genius?
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6320865.stm
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6320865.stm
Tuesday 30 January 2007
Boxing in school
What a brilliant idea. The newest initiative to deal with fat kids, is to make them fight to the death in a boxing ring. Only one will make it out alive. Bets will be placed on who's heart will explode into a fountain of cholesterol and chip fat first. Sadly of course they wont take it that far. But getting the already brain debted majority of our current education system to beat the hell into each others' brains, is definitely a good idea. I mean, how can it go wrong?
Lord Levy Arrested
Breaking news. Lord Levy, friend of Tony Blair and Labour fundraiser has been arrested again. No charge has been made, but surely it can't be long before the net tightens. This on top of the arrest of Ruth Turner a top aide to Tony Blair, really shows just how corrupt this government is. Of course you could say that there's nothing wrong with the Government accepting money for peerages, after all its gone on for years. The Tories, who made such a fuss of the cash for honours scandal, had actually made more money out of it than Labour. Mind you, the Tories are hardly reliable now a days. And they still haven't got any policies except, of course, opposing everything the Government does.
Shilpa wins
So Shilpa Shetty has won Big Brother. Big surprise. The country could not take 'alleged racism' so seriously without doing so. Ironic though that last time Jade was voted the winner, and has since fallen out of favour with the public; can the same be expected of Shilpa? Will she incense the nation by, perhaps, barbecuing a Battersea dog, and eating it? Somehow, I think she might.
I want to keep this particular post short, as the vacuous waste of tabloid drivel that seems to constantly take up air time on Channel 4, deserves to have its oxygen forcibly ripped out of its lungs. However, looking at the tabloids this morning, it was interesting to see that nearly all had pictures of Shilpa on their front pages. All that is except the Daily Express. Again no surprise there. Nice to know that the ever "respectable" Daily Express is taking a completely unbiased view.
I want to keep this particular post short, as the vacuous waste of tabloid drivel that seems to constantly take up air time on Channel 4, deserves to have its oxygen forcibly ripped out of its lungs. However, looking at the tabloids this morning, it was interesting to see that nearly all had pictures of Shilpa on their front pages. All that is except the Daily Express. Again no surprise there. Nice to know that the ever "respectable" Daily Express is taking a completely unbiased view.
Monday 29 January 2007
Duck rises from the dead
A duck in florida has risen from the dead after being shot, locked in a refrigerator and dying twice on the operating table. Perky the duck, was found alive in a hunter's fridge two days after being shot. I think a better name for this duck would be Jesus, Lord of the Ducks. I mean, Jesus was only resurrected once, and this duck has done it twice.
However this could be a part of a bigger problem. What if all animals start coming back from the dead? One day your biting into you burger, and the next its biting into you. As I see it we only have a few months left. Start stocking up on all the vegetables you can, and hide yourself away from the meat. It's now survival of the meatiest.
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6309159.stm
However this could be a part of a bigger problem. What if all animals start coming back from the dead? One day your biting into you burger, and the next its biting into you. As I see it we only have a few months left. Start stocking up on all the vegetables you can, and hide yourself away from the meat. It's now survival of the meatiest.
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6309159.stm
The obesity Tsar
A parliamentary watchdog has called for an 'obesity Tsar' to tackle the explosion of fat children. Yes, every year over a hundred fat children explode from overeating, and the Government has finally decided to something about it. However is a Tsar really what we need? Do we want to see after a couple of years a bloody uprising, fat children being rolled into the Tsar's palace and his family being killed, only to be replaced by a new Socialist Dictator, who says he will redistribute food to those who want it, whilst secretly betraying his Communist ideals, and keeping all the food to himself? I think not.
The solution however is obvious.
We attach fat children to the front of our cars and make them run. Not only do we turn our children into lean, mean, Olympic winning machines, but we also beat climate change by getting rid of fossil fuels. I can't imagine why this hasn't already been done.
The solution however is obvious.
We attach fat children to the front of our cars and make them run. Not only do we turn our children into lean, mean, Olympic winning machines, but we also beat climate change by getting rid of fossil fuels. I can't imagine why this hasn't already been done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)