I have read the fictional book known as "The bible" and that Jesus character seems like a fairly nice guy. He seems friendly, responsible and kind.

At no point did i think that the character of Jesus would celebrate the torture and death of someone because of something that he had done. many times i have heard people say "Jesus died for our sins". A man died for their sins. And they celebrate it. Their entire religion celebrates the torture and death of this innocent man.

Where is the logic? How can a religion that claims to be based on his teachings celebrate something which Jesus himself would find utterly repugnant?

Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT, arguing that the Saudi city is the true centre of the Earth.

Mecca is the direction all Muslims face when they perform their daily prayers.

The call was issued at a conference held in the Gulf state of Qatar under the title: Mecca, the Centre of the Earth, Theory and Practice.

One geologist argued that unlike other longitudes, Mecca's was in perfect alignment to magnetic north. He said the English had imposed GMT on the rest of the world by force when Britain was a big colonial power, and it was about time that changed.

Is there ANY real science involved at any point here?

As the race for London mayor heats up ken Livingston may find himself fighting an uphill battle after one campaigner for the group muslims 4 ken has been exposed as a Hamas supporting potential suicide bomber.

Dr Tamimi, director of the London-based Institute of Islamic Political Thought and campaigner for ken Livingston, Has previously praised suicide bombers and even said he would volunteer personally for a suicide mission in the Middle East. In a BBC interview in 2004 he said: "If I can go to Palestine and sacrifice myself I would do it. Why not? Sacrificing myself for Palestine is a noble cause. It is the straight way to pleasing my God and I would do it if I had the opportunity."

In 2006 he was the main speaker at a London conference which had the backing of Mr Livingstone and was held the day before the anniversary of the July 7 terror attacks. It was Dr Tamimi who invited the radical Islamic preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi to speak at a conference in London in 2004. Al-Qaradawi, who has defended suicide bombers and the persecution of homosexuals, was welcomed to City Hall and embraced by Mr Livingstone.

There is a common misconception among the theists of this world that atheists must lack morality. This misconception is based on their false assumption that morality comes from their religion, Though this is obviously nonsense, unless we are to assume that 2000 years ago it was ok to steal, kill and rape. The Romans had civilisation and laws long before christianity and islam reared their ugly heads on this unfortunate planet.

A passing glance at the bible it's self shows us that morality can not be based in religious scripture, Unless you think selling your daughter into slavery is ok and owning slaves is ok. Two things which are the opposite of moral.

So where do atheists get their morality from? The answer is simple. We get it from the same place the religious do. Morality is just another way of describing behaviour that is conducive with a productive and cohesive society. Humans are social animals and we have been for some time. And like other social animals it is seen as unproductive to cause unnecessary unrest. When asked "if you don't believe in god what is stopping you from killing someone?" i always answer "why would i want to kill someone?". We don't do things based on what is stopping us. We do things based on it being either productive or enjoyable. Just like honey bees can congregate in a hive numbering into the millions. So why don't they kill each other? because then there would be no honey. And if the honey bee had the neuron capacity to philosophise or ponder they would no doubt question why they have this need, This hardwired behavioral trait, That makes them unlikely to kill randomly for no reason.

Morality is also an ever-shifting zeitgeist. What is seen as immoral today wasn't immoral 1000 years ago, And in the future what we are doing now may be considered immoral, Things like burning fossil fuel for example. If morality is divinely given it wouldn't change based on societies perception of what is acceptable. If god gave us morality then what is wrong now would always have been wrong and what will be wrong in the future will be wrong now. We only have to go back to 1928 in England, To a time when women were not granted the vote, To see how far the moral zeitgeist can shift in such a short amount of time. If morality is from god it would not shift according to social perceptions.

Expelled the movie, As you probably know, Is an upcoming movie featuring Ben Stein in which he tries to present a case for intelligent design while pretending that the scientific community is an elitist old boys club where scientists sit around sweeping evidence under the carpet if it doesn't conform with "neo-darwinism" (whatever that is).

The flaws in this movie are evident from it's premise alone. But their dishonesty doesn't stop at misrepresenting science and the scientific method while asking for a free pass straight into text books. These dishonest, intellectual cowards are even bribing schools to force kids to watch it and lying to respected scientists to get them to agree to an interview, An interview which will be edited in order to misrepresent what is being said.

So i urge anyone with a website or blog to help expose expelled. Link to the expelled exposed website using the words "expelled the movie", "Ben stein" and "intelligent design". If enough people do this and don't make it too obvious we can get expelledexposed.com on the front page of google for those search terms and stop this filthy liars in their tracks.

Normally i don't agree with underhand tactics, But when confronted with people who have the finances to get a film made that is based entirely on lies we need to do whatever it takes to expose them.

The movie critical of islam by Geert Wilders, Fitna.

Fitna part 1

Fitna Part 2

Attempts by christian groups to have prayers reintroduced in schools is in direct violation of the teachings of the bible. It goes directly against the god they are supposed to be praying to.

In Matthew 6:5-6 jesus said "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret."

This verse is telling christians, In no uncertain terms, That prayer should be something done in private. It is NOT something you should do in public or around others.

So why do so many christians flat out disobey this order and insist on praying in public? It's because deep down they don't really believe this shit any more than i do. They know it's not the word of god. Because if they did believe it, They would go out of their way to make sure they followed every aspect of it to a tee. After all, Who would want to piss of that mental case.

Thanks to Jasal for emailing this in.

Religion is said to be the driving influence behind Americans’ low moral opinion of nanotechnology, according to a researcher who surveyed public opinion on science and technology.

Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences, and a colleague found in their study that only 29.5 percent of respondents from a sample of 1,015 adult Americans agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.

When the survey was conducted in European countries, who are reportedly also key players in nanotechnology, the results were strikingly different.

In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent accepted nanotechnology on moral grounds. That percentage climbed higher in France where 72.1 percent of survey respondents expressed no moral qualms about the technology.

Scheufele presented results from the 2007 summer survey on Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He conducted the U.S. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU.

The professor said religion accounts for distinct differences between the moral opinion of Americans and Europeans in regard to nanotechnology.

"The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives," said Scheufele .

First Stem-cell research, Now nanotechnology. Do they oppose every technology that has the capacity to help sick people? It would have been interesting if they asked the people questioned what nanotechnology is, My bet would be that most don't have a clue.

The above graph shows a correlation between religiosity and earnings based on the GDP of several countries. The graph shows that the more religious a nation is* the less they earn.

Now correlation doesn't demonstrate causation, But there is a link there somewhere. Perhaps lower educated people are more likely to be religious (my personal theory as previous studies have shown the religious to have on average a lower IQ) or perhaps poverty makes people more likely to turn to faith.

Whatever conclusions you want to draw from this graph, There is a link between earnings and religiosity.

* Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from 0-3, with 3 representing the maximum religious position. Respondents were given a +1 if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; and +1 if they say religion is very important in their lives; and +1 if they pray at least once a day.

If you are one of the people who have bought into this attention seeking hoax, Shame on you.

There have been tons of suicide blogs over the years and this just another in a long line. They are created by people who either need attention or are trying to find some kind of self worth in the way of strangers pleading with them to not do it.

If you have no idea what i am talking about there is a blog called 90dayjane in which a woman claims she is documenting the 90 days prior to her planned suicide. Her blog consists of day to day commentary of her life peppered with assurances that she isn't doing it for attention and full of comments by strangers pretending that they give a shit.

So how do i know it is a hoax? If you look on her blog she says;

I am going to kill myself in 90 days. What else should i say? This blog is not a cry for help or even to get attention. It's simply a public record of my last 90 days in existence. I'm not depressed and nothing extremely horrible has lead me to this decision. But, does it really have to? I mean, as an atheist I feel life has no greater purpose.

To me this stinks of a religious person trying to paint atheists as immoral, materialistic machines with no self-worth. surely an Atheists greatest purpose is to stay alive. When Atheists die that is it, There is no reunion, There is no handshake with god and there is no eternal happiness. the Atheist believes we get one life and when it's over it's over.

So logically speaking, An Atheist is far less likely to kill themselves for no reason than someone who believes death is nothing more than a transition to a better place.

If you are an Atheist and want to buy your child a religious book, I suggest this one.

Ever since science started putting doubt in to peoples minds regarding the validity of religious dogma the corporations in charge of the dogma, The religions themselves, Have been intent on destroying peoples ability to learn, To keep them primitive and to keep them subservient.

Christians in particular have a long history of trying to deny people knowledge because they believe an educated mind is less likely to buy in to their primitive bronze age myths and, More importantly, Less likely to hand over money to such a scam.

In quite recent history, When Charles Darwin wrote his book detailing the process that caused the species to arise, The christians went absolutely nuts. They aren't concerned with the validity of evolution, They are simply concerned with preventing anyone learning about anything that contradicts their unfounded beliefs.

In 1982 a book was written called "of pandas and people" which was intended to be used as a text book in a science class teaching children that god an "intelligent designer" made us. It's basically creationism. But because America, Thanks to it's unbelieving christian-hating founding fathers, Has a law preventing religious filth being taught in schools they decided that they would, Like typical christians, Try to deceitfully get these lies taught via a back door. "intelligent design" was born.

Intelligent design, Unlike biblical creation, States that humans and animals couldn't have arose via natural selection and that a "designer" has to be responsible for at least some aspects of some organisms. Obviously this is just a re-branding of biblical creation, As was pointed out by Judge John Jones in the Dova Trial.

So since there is now a president where christian filth biblical creation "intelligent design" was found, In a court, By a judge, To be nothing more than a deceitful way of getting religion taught as science the creationists have had to out do themselves and excel in both dishonesty and stupidity and take a new rout to get this nonsense taught in schools.

"Teach the controversy" is born. The newest tactic the disgusting creationists are using to get filthy lies taught as science is to pretend that there is an academic "controversy" regarding evolution and that a lot of respectable scientists, Scientists who were found to be complete morons at the Dova trial, Doubt evolution.

The solution to this, According to them, It to at least teach the controversy to children and "let them decide". Now, I have two problems with this;

Firstly; There isn't a controversy. it's all in their head. Compared to the vast body of scientists who fully support evolution the ones questioning it are comparable to the amount of astronomers who believe in astrology. ie, Not many at all.

Secondly; If there is a "controversy" regarding the theory of evolution it has to be settled in the academic arena using peer reviewed research and evidence. it's not to be settled in a classroom full of children who don't even have a basic grasp of the subject. This presents a problem for creationists as they don't actually produce any data, Any experiments or any academic papers.

When this issue goes to court, And it will, The case is easily won by evolutionists simply by saying that "teaching the controversy" is tantamount to teaching the controversy between alchemy in chemistry and Astrology in astrophysics.

Thanks to Max for emailing this one in.

After the Sunday service in Westminster Chapel, where worshippers were exhorted to wage "the culture war" in the World War II spirit of Sir Winston Churchill, cabbie James McLean delivered his verdict on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

"Evolution is a lie, and it's being taught in schools as fact, and it's leading our kids in the wrong direction," said McLean, chatting outside the chapel. "But now people like Ken Ham are tearing evolution to pieces."

Europeans have long viewed the conflict between evolutionists and creationists as primarily an American phenomenon, but it has recently jumped the Atlantic Ocean with skirmishes in Italy, Germany, Poland and, notably, Britain, where Darwin was born and where he published his 1859 classic.

Luckily for Europeans we have far less fundamentalist evangelicals than America willing to make utter fools out of themselves, So i don't expect this lie based movement to make much ground over here. It is something Europeans need to keep an eye on though, Especially since the UK creation theme park was announced.

You have probably heard of the FriendlyAtheist (Hemant Mehta) and read his blog. Well he has just started a forum for Atheists and theists to gather and talk. If the popularity of his blog is anything to go by the forum is going to be a great success.

You still here? Go sign up and start posting!

I got an email earlier notifying me that Richard Dawkins funeral will be held this friday. The trouble is, Richard Dawkins isn't dead and it seems to be nothing more than a vindictive swing at Atheism and a taditional attempt to convert through fear.

Richard Dawkins memorial service will be held on Friday Febuary 1, 2008. Pilgrim Baptist Church will be officating the funeral service.

Richard Dawkins has proven to be one of the most wicked human beings to ever walk the earth.

Preachingyourfuneral.com plans to have a mock funeral service for Mr. Dawkins On Friday.

Any requests for an interview should be sent to comment@preachingyourfuneral.com

Wow, One of the most wicked human beings to ever walk the earth? I take it that is based entirely on the fact that he doesn't believe your lies.