Author Archive for TheEO
The Holy Guardian of Priestly Paedophiles is likely to win the New Humanists Bad Faith Award. The Pope continues to judge and advise us all as if his position insulates him from the revelations of child rape in his discredited, wicked, establishment. It is time for us to judge. If I were a member of a club with such a record of abuse over such a long time and in so many countries I would resign my membership. Any Catholic who remains in the Church deserves the contempt of all rational, principled citizens.
A bumble bee, a honey bee and a wasp were flying over Oxford. The wasp said "That looks like a good place. Let's go there"
The bumble bee said "Don't be silly. You can't get into Oxford with two bees."
The bumble bee said "Don't be silly. You can't get into Oxford with two bees."
I though some of you might like to give this band, Rumours of Whores, some support. You can hear one of their tunes at:
http://www.amazingtunes.com/users/rumoursofwhores/tunes/19598
It seems to be making a topical point about the catholic church.
http://www.amazingtunes.com/users/rumoursofwhores/tunes/19598
It seems to be making a topical point about the catholic church.
I have just seen a short debate between Ariane Sherine who came up with the atheist campaign and David Larlham of the Trinitarian Bible Society. It can be found at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7875834.stm?lss
Sherine did well in the short time available. However, if this is the level of discussion we can expect from the BBC the public will soon lose interest in the debate.
The BBC seems to see the issue as one of belief rather than that of the substantive intrusion of religion into our secular state. What some people believe about god is not a pressing priority and wastes our opportunity to deal with more urgent, earthly matters. This is a debate that will be won by the evidence as it slowly permeates our cerebral traditions. So far, this evidence is wholly consistent with the idea that religion is a fairy tale.
Atheists do need to be worried by the intrusions religion is making into secular democratic institutions. I refer to the continuation of the privileged places for Bishops in the Lords, the millions leached from the exchequer for the upkeep of religious properties and the salaries of chaplains in the NHS and armed forces, the loss to the public purse through tax exemptions and divisive faith schools where children are indoctrinated into a worldview based on risible medieval myths.
Furthermore, both our major political parties have declared that they will hand over more public services to voluntary and charitable organisations which will, in many cases, be run by religious groups. They will be funded by the taxpayer so it is not their charity it is ours. As a taxpayer it will be my charity that is being gifted via the prejudices and dogma of religious factions who believe in supernatural doctrines I despise. Moreover I have no confidence in the competence of gullible people with superstitious, backward, outdated ideas.
This is why we need to stop wasting our efforts on conversion and concentrate more on convincing those who have already rejected religion. We need to demonstrate that it is in their interests to join a coherent effective political lobby such as the British Humanist Association, the clear front runner for this task, followed closely by the National Secular Society.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7875834.stm?lss
Sherine did well in the short time available. However, if this is the level of discussion we can expect from the BBC the public will soon lose interest in the debate.
The BBC seems to see the issue as one of belief rather than that of the substantive intrusion of religion into our secular state. What some people believe about god is not a pressing priority and wastes our opportunity to deal with more urgent, earthly matters. This is a debate that will be won by the evidence as it slowly permeates our cerebral traditions. So far, this evidence is wholly consistent with the idea that religion is a fairy tale.
Atheists do need to be worried by the intrusions religion is making into secular democratic institutions. I refer to the continuation of the privileged places for Bishops in the Lords, the millions leached from the exchequer for the upkeep of religious properties and the salaries of chaplains in the NHS and armed forces, the loss to the public purse through tax exemptions and divisive faith schools where children are indoctrinated into a worldview based on risible medieval myths.
Furthermore, both our major political parties have declared that they will hand over more public services to voluntary and charitable organisations which will, in many cases, be run by religious groups. They will be funded by the taxpayer so it is not their charity it is ours. As a taxpayer it will be my charity that is being gifted via the prejudices and dogma of religious factions who believe in supernatural doctrines I despise. Moreover I have no confidence in the competence of gullible people with superstitious, backward, outdated ideas.
This is why we need to stop wasting our efforts on conversion and concentrate more on convincing those who have already rejected religion. We need to demonstrate that it is in their interests to join a coherent effective political lobby such as the British Humanist Association, the clear front runner for this task, followed closely by the National Secular Society.
A christian group is thinking of putting the slogan:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." on the sides of buses.
Surprisingly, I cannot take offense.
I am certainly a fool. My wife knows me well enough to be a good witness to all my foolishness so I cannot argue with that bit and I have often said that there is no god.
However my foolishness is not in any way related to my atheism.
The next bit, which they will not include goes:
"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
Now if they are preaching nasty stuff like this in their churches it is hate speech. I do take offense and, at least, I want such passages removed from the bibles used in schools.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." on the sides of buses.
Surprisingly, I cannot take offense.
I am certainly a fool. My wife knows me well enough to be a good witness to all my foolishness so I cannot argue with that bit and I have often said that there is no god.
However my foolishness is not in any way related to my atheism.
The next bit, which they will not include goes:
"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
Now if they are preaching nasty stuff like this in their churches it is hate speech. I do take offense and, at least, I want such passages removed from the bibles used in schools.
Ron Heather, 62, an evangelical Christian from Southampton, refused to drive a bus bearing an advert backed by the British Humanists dislaying the words:
"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and go and enjoy your life".
It occurred to me that, as an atheist, I should refuse to board a bus driven by a religious idiot. This would be very inconvenient to me and do little to redress the privileged position of religion in our society.
Instead, I was struck by the hypocrisy in Mr Heathers protest. A christian would probably claim to champion altruism but this christian's actions were very selfish. As a public servant he would seek to punish the public, his co-workers and the management of the bus company with no sacrifice to himself.
It is time that, whilst allowing people to practice their chosen (or indoctrinated) religion in private, employment contracts contained a clause which prevents employees from any action which challenges the alternative beliefs of members of the public.
"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and go and enjoy your life".
It occurred to me that, as an atheist, I should refuse to board a bus driven by a religious idiot. This would be very inconvenient to me and do little to redress the privileged position of religion in our society.
Instead, I was struck by the hypocrisy in Mr Heathers protest. A christian would probably claim to champion altruism but this christian's actions were very selfish. As a public servant he would seek to punish the public, his co-workers and the management of the bus company with no sacrifice to himself.
It is time that, whilst allowing people to practice their chosen (or indoctrinated) religion in private, employment contracts contained a clause which prevents employees from any action which challenges the alternative beliefs of members of the public.
I heard Thought for the Day again on Radio 4. As usual there were a number of ridiculous, unchallenged assumptions, regarding the magic sky monster. I sent the following complaint:
"I often listen to the Today programme on Radio 4. However, I am finding the "Thought for the Day" slot more annoying and sometimes offensive because the contributors are always promoting their religious world-view in contradiction to and apparent ignorance of any other moral and ethical framework which does not rely on the supernatural. I have had reason to complain before and the replies have been dismissive and formulaic, whilst failing to address the points I have made. I hope that my treatment will be more respectful this time.
Some of these articles, apart from some shoehorned reference to scripture, are wholly material in content so there is no legitimate reason to exclude the Humanist, atheist and secular rationalists from this slot. This segregation can be due only to prejudice and an intention to marginalise millions of citizens who do not subscribe to a supernatural world-view. The inference is that without a belief in religious fairy tales one cannot be a moral or ethical member of our society.The fact that my own representatives are banned from making a contribution is offensive and insulting.The present situation must be remedied immediately either by scrapping it or by including regular contributions from those who are not religious.
"I often listen to the Today programme on Radio 4. However, I am finding the "Thought for the Day" slot more annoying and sometimes offensive because the contributors are always promoting their religious world-view in contradiction to and apparent ignorance of any other moral and ethical framework which does not rely on the supernatural. I have had reason to complain before and the replies have been dismissive and formulaic, whilst failing to address the points I have made. I hope that my treatment will be more respectful this time.
Some of these articles, apart from some shoehorned reference to scripture, are wholly material in content so there is no legitimate reason to exclude the Humanist, atheist and secular rationalists from this slot. This segregation can be due only to prejudice and an intention to marginalise millions of citizens who do not subscribe to a supernatural world-view. The inference is that without a belief in religious fairy tales one cannot be a moral or ethical member of our society.The fact that my own representatives are banned from making a contribution is offensive and insulting.The present situation must be remedied immediately either by scrapping it or by including regular contributions from those who are not religious.
I have just sent the following complaint to Channel Five TV.......
Dear Sir,
I would be grateful if you would regard this as a complaint and forward it to the correct department.
I have just witnessed, on Channel Five television, a sickening advertisement from a religious organisation called the Mormons. I was deeply offended by the content, presentation and claims made by this group. Individuals influenced by these people often suffer mental trauma and psychological damage, sometimes acting upon some of the silliest superstitious and supernatural beliefs. In the proper place, with alternative viewpoints and the presentation of evidence allowed such broadcasting would have been acceptable.
I repeat, I was offended.
(Name and address given)
Dear Sir,
I would be grateful if you would regard this as a complaint and forward it to the correct department.
I have just witnessed, on Channel Five television, a sickening advertisement from a religious organisation called the Mormons. I was deeply offended by the content, presentation and claims made by this group. Individuals influenced by these people often suffer mental trauma and psychological damage, sometimes acting upon some of the silliest superstitious and supernatural beliefs. In the proper place, with alternative viewpoints and the presentation of evidence allowed such broadcasting would have been acceptable.
I repeat, I was offended.
(Name and address given)
I was going to comment on the recent statements made by the Bish of Cant regarding the disestablishment of the Church of England when I came across this piece by Terry Sanderson of the NSS. As usual he makes his case better than I can at the following link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/18/religion-anglicanism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/18/religion-anglicanism
Would you like to see the life and work of Charles Darwin commemorated at Westminster Abbey to mark the 200th anniversary of his birth? If so, I invite you to sign the following petition: (you do NOT need to be a British Citizen)
http://petitions.dogonism.org/Darwin.html
Westminster Abbey is a public building. It was built for and by
our ancestors and is part of our inheritance. Just because we have
different beliefs (as do modern christians) to those of our ancestors it
does not mean we give up our rights. There is no good reason for
preventing any group from using it for a legitimate activity.
It is about time we stopped accepting these historical privileges which have given the churches so much wealth and power. Most of the old church building around this country belong to us - all of us, as of right. We cannot stop christians from using these buildings for religious purposes - even when it is on behalf of Darwin. Conversely, we have the right to use Westminster Abbey for a secular event in Darwin's honour.
http://petitions.dogonism.org/Darwin.html
Westminster Abbey is a public building. It was built for and by
our ancestors and is part of our inheritance. Just because we have
different beliefs (as do modern christians) to those of our ancestors it
does not mean we give up our rights. There is no good reason for
preventing any group from using it for a legitimate activity.
It is about time we stopped accepting these historical privileges which have given the churches so much wealth and power. Most of the old church building around this country belong to us - all of us, as of right. We cannot stop christians from using these buildings for religious purposes - even when it is on behalf of Darwin. Conversely, we have the right to use Westminster Abbey for a secular event in Darwin's honour.
Britney Spears was raised a Baptist, and claimed at one time to be one of the “born again” pillocks. She was further contaminated with superstition when she took up the Kabbalah movement. It is rumoured that she has lately adopted a Christian life coach.
All you need to know about Kabbalah is contained in the following phrases from one of their web sites:
“The sources for the angels used in Kabbalah and ceremonial magic are primarily…..”
or
“The four best-known angels are……”
Angels, like pixies are fairytale creatures and people who believe they are real are clearly very gullible or nuts.
Poor Britney does not stand a chance whilst she is exposed to such extreme non-rationalism. We need to find a way to reach out to talented, delicate minds like hers before they are sucked in by the ever present religious vultures.
All you need to know about Kabbalah is contained in the following phrases from one of their web sites:
“The sources for the angels used in Kabbalah and ceremonial magic are primarily…..”
or
“The four best-known angels are……”
Angels, like pixies are fairytale creatures and people who believe they are real are clearly very gullible or nuts.
Poor Britney does not stand a chance whilst she is exposed to such extreme non-rationalism. We need to find a way to reach out to talented, delicate minds like hers before they are sucked in by the ever present religious vultures.
Following the massacre at Mumbai it has been said that “terrorism does not have a religion”. This is true because only people can have religion. Terrorists are people and it is they who have the religious beliefs. Recent terrorist atrocities are nearly always committed by people infected with Islam. Are we expected to assume that this is just a coincidence?
What makes these religious mass murderers so difficult to deal with is their core belief in the afterlife and the idea that death is not the end for them. Unlike their hostages and the legitimate armed forces they need not take precautions toward their own survival. The tactical advantages they gain from this enable them concentrate their efforts on the work of killing.
Even if religion is not the primary cause of these conflicts it is their religious indoctrination regarding a post-death fairyland that makes them impossible to deal with.
You might expect the EO to be pleased that the Atheist Campaign is alleged to have received £35000 of taxpayer’s money from the Government’s equality watch dog. Certainly, it is fair and we have the right to claim it in the light of the annual millions religious bodies manage to leach from the public purse.
However, the British Humanist movement has long argued against these religious privileges rather than demand that they should also apply to Rationalist causes. The Atheist Bus project does not need the money anyway and the BHA would get valuable publicity for its fight against religious privilege if it made a grand gesture of returning it.
See an article and some of the outrageous, hypocritical comments from a few religious idiots in the Telegraph.
However, the British Humanist movement has long argued against these religious privileges rather than demand that they should also apply to Rationalist causes. The Atheist Bus project does not need the money anyway and the BHA would get valuable publicity for its fight against religious privilege if it made a grand gesture of returning it.
See an article and some of the outrageous, hypocritical comments from a few religious idiots in the Telegraph.
I do not often comment on the inane rants of the rationally challenged from over the pond but this time they have gone too far. The religious right are in danger of losing my respect. Kay Hagen is accused by Elizabeth Dole of consorting and even of being an atheist – like me. Apparently it is not true that Kay harbours any beliefs based on reason and evidence but both sides seem happy with the idea that it would be damaging if she did. What horrible people.
It is going to take a facefull of lipstick to clean up these two puppies.
I quite like this article called "Atheists Pick on God" from the Sidney Morning Herald.
At last, someone has found a campaign that has stirred atheists into action. The ‘atheist bus’ scheme has attracted over eight times its target funding (more than £40,000 to date) to put “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” on the side of
Go to http://www.atheistcampaign.org/ and scroll down to their online shop to get your car sticker. If it’s good enough for a
And be ready to fend off the nasty-christian backlash. For instance, the organisers are already being accused of a lack of conviction for using the word “probably”. Apparently it is included because there is a requirement ‘not to offend religious people’. This is a clear example of religious privilege which prevents us from exercising free speech whilst allowing theists to offend atheists. From now on I want to see the same reservation displayed on church hoardings. Phrases such as “God probably loves you” outside my local church will do for a start. I am sure we can come up with better ones so please send them to me for a future posting.
Following a recent conversation with a christian I found myself reassuring her that I was not rejecting all her values. This led us to consider those characteristics that were exclusive to either atheists or christians and those that were universal. I produced the following lists in a few minutes. It is prepared from the viewpoint of an atheist and I was wondering how they would look if produced by a theist and which attributes (probably many) I have missed.
| List A - Religious (faithful, believers etc..) |
Believes we are being watched by a supernatural entity.
Seeks wisdom in an old text. Demands special privileges based on faith. Tends to form large, wealthy, self serving religious organisations. |
| List B - Universal Values |
Values charity and kindness Respects the environment Tries to promote universal justice Tries to be compassionate and forgiving |
| List C - Rationalist (atheist, agnostic etc..) |
Has a world view based on evidence |
Today in the Guardian Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary is critical of the multicultural drift that has afflicted
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/27/dominicgrieve.conservatives
He is a practicing Anglican Christian and was a member of the London Diocesan Synod of the Church of England for six years from 1994. It is possible that, in a few years, he will have a roll in government, hence my interest in his remarks. On many matters he does not seem to me to be an unreasonable man although many of his views are somewhat coloured by religious indoctrination and he does support secondary selection which I have good reason to hate. You can read some of his ideas on religion in politics at:
http://www.dominicgrieve.org.uk/record.jsp?type=speech&ID=68
He may be right about multiculturalism but his ulterior aims are clear when he says
He seems to be yet another politician with a religious agenda.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
