An Enlightened Observer

2011-12-17T18:54:00.002Z

I have not blogged for ages because others were making a better job of slagging off religious twats than I could but now I am really pissed off.

The idiot Cameron has said that we need "christian values" to counter a culture of "neutral morality". The cheeky, offensive bastard is implying that it is the lack of religion - that is atheism - that is to blame for society's low ethical values. He cannot have it both ways. Either this is a christian country with a tiny minority of atheists and it is the christians who are indulging in the anti social behaviour or there are a lot more atheists than he is prepared to admit to and we deserve more political power.

As for his bible. Why does no-one point out that the hero of this regressive, repressive book is a zombie with special powers gifted to him by an imaginary tyrannical monster. It is just silly.

My bit of England is NOT christian and will never go back to a belief in these middle eastern medieval superstitions.

This is not a coherent blog entry, I know, but an unelected ruling party has taken sides with my enemies in a zombie cult and I am livid.

Just a little Easter joke...might as well get in early.

2010-12-18T11:14:00.000Z

The Queen gets it right.....

2010-11-27T17:17:00.000Z

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and none."

(Queen Elizabeth II in an address to the Synod)

I have always been an admirer. May she reign for many more years.

Say it as it is.....

2010-11-01T10:26:00.000Z

The FFRF are doing it well......

2010-10-16T10:33:00.000+01:00

This is an example from a set of posters issued by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. There is a good article here.

You must see this

2010-10-13T15:04:00.001+01:00

I have not posted for ages because there are people doing a better job than I can. Here is an example - brilliant.......

Go to: The Big Paedo Protector's visit.

The Holy Guardian of Priestly Paedophiles is likely to win the New Humanists Bad Faith Award.

2010-01-03T14:17:00.001Z

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.

Be good

2009-07-05T12:43:00.004+01:00

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."

Rumours of Whores

2009-06-06T15:20:00.000+01:00

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.

Active atheists should change their focus - probably.

2009-02-11T18:30:00.010Z

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.

Christian Bus Slogans

2009-02-09T20:46:00.009Z

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 Selfish Christian

2009-01-18T11:36:00.004Z

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.

BBC Radio 4 Continues to dismiss atheism

2009-01-05T11:53:00.006Z

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.

Letter to Channel Five

2008-12-27T15:33:00.001Z

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)

The Big Bish realises the inevitable

2008-12-20T11:30:00.001Z

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

Another Petition: Let's make Darwin's birthday a national holiday

2008-12-16T19:53:00.002Z

If you go to the web address

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Darwins-day/

you can add your name to the petition requesting that 12th February, which is Charles Darwin's birthday, be made into a Bank Holiday.

For some time the government has been seeking an additional bank holiday to give to the public.

The memory of Charles Darwin deserves as much.

Isaac Newton already has a day which atheists celebrate, and that is Isaac's birthday on 25th December. [The man that christians 'celebrate' was not even born on that day, but Isaac Newton really was].

Deadline for signing up is 24 January 2009

Commemorating Charles Darwin

2008-12-06T11:54:00.004Z

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.

Britney Spears and Kabbalah.

2008-12-01T16:09:00.002Z

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.

Islam and the Mumbai terrorists

2008-11-29T11:09:00.002Z

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.

The Atheist Campaign may have drifted toward some low ground.

2008-11-26T11:19:00.003Z

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.

God was "pretty useless" on 9/11 says Archbishop

2008-11-11T17:40:00.002Z

From the Daily Telegraph of 11.11.2008 (by Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent)

The Archbishop of Canterbury admitted God was 'pretty useless' on 9/11

He admitted this in the face of the 9/11 terror attacks, according to a new book.

"Where the hell was God?", he was asked".

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, admitted God was 'pretty useless' in the face of 9/11 terror attacks.
Dr Rowan Williams, who was just streets away from the World Trade Center when it was destroyed by Islamic terrorists in hijacked passenger planes, is said to have told an airline pilot in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity that God had not prevented it because He has given humans free will.
The Archbishop and his companions feared they would suffocate in a smoke-filled room as the Twin Towers collapsed, it is claimed, with one of his friends putting a hand on his shoulder and declaring: "I can't think of anyone I'd rather die with."
The dramatic account of Dr Williams' ordeal in New York on September 11, 2001, is included in a new biography, which also discloses that he remains "haunted" by the suicide of a fellow student at Oxford who was besotted with him.
Dr Williams, now the head of the 80 million-strong worldwide Anglican Communion, was the Archbishop of Wales when al-Qa'eda launched its audacious attack on the US mainland, and had been due to address a meeting of religious leaders at an educational foundation just off Wall Street. He and his companions realised they were in a "war zone" after the second tower was struck, according to the book, but Dr Williams is said to have reassured them with a prayer.
As the first skyscraper crumbled, the auditorium filled with soot and smoke and the group feared they were trapped and could die.
The Rev Fred Burnham, director of the Trinity Institute, said the air was "virtually suffocating" and thought to himself: "I don't know how much longer we can tolerate this, maybe we've got 15 minutes, and beginning then to realise I would die."
Elizabeth Koenig, a friend of Dr Williams, is said to have laid a hand on his shoulder and said: "I can't think of anyone I'd rather die with."
Eventually police officers broke down a back door to the building and helped the Archbishop and his group escape, and they stumbled down the streets as the second tower came down, with Dr Williams putting his arm around a colleague.
The following day Dr Williams delivered a sermon at Manhattan's Cathedral of St John the Divine, bringing tears to the eyes of the congregation after recalling a chance encounter he had with an airline pilot on the street early that morning.

According to Rupert Shortt's new biography, the pilot asked him: "Where the hell was God?"

The book states: "Rowan's answer was that God is useless at times like this.
Now that's pretty shocking, but actually what he then went on to unpack is that God didn't cause this and God [was not] going to stop it, because God has granted us free will, and therefore God has to suffer the consequences of this like we do. So in a sense he exonerated God."

Yes the usual weasel words, slimy and slithering, writhing and wriggling.

Seeing that it was deep belief in Allah behind it all, the Christian God was not looking at all omnipotent.

Kay Hagen makes Elizabeth Dole’s insult worse.

2008-11-03T18:54:00.001Z

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.

Oz paper make fun of atheists

2008-11-02T11:20:00.002Z

I quite like this article called "Atheists Pick on God" from the Sidney Morning Herald.

Hapless children watch in troubled silence

2008-10-26T08:53:00.005Z

"I observed a ritual as part of a death cult that proceeded in a stone building encircled by a zone of buried believers. Solemn worshippers—seemingly unexceptional men and women of all kinds and classes—prostrated themselves before scenes of human torture and made believe they were drinking human blood and eating human flesh while hapless children watched in troubled silence."

This is the reality of the situation, as prompted by Bill Maher's remark cited at the foot of the front page which is “You can't be a rational person six days of the week and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you're drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god. That doesn't make you a person of faith."

Let us support the Atheist Bus campaign

2008-10-23T11:59:00.003+01:00

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 London buses. With this backing and media coverage we have a new opportunity to make rational secularism acceptable to a wider public.

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 London bus its good enough for your car.

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.

Atheists, Christians and Universal Values.

2008-10-20T22:26:00.004+01:00

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.

Might pray to a supernatural entity

Believes there is a life after this one.

Seeks wisdom in an old text.

Believes a supernatural entity intervenes in human affairs.

Seeks to indoctrinate children with supernatural ideas.

Demands special privileges based on faith.

Constantly tries to interfere in the lives of others.

Believes humans have a special place in the natural order

Tries to live by rules based on the interpretation of an ancient text.

Engages in superstitious acts such as adopting special gestures or clothing.

Tends to form large, wealthy, self serving religious organisations.

List B - Universal Values

Values charity and kindness

Values honesty and loyalty.

Values personal responsibility and mutual respect for others.

Has regard and respect for the family.

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

Changes opinions and beliefs based on changing evidence.

Seeks wisdom from many sources.

Believes humans are not special in the natural order.

Tries to live by rules based on reason and evidence.

Believes this is the only life we have.

Values reliable, repeatable evidence over hearsay.

On Not Believing Myths

2008-10-11T09:35:00.000+01:00

Take a look at today’s quotation at the page bottom:

“You don't believe in Apollo, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Odin or any of thousands of other Egyptian, Mayan, Scandinavian or other gods, do you? Well of course you don't. That would be silly. I don't believe in your god either. For the same reason.” Anon.

Then,
“If you tell a story which amounts to a set of myths often enough and with the utmost seriousness, and dress it up as a solemn performance sometimes with the actors in fancy clothes and do it in the presence of children and their parents and schoolteachers, it gets to be damned hard for the more credulous and sensitive of youngsters to defend their initially open minds from the penetrating onslaught that is the menacing world of religious belief.” Terence Meaden

The Oldest Known Bible says nothing of the so-called resurrection

2008-10-07T17:01:00.002+01:00

Welcome browsers. Think about the quote at the bottom of today’s front page.

Here it is:

“What is probably the oldest known bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. The Codex, and other early manuscripts, do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection.” Roger Bolton. BBC News. 6 October 2008

This the Codex Sinaiticus, judged to be fourth century A.D. by experts, and the oldest known bible. Significantly, it does not include the ascension of Jesus into heaven, indicating that such passages were invented later:

Of course, the fervent bible-worshippers adore their King James version.They ignore, or do not know, that the bible they love resulted from selective editing, cobbling, omitting, exaggerating, and fictionalizing.

So what will happen now? The current generation of believers will totally ignore anything with which they are uncomfortable. The Pope may well know about such doubts anyway, but he will never speak against unwanted truths either.

BELIEF IS NO LONGER BENIGN: ITS PERNICIOUSNESS MUST BE NEUTRALISED.

2008-10-03T09:59:00.001+01:00

Visitors to this site, please read the quote of the day, which I take from the page bottom.

“Despite the secular foundation of successful modern societies, radical religious fervor has reached an all-time high, and the world is waking up to the fact that belief can no longer be considered benign.” Paul Kurtz

Yes—and why?
Why are we allowing this to happen?

I was optimistic when I was young about the future of the world. I became an academic scientist and saw close at hand the rewards to humanity that the logical reasoning of science brings. The scientists around me were intellectual atheists—all of them, so far as I was aware—who wasted no time by having god-beliefs glued into their brains. Surely, as time would pass in our modern world, the foolishness of the theists would be elbowed away as the older generation died out and the uncluttered fresh brains of the next generation followed. The theists would deservedly become a minority after hundreds of years in which their leaders held so much power, and led a cruel tyranny, physical and mental.

But no, it is not happening.
Yes, the Anglican Church has weakened, but the influence of other religions has risen, and goes on rising. And this is because secularists with their open and fair democracies have allowed still worse religions to penetrate our society.
Fundamentally, education is at fault. Parents and priests, rabbis and mullahs, get at the children first. Schoolteachers are encouraged by Britain’s weak curriculum to behave pathetically. Yes, teach Darwinian evolution, but for those children who arrive at school armed (if not armoured) with the crass stupidities of creationist belief, ‘let them be’. Let them ‘make up their own minds’. As if they can do so fairly, considering that they spend more time at home and church, or at synagogue or mosque, than with the best schoolteachers.

It should be simple. When it is a matter of evolution and creationism, the former is 100% right, the latter 100% wrong. But the children are not told this, as I learnt at a school open day this week which I attended with wife, daughter and grandson.

And when it is a matter of belief in gods or no gods, the former is 100% wrong, the latter 100% right.
But few children are told this, the truth. Religious schools exist because there are enough parents who want them. Yet there are probably far more quiet atheists in Britain than there are churchgoers. We need more schools to be run by freethinking intellectuals—who will start producing the unbiased leaders that the country needs. Atheists of the world, start speaking up. Show us your debating skills. Now.

Dominic Grieve on multiculturalism

2008-09-27T21:17:00.002+01:00

Today in the Guardian Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary is critical of the multicultural drift that has afflicted Britain in recent years. Read it here:

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 Britain should be proud of the contribution made by all the major religions, including Islam. He also says, people should not forget Britain's Christian heritage and he claims the role of Christianity is really rather important.

He seems to be yet another politician with a religious agenda.

Last again

2008-09-09T18:24:00.002+01:00

I just found this - I cannot say if it is genuine.

“Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

— Barack Obama

Last again, and we do not even merit a capital letter.

RATIONAL THINKERS COUNCIL OF BRITAIN

2008-09-03T15:23:00.002+01:00

RATIONAL THINKERS COUNCIL OF BRITAIN (The RTCB)

At the foot of this page yesterday was the following observation by Keith Porteous Wood (National Secular Society):
“There are sixty religious missions to the EU, but only one non-religious one, the European Humanist Association. It has little power and is rarely consulted. This model of representation entirely disenfranchises the majority of the population who are either non-religious, non-practising or whose views differ substantially from their religious representatives – who are almost always male.”
************************************************************

Something should be done about this, and as soon as possible.

What is more, and more urgently, something needs to be done in Britain where the situation is woefully inadequate regarding news reporting of religious affairs. Bad are the toadies at the BBC (worse is the government) who pander to the religionists such that the secular, the humanists and the atheists rarely get an opportunity to offer their sounder opinions.
Needed is an umbrella organisation---bridging for this purpose the NSS, BHA, Richard Dawkins Foundation, etc.---that speaks up when Canterbury, York and others gabble and gibber.
Here is an idea, hoping to initiate a debate.

The RATIONAL THINKERS COUNCIL OF BRITAIN (The RTCB)
In these days of political correctness it could be time to found a consultative body with a title like The Rational Thinkers Council of Britain. This could be a voluntary association welcoming discussion and comment with news reporters and legislative bodies when occasions arise in the news regarding the question of morals, beliefs and religious issues.

Such a body or ‘mission’ could develop into an umbrella organisation that speaks for any and all of the non-theist groups of Britain.

Bodies that support religious causes have existed for too long while benefitting from a largely timid, quasi-protective news environment (particularly the BBC radio and television) that rarely provides a proper balance by allowing intellectual challenges from freethinkers. Major matters merit consultation at each and every opportunity. The current largely one-sided situation is ‘politically’ unjust.

Thus the RTCB, or the RTC, would serve to rectify the media’s reporting imbalance, and promote the truths of science that underlie the flawless natural philosophy that is atheism, at the same time protecting any non-theists who come under pressure from the dictates of indoctrinated religionists.

*************************************************************
Additional Notes:
~ The basic principle emanates from the insuperable fact that no evidence has ever been produced to support the existence of superhuman beings that believers call gods.

Because of this, freethinkers hold the intellectual high ground, including the view that the faith-holders’ gods are constructs of the mind and therefore nothing but fictions inside human heads. If there are gods, it is up to the believers to prove it.

A common riposte of the religious is to say that the interminable absence of proof for their faith does not matter—but this is because they have no better recourse. It is the age-old trick by which baffled or dishonest priests try hoodwinking doubters.

Whatever else, something needs to be done that will bridge societies like the BHA, NSS, Richard Dawkins Foundation and others so there is a common voice for those who despair of the nonsense and menace that is religion. ~

What is a Scientist?

2008-08-31T17:09:00.003+01:00

What is a scientist?

The question came up this week with some people trying to claim that science and religion can be compatible (see the link to Larry Moran, 29 August 2008). Some commentators got the matter entirely wrong.

Obviously to start with, a minimum requirement is that for a candidate to be a scientist he or she must certainly have had adequate scientific training OR scientific experience to a suitably high level maintained for a number of years. For some candidates, it can be enough to start with a good undergraduate degree in a science but this may not be enough. It all depends . . .

What is crucial is that if an otherwise qualified candidate is to be counted among true scientists, then he or she must necessarily respect all the cherished interdisciplinary, self-supporting, cross-authenticating, experimental and theoretical work done by the rest of the world’s scientists in the last century and more.

Among these are the biologists, physicists, chemists, cosmologists, astronomers, high-energy physicists, and others who have contributed to the discoveries of evolution and the origins of the universe. Anyone who might otherwise claim to deny the strength of what amounts to millions of experiments by millions of scientists, and instead tries to place the influence of some god into it, can never be called a genuine scientist because his or her mind is afflicted by the inadmissible holding of some kind of faith or belief.

A true scientist is one who seeks the truth and follows the evidence wherever it leads and accepts the resulting facts. Nothing is faked, nothing is forced. Therefore rationality ultimately reigns. Unlike god-believers, rationalists never twist facts, whereas god-supporters attempt to smuggle in their crazy notions about divinities.

In short, gods exist only insofar as they are constructs of the human mind, and they languish nowhere else but as neuron-based ephemera or illusions in the heads of deluded believers. If somebody claiming to be a scientist does not accept that, then he or she is definitely not a true scientist.

A Welcome Accord for Atheists?

2008-08-30T10:30:00.004+01:00

A new interfaith and rationalist coalition is suggesting that the government reform faith schools to ensure they cannot discriminate against pupils and teachers on religious grounds. They want a clear commitment to inclusive, community-wide education for all Britain's pupils.

The coalition includes a teaching union, religious groups, humanists, clergy, rabbis, academics and leading public figures is calling for fairer admissions policies in faith schools and equal employment rights for staff, regardless of their beliefs. It also wants to see a balanced curriculum, a consistent inspection regime and assemblies which reflect the true diversity of belief and culture.

As a fairly hard line Atheist, with no respect for anything supernatural, my inclination is to be skeptical about any group which includes people with "faith". However, as a pragmatist and realist, I must agree that this body is making reasonable demands and is likely to get wide support.

If you agree, go to:

http://www.accordcoalition.org.uk

and sign up.

The Universe and the Towering Strength of Science

2008-08-27T08:12:00.006+01:00

Millions of atheist scientists and other rational freethinkers know full well, through the application of unbiased commonsense and the results of complex experiments and the calculations of astute experimental and theoretical physicists, that we humans inhabit a tiny part of what is a vast godless universe of immense age; and that we have good reason to infer that gods exist nowhere but in the imaginations, stories and lies of faith-driven men.

So how can bible-believers seriously defend their ever-shrinking part of the world against the supreme logic produced by elite scientists when there is no case to answer? Why are there faith-believers at all?

A principal reason is that once the fictions of faith get into people’s heads it is difficult to be rid of them. Indoctrinated when young, they indoctrinate the young of their own and of others, and the cycle of merciless irrationality continues. These dogmatic bigots never let go—and that is because they never listen, their minds are already made up and they are incapable of understanding and absorbing new knowledge no matter how thoroughly well-tested and proven the latter may be. Only freethinkers and scientists see the universe clearly and correctly for its materiality and man’s place in it as an evolutionary accident but a marvel nonetheless. Religionists sink inside the mental quagmire and nightmare of their own making for it is philosophically incontestable, when the evidence is well presented and the listener has a high enough level of intelligence and freedom of thought, that gods exist nowhere but inside people’s heads—and that is that. Terence Meaden.

On my last post about "The Friendly Atheist"

2008-08-26T10:12:00.002+01:00

My thanks to those readers who put me right about "The Friendly Atheist" site. You have dealt with my suspicions so I am glad to agree that there is nothing ingenuous about Hemant's posts. He makes a valuable contribution to our discussions.

I have thought about this situation with respect to “An Enlightened Observer" and I surprise myself by concluding that his tolerance of two religious contributors on an atheist site is to be applauded so long as the dialog is free from abuse and misrepresentation.

However, bearing in mind the attacks and advances the churches are making into secular aspects of public life in the UK I shall continue as before, with compassion toward the infected individual whilst displaying antipathy toward their religious organisations, superstitions and world-view.

Is "The Friendly Atheist" genuine?

2008-08-25T15:36:00.001+01:00

The “Friendly Atheist” site seems to be quite active. It pops up on Google alerts and has a link on many atheist sites. I have occasionally sent in comments myself.

I was quite surprised then to read that, out of the four contributors, two were not atheists.

One, mark Clawson, describes himself as “a follower of Christ”, a minister and erstwhile student of theology. He has a blog at http://emergingpensees.blogspot.com/ which is very religious.

The other is Lindsey Kirth from Utah who says she is “one of those crazy Mormons” and confesses elsewhere that she is still religious.

Maybe I should not reject “The Friendly Atheist” on this evidence but it does raise the suspicion that there may be ulterior motives behind some of the articles.

Many churches represent a shameful waste of valuable resources.

2008-08-23T19:49:00.002+01:00

Many churches are historic buildings, built with public funds or donated for public use by our ancestors. I am an atheist but I still regard these relics as part of my inheritance. Just because I do not have the same world-view as the people who created them it does not mean I have to give up my legacy. In any case, modern Christianity is as far from earlier versions of the faith as my beliefs are from the views of today’s Christians so I can claim the same rights to property left to us all.

There is a case for maintaining some of them from public funds, free of tax but only if they are of special historic significance. There is also a case for allowing their continued use by religious groups – as long as they are used and the proper taxes levied.

And this is my point. Many churches occupy prime sites in the middle of conurbations taking up valuable space whilst making no significant contribution to the wider community. Most are part of the aforementioned legacy and we should be free to impose a commercial tax on them, put them to non-religious use or sell them for the benefit of the taxpayer. In many cases they will be listed building to be preserved and gain the same status as those with more secular roles. As it now stands most church buildings represent a shameful waste of valuable resources.

A C Grayling supports an Atheist PM - The Guardian

2008-08-21T23:51:00.002+01:00

A C Grayling wrote an excellent piece in the Guardian on atheism in British politics. As he made point after valid point I kept thinking, yes, yes, yes, that is what needs to be said..

You can (and should) read it at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/21/davidmiliband.labourleadership

One piece of information did surprise me, though. Apparently, more than half of labour politicians are not believers. This seems hardly credible when we consider the government’s failure to remove the Bishops from the Lords, the imminent increase in the number of “faith” schools and the expectation that faith groups will soon be allowed to take over publicly funded institutions such as social care, NHS services, dentistry, and GP practices etc. We have also witnessed the sickening ministerial appeasement of vocal but undeserving religious lobbies.

Under the circumstances the desecularisation movement should have been opposed and prevented from gaining so much ground with trends towards the acceptance of religion in the public sphere reversed. So why are the majority of rational MP’s scared to put up a decent fight?

It partly comes down a failure to organise by those rejecting faith. The national Secular Society and the British Humanists have raised their profile but are hampered by the reluctance of rationalists to join and donate. The major churches are awash with privilege, property and handouts from the taxpayer which enables them to wage successful propaganda campaigns. Until atheists learn to work together and shout their support for sympathetic parliamentarians the churches will continue to have an easy ride.

Richard Dawkins on Darwin Part 3

2008-08-20T20:14:00.003+01:00

Last night Richard Dawkins presented his third episode about Darwin on channel 4. This was by far the best of the three.

Three scenes stood out for me. Dawkins had a conversation with a creationist preacher who had just been making ludicrous, unproven claims to an audience of susceptible, bible eyed innocents. Some of them looked as if they needed a good slap with a fossilised fibula. The creationist’s comments revealed a superficial knowledge of evolutionary theory along with a deep misunderstanding of its process.

I take heart in the knowledge that even as we are faced with hoards of indoctrinated religious idiots in the present, the mountains of evidence for a world without supernatural intervention continues to grow for the benefit of future generations.

I cannot help but admire Professor Dawkins who patiently fielded the assertions made by this mendacious adversary who, with every phrase, misrepresented the evolutionist’s case.

Then we saw three wimpy science teachers who thought it was not their place to challenge the fairy tales promulgated by parents and non-rationalists. For 25 years I ran a science department in a large secondary school where it was my job to do just that. Despite a large contingent of children with parents from India and Pakistan I never had a problem with the parents. Evolution was correctly presented as a proven fact backed by mountains of consistent, irrefutable evidence from many contributing but independent disciplines.

And as for the chemistry teacher who insisted that the earth was less than 10,000 years old. He does not have a place in any school science department.

Finally I come to Rowan Williams who presented rather well even if his arguments were enigmatic and perverse. In earlier posts I may have been unfair to him – judging him only on comments he made at the time. He clearly represents a slightly more tolerable expression of Christianity. His particular concoction of superstitious fictions seemed to me to be slightly less toxic than other versions.

Richard Dawkins on Darwin Part 2

2008-08-12T14:32:00.004+01:00

On Monday the 11th of August on ITV4, we again had the privilege of seeing Richard Dawkins discussing Darwin.

I thought this second episode was better than the first. At least we heard something about Dawkins' brilliant selfish gene approach.
There was a revealing section where he discussed mans origins with a preacher from Nairobi. This man actually thought that evolution asserted that we had evolved from the chimpanzee so he wanted to know why chimpanzees had not evolved into humans. These are questions you might expect from a child or a late Victorian just coming to terms with the new knowledge but this preacher was in a position to influence the views of a large group of people. I found his ignorance and lack of insight with regard to the evidence stunning.

Richard Dawkins is right when he complains that so little time is spent on Evolution in schools compared to the wasted hours spent on risible religions.

Kirk Cameron finds ignorance...

2008-08-12T10:24:00.001+01:00

On Beliefnet Kirk Cameron said:

“You start thinking about that and it really makes you start to ask the big questions: Where did I come from?”

So where did he look for the answers? Did he look for reliable, consistent, universal evidence? Did he study palaeontology? Did he look at the evidence from plate tectonics, molecular biology, natural history, animal breeding, species distribution and modern evolutionary theory? No, he took the easy way out and picked up a single text on medieval fairy tales known as the Bible.

He thinks he found a god but instead he found ignorance.

A reply from my MP

2008-08-03T20:09:00.002+01:00

I recently wrote to my Conservative MP, Adam Holloway regarding my dismay at the continuance of the undemocratic privileges of bishops in a reformed House of Lords.

I wrote:

Dear Sir

I was astonished and outraged to see that the proposals for reforming
the House of Lords include retaining the special privilege of Bishops to
seats as of right.

I request the removal of these reserved places in the Lords.

The religious element to our national parliament is anomalous and
undemocratic. The proposed reform is an opportunity to remove this
unfair religious concession from Parliament by ensuring that everyone
who sits in a reformed chamber is there because they have earned the
support of the majority of the public. Their continued presence on this
privileged basis is an insult to all of us who do not share their
particular faith.

Yours sincerely etc.

I thought some of my readers might be interested in the reply:

“I do not believe that the Lords Spiritual should be removed from a reformed upper chamber where an appointed element is retained. We welcome the special place that the government intend to reserve for the Church of England bishops in a mainly elected, reformed second chamber. The right of Anglican Bishops to sit in the House of Lords plays an important role in representing Christian opinions on contemporary issues and reflects the privileged place that the established church has in our constitution and national life. A reformed second chamber that retained an appointed element could continue to include representatives from other major faiths in the United Kingdom, as is currently the case.”

So much for democracy, rational argument, parliamentary opposition and any chance of finding a party I can vote for.

Council Bigots allowed to discriminate against Atheists

2008-07-30T11:58:00.000+01:00

Software used by Birmingham City Council stops employees from accessing sites about atheist beliefs, but sites about conventional religions are readily available.

A lovely own goal by the non-rationalists. Perhaps this is an opportunity to write to our own councils, listing some popular atheist organisations such as Atheist Nexus, the NSS, The British Humanists and the Brights, The Richard Dawkins Foundation etc.. just to check that they are being fair.

The High Court discriminates against secularism

2008-07-30T11:53:00.001+01:00

A 14-year-old Sikh girl has won her High Court discrimination claim against her school after it excluded her for breaking its "no jewelery" rule.

From my own 30 year involvement in secondary education I know how often disruptive attention seekers use any excuse to break the rules. The High Court has made a big mistaken this time. It will be hard for anyone not involved with difficult teenagers to understand how important to good order a fair dress code can be. It will now be that much harder for teachers to maintain authority.

There must be no public recognition of religious associations

2008-07-27T10:48:00.000+01:00

Today, in the Sunday times Minette Marrin said:

“There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament.

So-called religious community leaders, or umbrella groups of religious bodies, must of course be free to associate as they like in private, in a free country, but publicly they must be ignored. Publicly they must not teach or promote illegal prejudices. Forced into the private sphere, denied the oxygen of publicity, power and influence, highly politicised religious groups will wither on the vine. Perhaps, in that wonderful phrase of Yeats, they might even wither into truth.”

There is no need for me to add anything. I agree totally.

Lords reform - another insult to millions of atheists

2008-07-22T18:59:00.002+01:00

I just sent this to the Lords Reform committee:

I was astonished and outraged to see that the proposals for reforming the House of Lords include retaining the special privilege of Bishops to seats as of right.

I request the removal of these reserved places in the Lords.

The religious element to our national parliament is anomalous and undemocratic. The proposed reform is an opportunity to remove this unfair religious concession from Parliament by ensuring that everyone who sits in a reformed chamber is there because they have earned the support of the majority of the public. Their continued presence on this privileged basis is an insult to all of us who do not share their particular faith.

Christians again threaten our secular sevices

2008-07-13T19:40:00.005+01:00

Lillian Ladele, the devout Islington registrar whose refusal to conduct gay marriages has, astonishingly, had her actions endorsed by an employment tribunal.

This is another outrageous attack on the secular nature of our services to further enshrine the historic privileges of christians. I resent the implication that a public servant may challenge my own beliefs with their religious interpretation of preferred human behaviour. As an atheist I insist on the right to be free from any religious observance and I should not be obliged to witness, undergo or in any way suffer from someone else's religious adherence.

Furthermore, such preferential treatment comes at a cost. This woman, presumably, takes full pay but will not do the full job. This will inconvenience people who are not of her persuasion and add an extra expense to me as a taxpayer as the management seeks to maintain a service by reorganizing the other staff.

Silly Bishops

2008-07-08T20:16:00.009+01:00

They look like pantomime characters and their world-view is based on fairy tales - so why am I supposed to respect them?

My original comment with this picture included the word "twat" which, I am informed, is a seriously naughty word in the USA so I withdraw it. Here is a more acceptable comment. Of course, some of my friends in the USA may not be familiar with panto but I can explain if anyone asks. Oh, yes I can.

Government works closely with the Church of England

2008-06-27T21:34:00.005+01:00

"I want to make it clear that the Government works closely with the Church of England on a regular basis, as we do with all other faiths. I do not accept the suggestion that the Government discounts the contributions made by the Church."
(Hazel Blears, Communities Secretary, Sunday Telegraph)

Religious appeasers like Blears and Blair were careful not to reveal their supernatural affiliations before they were elected. We have been tricked. In sucking up to minority opinions represented by faith groups our government has been been sneaky, underhand and undemocratic. Atheists must create a more effective community to ensure that in future we have our own representatives at the political top table.

Toward a secular society

2008-06-27T12:39:00.007+01:00

What is Religion?

Religion is an endemic disorder of the mind propagated as a meme by socio-parasitic institutions. It can affect the stupid, the intelligent, the old and the young. It works mostly through the indoctrination of children.

Religion is a disorder propagated as a meme.

Like many mind disorders, it will be harmless in some cases but when left unchecked can lead to injury to the individual or the community through irrational and homicidal behaviour.

Unrestrained, religion is always harmful.

Private religious practice and belief is none of our business so long as it does not encroach on our freedom, infect the friends and family of none believers or cause harm to others.

Enlightened Observers should not be obliged to witness, undergo or in any way suffer religious adherence.

Now let me say it like it is. To an enlightened observer, with the knowledge of the harm it does, religion is like a disease, a sickness, a virus, an infection, a plague, a pestilence, an epidemic, a curse, a pandemic, a blight, a scourge, a contagion and a pox. Religion is filthy and unclean.
We need to be understanding and compassionate towards those who are already infected but we would be immoral in our own eyes if we had respect for the concept, ideas or practices of religion.

The Religious as Victims

Most believers are victims of indoctrination. They cannot help themselves and continue to cling to irrational ideas and behaviour they learnt when they were young.
It is pointless to try to reason with the majority of these people. They cannot change despite a complete lack of evidence for their beliefs. They are easily led and will accept the most absurd ideas promulgated by the institutions or individuals they see as higher in their religious hierarchy.

You cannot fight faith with reason.

When confronted by a religious individual the Enlightened Observer should show compassion just as one should when faced with someone displaying the symptoms of a conventional illness.

Show compassion toward the victims of religious indoctrination.

It is our duty to resist the indoctrination of future generations.

Perpetrators

Perpetrators want to feel important.

We all want to find a pecking order to climb. Even the simple minded evangelist who tries to bring you the “good news” on your doorstep wants to persuade you that he knows something that you do not. If he can draw you in then he is nearer the top than you. He got the message first. The preacher with a congregation has surely found heaven on earth. He stands in a special place, everyone listens. He might even be allowed to wear special clothes or, joy of joys, a silly hat.
If they can draw you in - they will be nearer the top of the hierarchical tree than you. Perpetrators may also be victims. Most religious practitioners do believe in the supernatural but some do not – they are in it for the money and power. There is little point in discussing their ridiculous beliefs. They did not arrive at them through rational thought and no amount of argument will change their minds. Whether they are justified or not is not the point – remember, they want to feel important. All you need to do is show a complete lack of deference.

Show a complete lack of deference.

If everyone around you is reverent it is very difficult for an individual to step out of line and show disapproval. It would be easy to appear to be rude or disrespectful of the others in the audience. As an enlightened observer you know that it is not a god that is slighted but the man in the silly hat. However, by remaining acquiescent you will appear to indicate an acceptance of this person’s elevated position and special knowledge. As an enlightened observer you need to find an acceptable way of showing your contempt.

Show your contempt.

If it is a public gathering all you need do is pointedly leave. Do it during a critical moment and be very apologetic. The more fuss you can make apologising the better.
In other circumstances you need to make your feelings known directly. Merely tell them that you find their actions unacceptable and that you would prefer them to continue in private because you would not like your children to witness these acts.
Above all, be confident, smile, be courteous, and be gracious.

In order to protect our children from infection religion should be practiced in private.

Prayer

To the Enlightened Observer, prayer is a humiliating and degrading act. It should be tolerated in private between consenting adults but not in the presence of children. If children are involved such actions amount to the indoctrination of supernatural and superstitious ideas and should be regarded as child abuse.
You should insist that your child is not forced to participate in or witness such acts.

Encouraging children to pray or witness prayer is child abuse.

As parents, Enlightened Observers will have told their children that there is absolutely no evidence of anything or anyone supernatural that can hear or respond to the prayer.
Such superstitious actions should have been banished from our culture centuries ago.

Prayer is superstition.

Prayer is quite different from some forms of meditation or silent contemplation. If there is no recognition or appeal to the supernatural, no mention of entities such as gods, holy ghosts or souls then the act is not, in essence, religious and therefore could be acceptable. Meditation or silent contemplation does not involve the supernatural and is therefore acceptable.

Public displays of religious belief

Overt and intrusive displays of religious objects, motifs and symbols in public places are unacceptable. You and your family have a right to be free of all religious influences. You should not tolerate their presence without protesting.

You and your family have a right to be free of religious influences.

It is equally unacceptable to deface or remove private or public property without legal authorization. Regard it as an opportunity to gain support from those around you who may agree with you but are afraid to say anything. Politely and gently let it be known that you find this display confrontational.

Religious symbols should be displayed in a private setting only.

You are unlikely to gain support from those responsible for the offending item, nor are you likely to get it removed but you may reduce the probability of the insult being repeated. Regard it as an opportunity to gain support from those around you who may agree with you but are afraid to say anything. You will also make future protests easier for others.

Politely and gently let it be known that you find this display confrontational.

Family Occasions

We are expected to tolerate and respect the religious beliefs of others, yet, how often are those who wish to be completely free of religion invited to a ceremony such as a marriage or funeral where there will be appeals to the supernatural. These are occasions where you will be surrounded by people engaged in degrading, superstitious acts. Family members often have no sense of the offence they cause.
You will, of course, wish to attend. These occasions are important to us all but you still have a duty to make it known that you are offended and that you are attending only out of respect for your hosts. In this way you can make your objections clear without causing offence yourself.

Find a way of objecting without causing offence.

Many people tolerate religious practices on social occasions through habit, tradition or a reluctance to appear difficult. If no-one ever protests people who wish to be free of religion will always feel excluded.

All communal, social events should be secular, inclusive and devoid of the supernatural.

Religious Dress

You should not have to deal with people who flaunt their commitment to the supernatural in the form of a special costume or adornments. This challenges your right to be free of religion. Therefore, it is unacceptable for people to wear religious uniform or conspicuous religious icons when dealing with the general public.
Public servants must not confront you with their symbols of superstition. You have a duty to tell them so – calmly and politely. Do not expect a good response. One complaint is unlikely to make a difference but if we all passively oppose these affronts we shall eventually gain support.

Indicate that you find their religious display offensive.

Above all, avoid confrontation. You need not argue your point. They are the ones who are causing the offence so smile, be pleasant. Make it clear that you are not being personal. It is not their race or culture that offends but their commitment to the supernatural.

Avoid confrontation.

A simple statement of your antipathy will be enough.

The Way Forward - A Secular Ministry for the Enlightened Observer

Religious institutions are still very dominant and are growing worldwide. As Atheists we maintain that there is nothing supernatural about religion, its institutions or organisation. Yet we seem to have rejected everything that has made religion so pervasive. If their fundamentals are false then they must be successful for purely secular reasons. The psychology that brings superstitious people together is equally appropriate to non believers. The techniques are well understood and have been used for centuries to build large influential organisations. Rather than reject the processes that spread religion we should consciously emulate them.

It is not sufficient to merely oppose adherence to supernatural ideas. Atheists should be constructing a cohesive community able to compete in the politacal arena. Our aim should be to build an organisation commensurate with the number of religion free individuals.

Therefore we need to:

Create and adopt our own texts on ethics and morality:
Erect buildings and monuments:
Establish a hierarchy:
Establish awards, rewards and promotions:
Adopt modes of dress, activities and identifying symbols:
Ensure that our children receive a moral and ethical education free from religious influences:

Richard Dawkins is right

2008-06-25T10:30:00.002+01:00

I think Dawkins is right when he says we have “a predisposition to believe without question things that are told to us by our elders when we are very young.”

The non-rationalists have used this for centuries by indoctrinating children with their self serving supernatural garbage in church schools and Sunday schools. It works very well and, in the UK, they are still at it with renewed vigour.

For this reason it is important that Secular Rationalists become more proactive in their fight to save another generation who are about to have their world-view irretrievably corrupted with medieval fairy tales.

Some words from a believer

2008-06-23T09:11:00.003+01:00

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."

Adolph Hitler 1922.

This makes me think that christians still have a lot of explaining to do.

Islam and European Values

2008-06-21T10:12:00.001+01:00

Hirsh Ali says:

“Islam is unable to endure criticism or change and is essentially at odds with European values.”

Whilst a significant number of its followers threaten, with violence, our right to free speech Islam will continue to attract justified loathing. Its adherents need to realise that many Europeans would be more open to Islamic values if we were allowed to discuss them publicly. Instead, we apply a high degree of self censorship in case we inadvertently offend the religious rage-boys.

Atheists gain ground

2008-06-20T11:07:00.004+01:00

Archbishop Rowan Williams says:

“I don't think Christianity is dying out. It's going through quite a complicated set of transformations. We are not yet so irrelevant that people don't want to know what we think.”

When Mr. Williams and his colleagues maintain that they do not recognise the religion Richard Dawkins condemns it is a clear sign of the transformation we can expect. The resurrection, curing the blind, the sermon on the mount and other biblical fairy tales have all suddenly become metaphors for desirable human behaviour, despite the fact that millions of children around the world have been told that these stories are literally true. They have been eagerly advanced as such by devout christian teachers as proof that Jesus could do magic and so must have been the son of a god.

The major churches are self serving organisations that need to continuously attract new adherents in order to maintain their civic privileges and revenue. They are already starting a rewrite to conform to the rationalism demanded by contemporary atheists.

Prominent church leaders may not have the grace to admit we are right but every time they lie in this way we know we have gained more ground.

Rational secularism is winning but it may be more of gradual take-over than an outright victory.

There is no referee

2008-06-20T00:05:00.002+01:00

I sometime get into, or come across, online conversations about how stuff got here at the beginning of our known universe. Usually, one side seeks to demonstrate that a god must have created everything by quoting some eminent author whilst the other side finds support from a different respected source.

There is never a satisfactory conclusion to these debates and I think it is better to admit that we just do not know than to cling to unproven explanations. In any case, I see no harm in allowing the possibility of some "prime mover" to provide the equipment and start the game. There is no evidence for this, and I do not believe it, but it is one of an infinite number of ideas we might have about the origins of our world and it seems to appeal to many people.

What I take exception to is the assertion that the prime mover hangs around to act as a referee. For modern believers our players obey the laws of science and additionally have the benefit of someone telling them how to play the game. They contend with gravity, friction, inertia etc and have an entity to invent the offside rule (I am British and this is a rule in Soccer) and sometimes punish them for breaking it. Perhaps it stretches the metaphor too far to claim that the referee also wrote he rule book and created the players from stuff he scraped up from the pitch.

There is no referee and the rule book was written by the players.

2008-06-15T19:46:00.002+01:00

I just came across the following quote: "Yes, I found religion. I found it to be completely worthless."
Lance Ogborn

Unfortunately, most people who claim to “find religion” or god are not that perceptive. I do not know of a place where it is possible not to find religion. Believers are pushing their nonsense into our faces from every direction, demanding privileged access to our democratic process, trying to take over our secular institutions and insulting us with their high handed piety.

A Christian v Atheist joke

2008-06-06T18:54:00.006+01:00

A young teacher with obvious left wing tendencies explains to her class of small children that she is a Christian. She asks her class if they are Christians too. Wanting to be like their teacher, their hands explode into the air like fleshy fireworks.

There is, however, one exception. A beautiful girl named Lucy has not gone along with the crowd. The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different.

"Because, I'm not Christian."

Then, asks the teacher, "What are you?"
"I'm an Atheist."

The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks Lucy why she is an Atheist?

"Well, I was brought up to be rational and not to believe in silly fairy tales. My mom is an Atheist, and my dad is an Atheist, so I am an Atheist."

The teacher is now angry. "That's no reason," she says loudly.

"What if your mom was an idiot and your dad was an idiot. What would you be then?"

Lucy paused, smiled and said, "Then, I'd be Christian!"

..........................................

This is not a very helpful story - it is merely abusive, and reminiscent of those nasty, ill-informed Christian sites from the the USA. In fact, that is where I found it. I just swapped the words Christian and Atheist around. I have to admit that, from my own experience of forty years spent in English schools the teacher's attitude in my version is not too far from the truth.

Cherie Blair on Richard Dawkins

2008-06-04T10:25:00.002+01:00

Cherie Blair says that she "gets angry with the "arrogance" of scientists like Richard Dawkins who suggest faith is irrational. She says faith is not just emotional. "It can't be. I'm a person who is used to making intellectual argument, but in the end what people like Dawkins don't acknowledge is that people are more than just computers on legs. They have a heart and a soul as well."

No, Cherie, for most people like yourself, religion is more a result of indoctrination and misinformation than emotion. I have read lots of Dawkins and he does not maintain that religion is based on emotion or that people are just computers on legs. His ideas are consistent with the mountains of reliable, universal evidence that people of faith choose to ignore.

A hideous new game!!

2008-06-03T20:34:00.001+01:00

I just came across a brief report of a new video game from the USA, supposedly in support of atheists. I do not have many details but the report said that the object of the game is to stop the spread of Christianity and Islam by murdering Abraham and the authors of the Bible, before beheading Muhammad. If this is true it is a hideous idea and I think atheist groups need to quickly distance themselves from it.

Trashing Richard Dawkins

2008-06-03T10:50:00.003+01:00

I have just visited one of those bigoted blogs from the US misrepresenting the views of Richard Dawkins so I sent this. I wonder now if it is not a little too strong?

"Your comments reveal a superficial knowledge of evolutionary theory along with a deep misunderstanding of its process. In order to deal with all of this I would need to take you back to your early childhood and re-educate you. I take heart in the knowledge that even if we are faced with hoards of indoctrinated religious idiots in the present the mountains of evidence for a world without supernatural intervention continues to grow for the benefit of future generations. "

A Letter to the Guardian

2008-06-01T17:54:00.002+01:00

I have just posted the following to the Guardian newspaper.

In Face to Faith today Joanna Collicutt demonstrated her superficial knowledge of the words of contemporary atheists such as Richard Dawkins along with her deep misunderstanding of their meaning.

Amongst other deceits she says that the selfish gene is "a nasty little demon if ever there was one, and a teleological one at that, driven by a single purpose - replication." No, Joanna, they are not driven, they have no purpose in the sense you claim here and no modern evolutionist will claim that they do. In a metaphorical sense they have acted as if they had been selfish because they are the ones that have made most copies of themselves to increase their frequency in the gene pool.

You go on to say that the "story of the healing of a man born blind is essentially about a person who comes to see the truth in a context where other people remain blind to it yet claim that they can see."

I find this interpretation more agreeable than the one presented by dozens of Christians to hundreds of children in the two faith schools and Sunday school I was unfortunate enough to attend. We were routinely told that Jesus really did cure a blind man, that he actually walked on water, heard a real voice from the sky and walked about after being killed three days earlier. Your meaning of the blind man story does not require a god at all for no supernatural intervention is required. Perhaps you would like to join me in castigating all those other Christians for all the lies they told us.

The Parable of the Jigsaw Man

2008-05-25T11:59:00.002+01:00

A man once found a box of strangely shaped pieces of card in a charity shop. He noticed that some of the pieces looked like they might fit together and so spent several days trying to join them all until he had one complete piece. He was pleasantly surprised to find that the patterns on one side of the pieces formed an attractive picture. This is the first time he had seen a jigsaw and was intrigued to investigate similar boxes he remembered seeing in the shop.

On completing the second jigsaw he noticed that the picture he had assembled matched the picture on the top of the box. This made his job much easier so over the next few weeks he completed many more puzzles to confirm the rule that the picture on the jigsaw always matched the one on the box.

He was later approached by a creationist gleefully clutching his own jigsaw and declaring that the Jigsaw man was wrong and that this puzzle did not match the picture on the box as he had tried for some time to make it so and failed. The Jigsaw man duly set about this new task for himself. It was certainly more difficult than the others but he soon managed to fit all the pieces and confirmed to the creationist that it did indeed make a nice picture which matched the view on the top of the box.

Over the following weeks the creationist returned several times with other jigsaws, making the same claims as before and each time the Jigsaw man showed him how to fit the pieces together to prove that the picture produced was the same as that on the box.

Finally the Jigsaw man had to give up trying to persuade the creationist. You see, the creationist was not only incapable of completing a jigsaw for himself but was also too stupid to understand the evidence anyway.

You have Hitler and we have Einstein.

2008-05-13T11:04:00.005+01:00

Albert Einstein said:
" The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible is a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this."

This oppinion was revealed in a recently published letter to Eric Gutkind in 1954.

And Hitler said:
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

Despite this my challenge still goes out to all the non-rationalists out there. You can still convert me and make me a believer, perhaps in a few minutes. Just present me with just a teenzy-weenzy bit of consistent, reliable evidence for the existence of your god.

2008-05-09T12:37:00.001+01:00

Lying for Jesus

In the Guardian today Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor is quoted as saying

“The interesting question about atheism is, what is the theism being denied? Have you ever met anyone who believes what Richard Dawkins does not believe in? The God that is being rejected is a God I don’t believe in either.”

I have read several books by atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and for eleven years attended two Church of England schools and a Methodist Sunday School whilst my son spent three years in a Church of England school and nine years in Catholic faith schools so I am well placed to comment on who believes what.

Over my own eleven years in faith schools I was routinely told that there is a supernatural being watching over us, that if I pray this same entity will be listening, that the resurrection was literally true, that a virgin gave birth, that a disembodied voice from a place they called heaven spoke to people and handed down instructions which we must obey and much more similar nonsense.

These are just examples of the theology being denied by modern rationalists. But I and hundreds of my unfortunate schoolmates were told all of it was true, not just once but daily, over and over again through assemblies, enforced prayer, bible readings and hymns. It was not just one believer who was allowed to pound us with this nonsense but, over the years, thousands of children were subjected to this risible garbage by hundreds of religious believers.

According to the Cardinal much of this is no longer believed by the major church institutions and that throughout my own and my sons childhood hundreds of Christians have been lying about what they believed. Or perhaps the Cardinal is wrong about the religious teaching going on in his churches and faith schools.

What I want to know is, who is lying for Jesus this time.

I choose to regard religion as a disease

2008-03-18T23:48:00.001Z

Many illnesses are diagnosed only by their symptoms. There are, as yet, no clinical tests for conditions such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. From the standpoint of the “faithful” perhaps religion is not an illness, if only because the victims fail to recognise that there is anything wrong with their thought processes. (A similar situation occurs with other mental illnesses.)

However, as a hard line atheist I choose to regard those with religion as ill or diseased. This allows me to have compassion for them whilst having a complete contempt for their affliction. I find it easier to reconcile the fact that so many people I might otherwise respect, some scientists for example, uphold some risible supernatural beliefs. A disease can afflict the clever, the stupid, the old, the young, the ugly and the beautiful.

Like a disease, religion has to be tolerated, or managed, because we do not know how to eradicate it. At the same time we have a moral duty to prevent the infected from spreading it to other people.

The Popes new mortal sins.

2008-03-11T11:42:00.002Z

The Times reports that the pope has added seven more mortal sins to the list. Two of them are “the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few” and “social injustice which caused poverty”. Perhaps he should look at the vast wealth in land and property resources held by the churches. In most English towns and villages acres of prime land are set aside for the occasional wailing and moaning of a deluded few believers to their non-existent deity. There are so few of them that in most places they would easily fit into a shed thus releasing part of this hoard for the benefit of those most in need of it.

The Pope also complained that an increasing number of people in the secularised West were “making do without God”. True. I also make do without unicorns or pixies. What he is really complaining about is that we make do without him and his leaching priesthood.

He complains about “paedophilia, which had even infected the clergy”. If there is an infection it is the disease of religion that has infected them. The paedophilia is caused by the repressive sexual culture promoted by his church. The high incidence of child abuse inflicted by members of the church has occurred, not because a religious vocation attracts paedophiles, but because sexual perversion is a product of Catholicism and priests are more repressed and therefore more likely to become perverts.

Most christians are just Simulated Ultruists

2008-02-20T19:25:00.010Z

Perhaps I have been unkind to the poor hoverfly by including it in a piece about simulated altruists. The hover fly is a harmless creature masquerading as something quite nasty. The praying mantis, on the other hand, is a predator pretending to be a harmless plant.

What do all those crosses really mean?

2008-02-18T12:49:00.009Z

Is it my imagination or are those little crosses some people used to wear discreetly tucked away down their neck-holes suddenly appearing, in plagues, on the outside, in your face and challenging all to deny the risible supernatural beliefs of the wearer? Perhaps this is a case of wire coat hanger syndrome. Out of sight, in the dim, sweaty chest hair of the superstitious they are breeding like catholic fundamentalists.

I sometimes ask the wearer if they are collectors and do they have the complete set. A vacant look prompts me to tell them that you can also collect a little bronze guillotine, a tiny gold plated electric chair, a genuine recyclable hemp noose, a little brass axe and a minute crystal syringe with “Made in the USA” engraved along it’s side. The point that they are wearing a model torture device, an instrument of agonising execution around their necks is made. I have come to expect them to insist that it stands for the “sacrifice our lord made etc blah blah blah” …. I think you know the rest …… but recently other explanations have arisen.

I have lately argued that overt signals by people indicating that they are altruists are often false and that they are really acting entirely selfishly. It now seems that there are other motives at work. In this modern climate of multiculturalism and religious hate laws many people feel that they cannot express their true feelings regarding alien habits and cultures which threaten them. They have opinions they dare not discuss. Our newspapers, TV and politicians never say what needs to be said. There are millions in Britain who want to express something they dare not for fear of being victimised. So they find a way of quietly, legitimately broadcasting their message.

Those little crosses don’t mean “I love this or that” or "I believe prayer works" or "I believe that some bloke really did start walking about after being dead for three days". It is a coded message, a counter threat and a display of solidarity. What they are really telling us is that they have a few reservations regarding the religion of Islam. In private they use much stronger language but I am prevented from quoting it here.

The Christian as Simulated Altruist

2008-02-17T19:23:00.003Z

It has been argued that, in human societies, genuine altruism towards non-relatives is rare. Self sacrifice may not earn immediate material gains but often brings less tangible benefits by achieving status, fame, peer recognition, emotional reward or perhaps a (false) promise of reward in the (unconfirmed) afterlife. I am entirely happy with these contracts. There is a trade off where both sides profit even though one side may pretend not to. In my view, such behaviour can be tolerated and it is not my intention to criticise it here. It is a related, wholly malevolent phenomenon that I wish to expose.

I was lately brought to task by a Christian who objected to my assertion that Hitler believed in the Christian god and genuinely believed he was acting in the true traditions of this religion. My critic claimed that Mr H was only pretending to be a Christian to fool other Christians into agreeing with him. If this was the case it was a very successful tactic which raises serious questions regarding the gullibility and steadfastness of the faithful. I do not think that it is the case that Hitler was engaging in a deliberate ruse but it does raise the possibility that others may be acting in a similar manner.

In a society where unselfishness is in many ways rewarded, perhaps with status or other forms of peer respect which, in turn leads to an easier living, it might profit someone to use the guise of altruism as a vehicle for completely selfish behaviour. Such an individual might affect a masquerade, adopting certain “beliefs”, gestures, modes of dress or symbols to fool other members of the group. It might even arise that an organisation, existing entirely for its own purposes, will flourish if it adopts the trapping of a benevolent establishment.

I am reminded of species of hover fly which closely resemble wasps. Under certain conditions these far outnumber actual wasps. Sometimes, in the region where I live, there are vast plagues of waspy hover flies with not a single genuine wasp to be found anywhere. What is more, the fly does not know it resembles a wasp; it does not know it is cheating. Stingyness is a concept beyond the understanding of the hover fly. It thrives because it is good at fooling birds into thinking it is a wasp without understanding the notion of bird or wasp.

Genuine unselfishness does not declare itself. The self-sacrificing individual will just get on with it for it is the selflessness that is important, not the rewards. The fake varieties do not wait for you to realise that they are altruists – for indeed they are not - but announce their intended role clearly.

Under the present political climate where religion is encouraged and gains so much privilege, simulated altruists can thrive. Any individual, overtly displaying their altruistic status may be bogus. The more noticeable the display the more likely it is a masquerade. A dog collar, a pointy hat or a cross worn openly are sure signs. Beware of the fish sign on the car boot or phrases such as “As a Christian….” The use of familial terms such as “brother”, “sister”, “mother” or “father” are used as a subtle ruse to get by your defences.

Even those who find this idea too cynical will agree that it is possible that at least a few people are succeeding in duping the more credulous amongst us with this deception. However, I maintain that the simulated altruist is very common and makes up the majority.

I further observe that the established churches are a repository for vast hoards of simulated altruists, leeching off the taxpayer and gullible hosts, some acting innocently from within the organisations themselves.

To protect ourselves we need to recognise them, name them and reveal their hypocrisy.

Theospeak

2008-02-17T13:06:00.001Z

Time to meme off a new word. "Theospeak". Here is a bit of theospeak.

"Thus, Christ’s atonement turned God’s wrath away from the sinner, and placed him into renewed fellowship with God. God's just anger is appeased and He can be reconciled to the sinner."

As you can see it is complete rubbish dressed up as wisdom. It uses a special theological language containing so many outrageous, unsubstantiated statements that rational beings are often reduced to silence when faced with so many fatuouse inferences and outright lies. It is a very impressive, technique which impresses the faithful and renders those not adept at bible talk unable to reply in similar terms.
Maybe there is already a good word for this phenomenon or perhaps readers can think of a better term or a more succinct definition.

Rowan Williams gives atheists cause for optimism.

2007-12-15T19:33:00.000Z

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said many Christians would not recognize their religion as it is described by recent critics.

"When believers pick up Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, we may feel as we turn the pages: 'This is not it. Whatever the religion being attacked here, it's not actually what I believe in,'" the archbishop said.

Williams would have us believe that since the 19^th century some great revelation has occurred and that our view of religion has somehow matured into something only real Christians can understand. As if some new messiah has come to tell them that they had it all wrong for 1800 years or that modern theologians are much cleverer so that using the same old bible they suddenly became better informed about god.

I have had 11 years of theology in the form of religious assemblies, daily prayers, bible readings, church, chapel and Sunday school. I have suffered the inane ranting of scores of Christians. I know what they believed because they kept telling me over and over. They told me that a man really did die and came back to life; that a virgin gave birth and that if you pray it makes a real difference because there is a magic sky pixie that is everywhere and listens to everything.

Is Williams trying to say that this is not modern Christianity; that modern Christians do not believe in these risible fairy tales. If this is what he claims he needs to listen more to the superstitious pap fed to our infants in the majority of Britain’s religious primary schools.

But this may be a good sign for the rationalist cause. It may indicate that, by small increments, we are winning the argument. Leading Christians do not have the humility to admit they are wrong so instead they change their ground, claiming that they meant to say something sensible all along. How silly of us to misunderstand.

Can this be an indication that we are making more inroads than theists are prepared to admit. In the long term we may still have to deal with organised religion but if we keep up the pressure it may, lie by ridiculous lie, have to abandon its most absurd claims.

How should we regard religious scientists?

2007-11-15T11:37:00.000Z

A common argument used by theists to justify their delusions is to list the great scientists, past or present, who have themselves been religious or to cite the conversion to deism of some eminent atheist.

(For example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science)

Until recently I have not had a convincing riposte. After all, these were people who's opinions I once respected, and to discover that they believe in the supernatural should not in itself be grounds for abandoning my previous admiration. How can this be?

In fact, there is no contradiction. There are similar precedents which we all apply in other situations.
I once knew of a notorious shoplifter who had been prosecuted several times. I would meet her at the supermarket checkout where she would pay for all her groceries. Most of the time she was an honest, law abiding mother of two. Do I then have to disregard her criminal tendencies because I applaud her behaviour at other times. Of course not, it is the shoplifting we should condemn, not the shoplifter.

Secularist of the Year

2007-10-22T19:01:00.000+01:00

Mina Ahadi who won the 2007 Secularist of the Year award this Saturday. She continues to support women oppressed by religion. Read more at...........

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2007/10/on-2007-national-secular-societys.html

2007-07-15T20:22:00.000+01:00

"On 25 May 1982 Argentine jets bombed and sunk the British Type-42 Destroyer Coventry, 11 miles north of Pebble Island. A large memorial cross erected on a scenic hillside not far from the settlement, looks out to where Coventry sank, and commemorates the 20 crew that died."

It has since been repaired but the original was the site of many religious gatherings assembled in memory of those who died. I count myself as very lucky to be able to relate that my brother, honoured for his bravery on this day, was a survivor who designed and constructed the metal cross.

He is an atheist from four generations of atheists.

As he told me about this I was reminded of the claim by the faithful that we would not have so much memorable art and music where it not for religion. This is complete rubbish, of course.

They cannot change.....

2007-07-07T09:55:00.000+01:00

"All religions start with the very young, and condition them to believe that their teachings are the correct teachings, and to question those teachings is somewhere between blasphemy and a sin. Many grow up to be closed minded on religion, since it is a conditioning process, rather than a process of logical reasoning. They cannot go against what they have been taught all their lives, and what all their family and friends believe, without becoming an outcast."
(Robert Dewar, The Enquirer)

I go further than this as I have stated in earlier posts. From my discussions with many poor saps indoctrinated during childhood I suspect that most cannot abandon their risible faith through argument or from learning of evidence that counters religious beliefs. It is as if the earlier dogma had been engraved permanently into their understanding of the world. If we insist on rectifying matters we may find that more drastic intervention is necessary. Such methods might require a coercion that we should never sanction. It is better to find ways to protect ourselves from the present religious onslaught and concentrate on inoculating future generations from the disease of religion.

Let us have the wisdom..........

2007-07-01T22:38:00.000+01:00

The following was recently posted by one of the UK Brights -

"Let us have the wisdom to accept that if our ancestors had fared differently in wars our communities would be holding different absurdities up as sacred truths, and the willingness to accept those absurdities would be seen as the badge of social trustworthiness oreven the right to be allowed to draw breath.

Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is
not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells
their children to believe it.

Let us have the courage to accept that wanting to believe in something
with every fibre of our being does not and cannot make it true.

Truth needs no help, no believers, no bowed heads and no amens."

What is the conscious mind?

2007-06-20T10:25:00.000+01:00

“The conscious mind is a spin doctor, not the commander in chief. It is the great rationalizer, spouting off convincing (and false) reasons for why we do what we do."
(Pinker)

I write a blog on schizophrenia and one on religion. This quotation appears on both.

Monastica Toxicum Totus

2007-06-15T23:54:00.000+01:00

"Monastica Toxicum Totus"

I hope this is Latin for "Religion poisons everything". Can any scholars out there confirm this?

2007-06-12T10:42:00.000+01:00

This is from Martin Willet, one of the Brights. It is very good but some of the phrasing needs attention if it is to become universal. Judging from this offering, Willet is be far better qualified than me to do that. He calls it:

An Atheists Prayer


Let us take responsibility for our own actions, inaction's, strengths
and frailties and not project them onto ghosts, spirits, stars,
portents and gods unseen.

Let us have the courage to accept that one person's faith is another
person's bloody-minded pig-headed refusal to accept the obvious.

Let us have the courage to accept that the person at the front of all
crowds, including this one, doesn't know all the answers.

Let us have the wisdom to accept that if our ancestors had fared
differently in wars our communities would be holding different
absurdities up as sacred truths, and the willingness to accept those
absurdities would be seen as the badge of social trustworthiness or
even the right to be allowed to draw breath.

Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is
not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells
their children to believe it.

Let us have the courage to accept that wanting to believe in something
with every fibre of our being does not and cannot make it true.

Truth needs no help, no believers, no bowed heads and no amens.

Hitler's religion

2007-06-07T23:47:00.000+01:00

I wrote this some years ago. The topic has been thoroughly covered many times elsewhere but many Christians are still in denial so it needs to be said again.

It is quite common to hear Christians claim that Hitler and his followers were Atheists or that the Third Reich was anti religious. This is far from true.

Hitler was raised as a catholic in a culture seething with the influences of Christianity. Any visitor to Germany will see that every small settlement has at least one church, some villages have several and most towns can still boast magnificent church buildings. I have visited a few myself.

In 1933 the German Freethinkers League, a following mainly of intelectual atheists with about half a million members, was disbanded by the Nazis.

There can be no doubt that Hitler believed in a Christian god and regarded himself as a Christian.

The following quotes are translations from Hitler's speeches - I make no apologies for pilfering them from the following excellent source: http://www.atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/library/quotes/bl_q_AHitler.htm where you will find 60 quotes.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work".
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46]

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people."
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]

"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."
[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."
[Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]

"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
[Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]

"And the founder of Christianity. made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."
[Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.174]

"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."
[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 1]

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."
[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity. .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years."
[The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]

I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it. [Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. [Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]

The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I]

Religion and social occasions

2007-06-07T23:42:00.000+01:00

Family members often have no sense of the offence they cause.

You will, of course, wish to attend. Many people tolerate religious practices on social occasions through habit, tradition or reluctance to appear difficult. These occasions are important to us all but you still have a duty to make it known that you are offended and that you are attending only out of respect for your hosts. In this way you can make your objections clear without causing offence yourself.

We should be more assertive in ensuring that communal, social events are secular, inclusive and devoid of the supernatural.

Religion: Victims and Perpetrators

2007-06-06T13:29:00.000+01:00

The religious can be divided into two categories; victims and perpetrators.

Most believers are victims. They cannot help themselves and continue to cling to irrational ideas and behaviour they learnt when they were young. It is pointless to try to reason with these people. They cannot change despite a complete lack of evidence for their beliefs. They are easily led and will accept the most absurd ideas promulgated by the institutions or individuals they see as higher in their religious hierarchy. When confronted by a religious individual the enlightened observer should show compassion just as one should when faced with someone displaying the symptoms of a conventional illness.

However, just as with a conventional illness, we have a duty to prevent the spread of the disorder. Hence we have a right to insist that religious practices take place in private, away from our own children. Hence, the move in the UK toward more faith schools is immoral. It is our duty to resist the indoctrination of future generations.

Perpetrators are people who like to “spread the word”; religious teachers, church officials and other members of a religious hierarchy. There are clear secular reasons for their actions. They suffer from the same needs as the rest of us. They want to feel important. We all want to find a pecking order to climb. Even the simple minded evangelist who tries to bring you the “good news” on your doorstep wants to persuade you that he knows something that you do not. If he can draw you in then he is nearer the top than you. He got the message first.

The preacher with a congregation has surely found heaven on earth. He stands in a special place, everyone listens. He might even be allowed to wear special clothes or, joy of joys, a silly hat.

Perpetrators may also be victims. Most religious practitioners do believe in the supernatural but some do not – they are in it for the money and power.
There is little point in discussing their ridiculous beliefs. They did not arrive at them through rational thought and no amount of argument will change their minds.

Whether they are justified or not is not the point – remember, they want to feel important. All you need to do is show a complete lack of deference.

If everyone around you is reverent it is very difficult for an individual to step out of line and show contempt. It would be easy to appear to be rude or disrespectful of the others in the audience.
As an enlightened observer you know that it is not a god that is slighted but the man in the silly hat. However, by remaining acquiescent you will appear to indicate an acceptance of this person’s elevated position and special knowledge. As an enlightened observer you need to find an acceptable way of showing your disdain.

Is the church onto a nice little earner at the taxpayers expense?

2007-06-02T13:20:00.000+01:00

I have a close relative in sheltered accommodation supported by the taxpayer. The landlord of the property is an organisation calling themselves "English Churches".

I have just seen the breakdown of expenses for the rent of this room. The item for rent is £61 (sterling) per week. There is an extra for £30 service charges giving £91 per week altogether. There are three occupants giving £183 per week rent or £732 per month going to the landlord. As I peruse my local paper I see that this is very close to the commercial rate in this vicinity.

Presumably as a religious charity English Churches benefits from generous tax concessions. House prices have risen sharply in this area so the house has been a very lucrative investment in other ways.

From these figures it seems that English Churches is onto a nice little earner at the taxpayers expense. I think its charitable status should be in question.

Hitler - the devout catholic.....

2007-05-30T16:54:00.000+01:00

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith.
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,
and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have
stamped it out."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

I have an alloy belt buckle gifted to my father-in-law by a German officer during WW2. The leather belt has perished but the buckle is well preserved. It bears the message

"GOTT MIT UNS"

Which means 'God with us'. The german officers in the internment camps guarded by my father-in-law often prayed.

There is a lot of other reliable evidence testifying to the Nazis respect for religion and antagonism toward atheism. It is easy to find many similar quotations from Hitler's speeches, books and letters.

The widespread notion that the Nazi regime was purely secular or atheist in nature is clearly untrue. At best there has been a successful propaganda coup by the churches. There may be a very dirty story waiting to be uncovered.

Atheist donates to Catholic schools

2007-05-28T11:12:00.000+01:00

I saw this headline today:

Atheist Hedge Fund Manager In Boost To Catholic Schools

I have said in earlier postings that we Atheists are ignoring the successful tactics used by the churches. When wealthy Atheists are looking around for good causes do they see trusted, established, well publicised Atheist organisations doing 'good work'. Not really. There are plenty of secular institutions connected to the state or big business but I do not see similar bodies aligned specifically to Atheists or Brights.

I hope I am wrong in this. Please demolish my argument by posting worthy examples.

Atheism is just another religion?

2007-05-27T10:21:00.000+01:00

I have recently read that some notable godsuckers are claiming that Atheism is nothing more than a new minority religion. Calling Atheism another religion is like calling perfect health a disease or like a creature without floppy ears, no trunk and no tusks is another type of elephant.

Perhaps not playing football is a sport?

"Are you into sport"

"Oh yes. I don't play football"

"Didn't you play any football yesterday."

"No, and I didn't play football the day before or any day before that."

"Aren't you going to play today."

"No, I never play football"

" I think you are a bit of a fanatic. All this not playing football has turned you into a fundamentalist not football player."

Exit stout party.

100 new church schools!

2007-05-22T11:09:00.000+01:00

That happy-clappy Blair has sneaked the godsuckers in under the democratic radar. Despite a steady collapse in church attendance and over 50% of voters agreeing that sectarian schools work against social cohesion I read that the Church of England plans to take over 100 new schools, at the taxpayers expense. The report added that they will accept children of all faiths or non. I am sure this will be the case but you can be sure that all head teachers, senior and pastoral staff will be christian. The bias toward accepting and promoting superstition and the supernatural is inevitable. This is very bad news.

There are no atheists in foxholes.

2007-05-13T11:53:00.000+01:00

Actually I did know an atheist who was in a fox hole. As the shells burst all around him he did not think of prayer or consider turning to religion. Sixty years later he still denies the existence of god so it is not true that there are no atheists in foxholes.

However, he does have a worrying reverence for foxes.

An Atheist Symbol

2007-04-28T11:11:00.000+01:00

There is talk about a symbol for atheists.
I quite like this one:

Prejudice from the BBC

2007-04-22T23:37:00.000+01:00

I sent the following to the BBC yesterday. I don't suppose it will make any difference.

"I am an Atheist and proud of it. I do not steal, cheat or lie. I have been married to the same woman for 38 years and have never been disloyal. I give regularly to charities and several hours of my time every week to helping the disabled. I have morals and live ethically and yet I am not good enough to expect fair representation on Thought for The Day. The inference is that because I do not accept the supernatural I am in some way inferior. By their implications, I am regularly deeply offended by statements broadcast on this programme. "

Morality without Religion

2007-04-18T11:31:00.000+01:00

I rarely discuss atheism or morality with religious people. It is a waste of time. As I have said before, most are infected (indoctrinated) with something similar to a disease for which, at present, we have no cure. They cannot change.

However we sometimes need to counter a few facile arguments.

I have recently read that many christians believe that I cannot have morality or live ethically without a belief in a god. For instance, if it would enhance my own survival or reproductive potential it would be right to commit murder, rape or theft for example. I have even been told that I am moral because I was raised in a religious community (true) and it is that and not my atheism that makes me such a good person. So I will give just one reason why I don't strangle the next cross dangling idiot I see.

If I argue that, say, theft is acceptable, then it is acceptable for others to do the same. I may gain temporarily if I steal from others but in the long term I would lose because there are many other people who would steal from me. So it is in my interests to encourage a complete ban on theft.

Conversely, it follows that it is in my interests to encourage altruism.

But I do not have to have worked all this out in order to act morally. Societies with a significant number of individuals that do not adopt similar principles are unstable. I act morally because my ancestors survived and in order to do so they had to act morally.

So, whether we work out how to behave or inherit a predisposition (perhaps by being susceptible to religion) we can still be moral.

panj

Putrid, disgusting, corpse won't stay down.

2007-03-31T12:17:00.000+01:00

I have not been too annoyed at the fuss over the of the chocolate sculpture of Jesus. Some right wing catholics have complained that this nude figure is disrespectful so the artist has agreed it will not be displayed. The incident does much to demonstrate the confused bigotry of some Christians.

But it did get me thinking more about the resurrection myth and prompted me to pose a question.

How did the friends and relatives of this man know he was dead in the first pace?

The body must have done what other dead bodies do. After a few hours the muscles would stiffen and the body would become rigid - otherwise they would say he was not dead.

The body would begin to ooze fluids from various orifices - otherwise observers would say it was not dead.

Blood would move under gravity and begin to coagulate. The body would assume different shades of reds, blues and yellows as corpses do. Jesus would look especially awful because he had been physically mistreated. If the body did not display these changes observers would have claimed it was not dead.

Within the three day period before it came back to life flies would have deposited eggs and it would have begun to smell. This is a very hot country.

So, for the people around the corpse to agree that it was dead all these things had to occur.
Then, this revolting, stinking, oozing, fly ridden cadaver gets up and walks about. The Romans say nothing about this. There are no riots. There is no hysteria.

Utter rubbish. The Christian version of the resurrection is nothing but a silly, risible fairy tale. Anyone who believes in its actual truth is a stupid, gullible idiot.

The truth is that Jesus did not come back to life in a real sense. He, and his ideas, re-emerged in peoples minds only. That, I do believe.

Yet more bleating against the storm.

2007-03-29T19:22:00.000+01:00

I get several alerts per day from Atheist sites, blogs and news articles. Much of the discussion centres around why we should not believe this or that. It is all well argued, encouraging and intellectually challenging - but I still say some very clever Atheists are missing an important point.
We seem to be set on trying to stop people from pursuing and diseminating their chosen lifestyle. We will make no progress this way. We should be ignoring the faithfull and concentrate on building our own empires. Where is our equivalent of the Synod, the Vatican, or the Muslim Council.

Are Atheists a waste of space?

2007-03-28T18:46:00.000+01:00

Some months ago I joined the UK Brights forum. A few hundred members produce scores of emails per day, mostly criticising religion. After a year I see very little progress. Do the majority of church members waste their time criticising us? Of course not. They are too busy indoctrinating, collecting and building.

Messing with the dead.

2007-02-23T15:20:00.000Z

I have just returned from the funeral of a close relative. This is the fourth I have attended in a couple of years. Three were Christian and one was humanist in essence. In each there was a little tradition which made me uncomfortable. The body was dressed, posed and in the case of the two women their own make up was applied. They were then put on show.

Am I being weird in regarding this practice as hideous.

To illustrate a point:

2007-02-08T23:28:00.000Z

I said earlier

"They have iconic buildings, a hierarchy, PR and rewards...... They look important. Atheists don't look important."

This is a new 8 million pound temple under construction in Gravesend. It will be clad in marble with gold decorations. It will look very important and will bestow considerable significance upon the religion it represents. The followers of this religion constitute a tiny minority of the UK population. They might believe in fairy tales but they know how to recruit and they are winning.

Re comments to "Why waste time"

2007-02-06T19:58:00.000Z

Nullifidian wrote:

"I wouldn't have any interest in being part of an organisation with an ordained hierarchy: spokespeople and organisers and chairs elected by popular vote or maybe at random, yes, but not individuals considered as superior simply by virtue of title or longevity."

I can agree with this. I sometimes make statements that are imprecise and transfer ideas which are not meant. Thank you to the other commentators who have helped to clarify some other points.

Nevertheless, we have to admit that religious organisations are very successful and for purely secular reasons. They do not have a god on their side. Perhaps we should have the humility to emulate and adapt some of their techniques, at least until we have gained more influence.

Why waste time?

2007-02-06T10:32:00.000Z

I remember being recently approached by an "in your face" goddy eager to impress a gullible entourage grinning stupidly a few metres behind him. He judged very quickly that I was not good bible bashers' fodder and made his escape.

Many modern atheists should learn from this. We are wasting our time debating with people already lost to religious indoctrination. They cannot change, it is too late for them. We should apply our energies to gathering our own forces and preventing more damage being done to future generations.

Organisations such as the National Secular Society, the Brights and the Humanist movement do not have the right structure and incentives for the job. We need to look closely behind the psychology used by the churches. They have iconic buildings, a hierarchy, PR and rewards - and they demand lots of cash from devotees. They look important. Atheists don't look important.

2007-01-24T12:04:00.000Z

Now the catholics want special exemption from the Gay Equality laws regarding adoption. They want their state aided adoption agencies to be allowed to refuse adoption status to Gay couples.

Yet another example of "religious privilege".

The big catholic boss man said we should allow such exemptions where "conscience" is involved.

I believe that catholics are unfit to raise children. I regard the indoctrination of children into a superstitious and supernatural worldview as child abuse. This is a sincerely held belief and is a matter of conscience. Should other adoption agencies be allowed to turn away catholics if they hold similar beliefs?