Thursday, 30 April 2009

Football and gods. My dreadful hypocrisy?

And I mean PROPER football! Sorry my American friends but when you CARRY the ball for most of the game, it's a bit of a misnomer. Our beautiful game is not 'soccer'! Grrr. ;-)

If you are passionate about something, it can be frustrating when people don't have the same ideas. For example, I see NO reason why anybody should support Tottenham Hotspurs (AKA - 'The Scum'). They are a grossly overrated team who are the inferior London rivals of Arsenal. Whenever I meet such a misguided fan, I feel an urge to mock them. Remorselessly.

But I'm mature enough to realise that it is all banter. Some of it is very insulting, quite often abusive, but football does bring out a savage tribe mentality in its fans. (Impressively, you don't seem to get this in American sports.) So when fans say football is their 'religion', they are not far wrong.
  • It sometimes requires a heroic amount of faith.
  • You often deny the obvious flaws in your team's performance and blame others. (The ref being a common reciever of my displeasure!)
  • Everyone else's team is rubbish!
  • You spend far too much time devoted to your team which could be better spent doing many other things.
  • You spend far too much money to prove your loyalty.
  • You evangalise about your team to the point of obnoxiousness!
  • You find yourself doing little rituals to change the outcome of the game.
  • You wear clothing that identifies you with your team.
  • You encourage your children to follow your team. Being a Man United fan would be a terrible, terrible crime against everything you stand for.
  • No-one will ever persuade you to support anyone else.
Oh my non-existent gods... I am a football equivalent of a creationist!!!
And the scary thing is that you can't become an 'Afootballist'.

I think I am beyond saving ;-)

Tuesday, 28 April 2009

Alpha? Considering... being converted?

Well, it is my blog. So if I want to rant about stuff... but I also have a responsibility to give a more positive view of atheists. It's too easy for us to poke fun at people who believe in superstition, ritual, chance, planetary alignments, ghosts, lucky charms and stuff.

I do feel, in retrospect, that I did sink to a little bit of 'mocking' religion and that does not do atheism any favours. After all, we have the right to claim a higher morality since humanists care about everyone and we truly believe we are fairer than the harsh black and white laws of what ancient misogynistic priests interpreted from their positions of power.

In my continuing browsings of the web, I came across this wonderful piece of advice for potential worshippers...
"It should be noted that Christianity is a religion based upon relationship, not knowledge. It is a religion of faith not logic. The information provided is to help answer questions, but ultimately you must believe in the Bible by faith. Because of who God is, we will always have questions. In order to have eternal life, we need to believe the words of Jesus that we are sinners and are in need of a Lord and Savior."

Brilliant! It contains all the best bits of religion. Patronising, demanding and a veiled threat.
1) 'Based on relationship, not knowledgee'. A slight put down to education and thinking for yourself. Am I not capable of forming a true relationship with anything?
2) 'Faith is more important than logic'. Because logically, there is no proof or even a real need for a god?
3) 'But ultimately you must believe in the bible by faith'. (See previous post - sorry) What bits exactly? All of it? The 'nice' parts? Do I take it literally or simply as a guide. Well take your pick from the 38000 christian denominations... (sigh)
4) 'Because of who god is, we will always have questions". But to ask them is the wrong thing to do apparently (see section 1) (further sighs...)
5) "You are sinners and in need of a lord and saviour". At least no mention of Hell, but an insult nonetheless.

Anyway, all this came as a result on what someone asked me a few months back. "Would you be interested in going to an Alpha course?" BTW - You can send them a question (be nice!) to be discussed - only 125 characters though!
Anyway, I actually wouldn't mind going. Like I have said before, I am an atheist morally, rationally, socially and all this was after a great deal of introspection on my part. Could religion offer a serious alternative? Would my life be improved as claimed by the brochure? Somehow I doubt it, but I don't want to be accused of being 'closed minded'.
All atheists are open to persuasion (seriously, it's true!) but we quite fairly ask for a scrap of proof - real proof mind! After all, an all-powerful god should be able to provide some undeniable evidence? Or at least NOT provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary!

So we get the 'faith' get out clause. That, my friends, is NOT an argument. It's a cop out! 'Faith' is the blanket stupid answer that I find insulting, patronising and clearly shows that there is no real basis for their point of view.
Just imagine if we said that we had 'faith' there was no god? Yeah, that's right. People WOULD laugh at us! All we can honestly say, is that there is a 'near certainty' that there are no gods. 'Faith' apparently is 100% (often 110%!) - There is no debating with some people... especially when they have a poor grasp of basic maths.

If there was an online version of the Alpha course. (I might suggest it) then I would definitely have a go. Maybe I will go to a session one day... :-)

Sunday, 26 April 2009

Thought for the day... The really convincing story!

Let me get this right...

According to Catholics - there is this three in one god who impregnated a virgin so he could then be born and sacrificed himself on a cross to save his own creation from his own wrath. All because a woman, who was made out of a rib, surprised him (an all knowing-god) by being convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magic tree. He then, temporarily, came back from the dead (being 'all-powerful' has advantages; the sacrifice wasn't permanent), we should all eat his flesh, drink his blood, talk telepathically to him whilst being constantly reminded we are all sinners (still!).
Failure to believe in this will result in a constant, unbelievable agony for eternity.

... yeah. Evolution is just soooo stupid.

I know there have been similar posts from other bloggers like this, but it feels good to remind ourselves what we are arguing against. (sigh)

Saturday, 25 April 2009

Persuasion with violence (cont...)

I thought I'd make this a post rather than it getting lost in the depths of comments... :-)

The idea is a 'Hell' is possibly one of the reasons I do not believe in mythology over reason. Funny, when you consider it was such an effective technique in medieval times!

An 'all loving' god that has the capacity to create such a dreadful place? Now there's your problem.

Fortunately, I don't believe in 'Hell'. Unfortunately, theists do. And it's the theists that actually want me to go to Hell scare me.
Let's think about it... there are things in the world that I would not wish on my worst enemies. There are things that I would not wish on ANYBODY.

But there ARE theists who wish the obscene, violent, suffering of Hell on me for ever! At the very least, they think I will go there and they don't have a problem with it! That is just sick. And I really pity them. To be so twisted by what they believe to be right, they can see no wrong in any of their actions.

Ladies and gentlemen, a fine example of religious morality! (sigh) And this in a world where people are outraged about conditions in prisons! Where liberals campaign about suspected terrorists tortured in Guantanamo Bay to keep our countries 'safe'. But when it's religion... oh of course - burn the heathens and followers of false (depending on where you live) religions. Make them SUFFER!!!

But, to keep a sense of balance...
I have had conversations with (much nicer) christians who believe that 'Hell' is merely the absence of a god. And because I would never be embraced by his love, it would be 'hell' in comparison.
This is a considerably more pleasant approach than the 'fire and brimstone' bollocks I so often hear. But I do argue that the bible does make it quite clear about what will happen to the likes of me. It all depends on what percentage of the bible you consider an analogy, I guess. ;-)

Personally, and I say this as a parent of three very well behaved children and as a teacher, threats do not convince people to behave. Only by setting a good example, treating people fairly and with respect, will you have any chance of getting a message across.

Thursday, 23 April 2009

Persusasion with violence. (Rape and religion?)

Well, I expect that this could be seen as inflammatory... ;-)

Imagine the situation where you have this powerful, charismatic person. He/she is adored by millions around the world and YOU have caught their attention. They want you to love them, to adore them, to fully obey their desires... but you are not interested. They try to persuade you more; you still want to be left alone. Feeling spurned, they get angry and threaten you. Not just mild threats, but threats of the most terrible violence imaginable - and the frightening thing is, you know they really mean it! No-one believes you - after all, you should be honoured but you insulted him/her so it is YOUR fault! You deserve to be treated this way...

Horrible isn't it?
But then I can play the 'analogy game'. ;-)

If that was a real situation, then you would sincerely hope that the perpetrator would be arrested. They are clearly insane, extremely dangerous and devoid of morals.

The point I'm trying to make (before theists accuse me of turning Jesus into a rapist) is that morally, how can you expect someone to give unconditional love, utter faith and devotion when the alternative is such an extreme level of punishment that far outweighs the 'crime'?
Surely the love of a god should be so great so that you could not possibly conceive not to love? Obviously not, since we have such a cruel and unusual punishment. Where is this free will? "Oh but you chose suffering." Yeah, obviously.

Maybe if there wasn't such a choice, I might have been agnostic. But since the bible so clearly personifies god with all these dysfunctional human failings, it makes me wonder if such a being could ever be worthy of my love.

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Things I do in the quest for a god...

Spent an hour on YouTube looking for 'enlightenment'. As I have said before I like to challenge my opinions, so where better will I find a range of ideas and opinions.

Yeah... I am still an atheist.

It's quite funny seeing ill informed opinions presented with such sincerity.

Play this game, watch a theist 'proof' and score points for the following:

"You can't prove god doesn't exist!"
"You can't prove [insert poorly researched scientific topic]"
"You are going to hell!"
"I found god [crazy eyed stare]" (My personal favourite)
"Atheists are stupid."
"Look at life. Therefore god exists!"
"My explanation is clearly better than an atheist one!"
"Darwin/ Dawkins/ Sagan is clearly wrong, why can't you see that!"
"The bible says so!"
"Hitler/ Mao/ Stalin etc..."
"[cyclic argument]"

There are plenty more. Feel free to add them to the comments. :-)

I might even come up with a proper scoring sheet that will give theists a 'blind faith score'.

BTW: Please vote on the new question. What percentage of the bible is true?

Last vote result.
Christian MINUS god = Nervous wreck!
Thanks to all that took part. :-)

Monday, 20 April 2009

Proofs of God (part 2b)

"Yeah, but evolution is only a theory... so god must exist!"


Seriously, you wouldn't believe the number of times I've heard this one... And the sad thing is, I always HAVE to respond, even though I know I'm wasting my breath!

(I do see the funny side though!)

Atheists finding god.

I now know of two people who have recently turned from a very strong atheist viewpoint to a full blown christian 'Dawkins is WRONG!" attitude.
Have they become better people? Hard to tell. I personally find their conversion irritating. And before I get a list of accusations from theists about what they believe I think - I shall explain.

Firstly, they were smart, intelligent people as atheists and they don't appear to have improved their moral stance since converting. One of them has become quite insufferable in fact due to their casual dismissal of scientific discoveries.

Secondly, they don't seem willing to explain why they are now christians. I would have thought they would be happy to share how they discovered the 'one true god'. (I assure you, I have not demanded that they explain themselves, or put them in a position of embarrassment.)

Thirdly, they simply dismiss any lack of evidence, historical errors or moral ambiguities as not important. They just believe. And that it seems, should be good enough for me.

Luckily for them, they have not attempted to claim the position of my moral better. Even they know that would be a VERY stupid mistake to make. ;-)

I am just extremely curious to know how they justified a U-turn in their thinking. It is especially important for me to know since I do 'look for god(s)' and to discover a real ex-atheist (I don't believe half the claimants on the web) it would be a great opportunity to see some real reasons for believing.

If I find out anything interesting, I'll let you know...

Saturday, 18 April 2009

Wine tasting?

Just to prove a point that its not just religion but other superstitious nonsense I find silly, here is an article about wine tasting.

It shows that Tesco and Marks & Spencer believe that the taste of wine is affected by the moon and the lengths they are going to to ensure it tastes 'right'. Apparently, the evidence is 'overwhelming' (sigh).

This 'biodynamic method' is gaining increasing popularity.

"Biodynamic winemaking is well established in France, Germany and the USA, and it mostly means avoiding chemical fertilisers and pesticides and encouraging biodiversity.

It also involves spraying the vines with preparations which sound more like witches' potions than agricultural aids. One involves fermenting cow manure in a cow horn, buried underground over winter. In another, oak bark is fermented in the skull of a domestic animal."

What I find a little amusing is the claim that it is a 'root day' from 8am (Sat) until 10am (Sun). I can just imagine the complaints during communion services across the country...

"Er... this blood of christ doesn't taste so nice today" ;-)

Wednesday, 15 April 2009

Proofs of God - part 2 - Intelligent design?

I only just found this today. If you haven't read it, it's worth a quick chuckle. :-)

Anyway, in my further attemps to find god(s) I am looking at 'Intelligent design'
The basic argument of creationists is "Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer." And then they go on to explain how a watch can't spontaneously appear. Animals are in a food web, simple cells are far too complex, the human eye, half a wing... the list is quite impressive!

You will have to forgive me, I am trying to blend an entire branch of science and popular mythology into a single post and hopefully trying to find some 'truth' :-) I'll try not to cause too much offense to either side.

Well, often the simplest idea is the best. And you don't get much simpler than ID. Why, it just explains EVERYTHING! So I suppose I could just go to bed happy (and many people do!)
Good night!

I see you are still here... thanks!

But the principle of ID is the single premise that there HAS to be a creator for there to be... 'stuff'. And where is the proof of that? Er... the bible says so. I don't believe that there were any first hand witnesses to creation... except god. And the bible isn't exactly accurate at times. (Seriously, don't even bother to argue that. You WILL look stupid.)
OK, we have the fact that we are incredibly complex and even the simplest forms of life have intricate systems that are quite simply... amazing! But the idea is that we were all designed this way. Pre-constructed and ready to go! Every creature on the planet has a role to play, every plant has a reason, nature is primed and set up for humans to live in perfect harmony on Earth...

And along came Charles Darwin with his dangerous idea: every species on the planet has evolved and adapted to their environments. Not put on the planet, by a god, but changed over thousands - millions - of years to survive and breed. Not necessarily 'Survival of the fittest' - that is just the 'TV soundbite' version which oversimplifies the process, but a series of almost insignificant, sometimes random changes or mutations that sometimes improve the chance of the species' survival.

This seems to make sense. Our similarity to other primates, cavemen, fossils, extinction of dinosaurs, the age of the Earth, the purpose of the appendix, 'junk' DNA, actual observed changes in species...

...or because the bible says so. Creationists (some of them), to their credit, look to science to explain their creation theory. And there are some great websites out there. However, for the purposes of my research, I tend to look at sites that contain both sides of the argument. is possibly the best mix of debates you can come across on the internet. Evolutionists need their theories challenged! That is what makes science so awe inspiring. The fact it is allowed to be disproved, improved or debated.

So if Darwin is correct, then the claim that we are made in god's image is simply wrong and it brings into doubt the validity of the bible and its claims made in the book of Genesis.

If the bible is correct, then we have all this evidence that attempts to disprove the bible. What would be the purpose in that? Perhaps it is an elaborate miracle that is there to test the faithful and punish the reasoned thinkers. Seems a bit unfair to me. (I'm one of those people who always look both ways before crossing the road.)

The catholic stance has changed over the centuries. You can believe in god and accept evolution - the modern christian idea is that god must have had some part in the process and accept that the Genesis story is just an allegory.
Lo and behold! And there we have proof of religious evolution! ;-)

Intelligent design? I'm not even sure that we are designed that well! We are prone to illnesses, injuries, back problems, limited understanding or our surroundings, easily fooled by illusions, misinterpret information, violent by nature, subject to a range of emotions, take risks needlessly, have a method of reproduction that can be quite dangerous, the list could go on... We are NOT designed 'intelligently'! Unless of course, this 'god' has a warped sense of humour!

My conclusion? Evolution has, by far, the greatest wealth of evidence supporting it. It does not explain why there is life but shows us our place in nature. Not as chosen masters, but as part of an amazing journey with nature.

Monday, 13 April 2009

Faith, Darwin and superstitions in the UK

Fascinating report on Faith in the UK.

It shows that the UK is a varied mix of beliefs in religions and, more surprisingly, an increase in superstitious ideas. I haven't read it all yet, but it's good to share. :-)
The BBC link contains a summary of some of the points, but still suggests that we are an increasingly secular society.

Only 55% believe in a heaven. (But 70% believe in a soul)
4 in 10 believe in ghosts? 27% believe in reincarnation?
22% in horoscopes! (Oh come on!)

Seems that as some people turn from religion, they still feel the need fill their minds with irrational 'gap fillers'.

I'm really looking forward to the theistic viewpoint of this survey. Will they see it as a 'further moral decline'? Will it be condemned as an irrational false belief? (The irony would probably escape them!) Will it lead to us all suffering eternal damnation by the devil as we veer from the true path of christ? Will they blame atheists?

Sunday, 12 April 2009

Proofs of a god. (Part 1 + Intro)

I'm no philosopher but I'm a freethinker and I enjoy having a philosophical debate with anyone.
And as an atheist (and scientist) I look for evidence to support either side of any argument. It's certainly not 'betraying' any atheist belief. I regularly adapt and improve on my moral stances and opinions as more evidence and experience presents itself.
For example, being a child in the 1970s, TV programs were quite happy to show ethnic minorities in a negative light. Shows like 'Mind Your Language' or 'Love Thy Neighbour' were family shows that I did find funny and formed my opinions of race. In hindsight, we now know them to be offensive and they would be rightly criticised if they were produced today.

I have decided to take time to look for evidence or proofs of a god's existence. I already know of several people who have converted to religion - some of them from a very staunch atheist opinion - and several who have made a choice based on what 'suits' them best. Naturally, I am curious as to what convinced them however I commonly find that they are either (1) embarrassed (2) reluctant (3) condescending (4) aggressive (5) simply unable to explain. Sometimes several combinations of that list.

I am going to do my own research. I did something similar in my early twenties and in all fairness, I think it is time for a review. It is quite possible that I may be convinced by the arguments. I may reject my atheistic viewpoint and possibly become agnostic. It could equally mean that I further reinforce my views. Can I be truly objective? I can only try. Even on a subconscious level I still have my ideas and thinking patterns.

As atheists, I believe we would be doing ourselves a great disservice if we did not question our 'non-beliefs' occasionally. ;-)

Proof 1: The Ontological Argument. (Summary)

Premise 1: By definition, if it is possible that God exists, then God exists
Premise 2: It is possible that God exists
Therefore, God exists

This is Anselm of Canterbury's proof:
1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God exists in the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality
And not content with that, another one:
1. God is the entity than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must therefore be necessary.
4. Hence, God exists necessarily.
There are quite a few others and if you are interested, look them up. But essentially, the summary is what is being said.

There are some interesting articles about this:
Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1977), from Michael Peterson et al, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, (Oxford, 1996), p. 158.
He defends this argument quite rigorously.

But I can see a major flaw in this. This proof will allow ANYTHING to exist. Lo and behold, I have just conjured up a parrot with an IQ of 500. I have just done another one... a creator of gods!
Maybe I'm just being facetious here but this seems a pretty weak proof.
It is an assumption from the very start that attempts to justify itself in the following statements.

Platinga further argues that:
"it must be conceded that not everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise - that the existence of a maximally great being is possible - will accept it. Still, it is evident, I think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise. What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability."

The problem here lies in that it assumes it is an acceptable method of proof and claims that belief in a god is at the very least rational.
I'm sure the Flying Spaghetti Monster would agree. (Hello, Your Noodleness!)

Many theologians deny this as a reasonable proof since it often creates scorn from both theists and atheists. But as a starting point for a theological discussion, I think it is a good start.

So at the end of the first proof, we have the idea that a god (whatever shape, form or existence) is possible. I don't believe it is rational. It would be considered irrational to believe in everything I could imagine. And I have a particularly vivid imagination!

So I would concede, a god is possible. Provided that theists concede that my ultra intelligent parrot is possible, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible and many other imaginative constructs are indeed possible.

In whole, the purpose of this argument appears to be to create doubt in the atheist mind and supposedly allowing theists to then claim that they are now possibly an agnostic. Very sneaky! ;-)

I will finish with an alternative proof by Douglas Gasking:

1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

Further reading and in more detail:

As always, comments are welcome. :-)

Friday, 10 April 2009

Bishop angered by Good Friday TV

The Bishop of Down and Dromore in Northern Ireland has said people should boycott television on Good Friday. (BBC News)

If people wanted to have their 'souls fed' then they can go to church. I don't really see why TV should have to pick up on the failings of churches to encourage newcomers.

BTW there is a new episode of Red Dwarf on tonight. (Dave Channel 9:00pm)
And I will make a point of watching The Life of Brian on DVD as well.

Thursday, 9 April 2009

Easter and Atheism

Ah, gotta love a holiday. :-)

I like to stay out of the 'Should Easter-time be a non religious holiday?" or "Should atheists be allowed to celebrate Easter?" but I will stick a few of my thoughts down.

1) I live in the UK where Easter is considered a national holiday. So I would be mad to ignore it on non-religious grounds. I simply love spending time with my family, seeing friends, writing, playing and relaxing.
2) I love chocolate. It's a weakness, but any excuse...
3) It has its origins in pagan beliefs, hundreds of years before christianity. We still carry those traditions today.
4) Is it hypocritical of me to celebrate the holiday? No. See point 3. Just because a church wanted to claim that time of year for their own purpose? BTW, I find paganism equally as silly (but considerably more fun than christianity!)
5) It's a part of British culture and history - of which religion is only a part.

So will I celebrate this time of year? Yes.
Will I demand that theists admit they hijacked a pagan celebration; insist they don't take part in pagan rituals like the giving of eggs? No.

Neither side is going to budge, let's enjoy the holiday. :-) *

* Disclaimer- If I do hear something from the church on TV claiming a 'moral monopoly' or how 'important it is to have religion in our lives' then it will be open season on bigots.

Wednesday, 8 April 2009

Hindu funeral pyres

There is a debate that has now reached the British High Courts about whether a devout Hindu should be allowed to have an open funeral pyre for his death.
When words such as 'dignity' and 'human rights' are used, then it will invoke powerful emotions in all who take an interest. As a humanist and an atheist I can see different sides of the argument.

1) He sincerely believes that it will benefit him in the next life.
2) Open air cremations are an important part of Hindu culture.
3) There is currently no provision for an open air cremation.

I personally am not against the idea of an open air cremation. And Mr Ghai agrees that there should be regulation involved. But what does concern me is the argument used.

Religion. A religious right?

It seems that the religious trump card is being played again. Why should this have any bearing on the case?

Seriously. Think about it. Do you think I would stand a chance in court if I said that, "I am an atheist and I demand an open funeral pyre in accordance with my non-belief!"

Personally, I would LOVE a big fire (and fireworks) but I really don't think I would stand a chance in court. Mind you, if Mr Ghai gets his wish, then I think I might actually have a go... (Actually my inevitable death will be the subject of a future post.)

Good luck Mr Ghai, it DOES mean a lot to you and your family and, as we are a multi culture country, I sincerely hope that there will be a decision in your favour made in the High Court.

As of yet, no decision has been reached.

Tuesday, 7 April 2009

Racism and Jesus?

I missed this earlier.

The BNP (British National Party - Bunch of racist homophobes who have hijacked the British flag and claim persecution to their cause - IMHO) have set up a series of billboards with Jesus on it as a way of recruiting more christians!
BNP Article here. BBC opinion here.
This appears to be a direct retaliation from the General Synod who voted against allowing clergy to become a member of the BNP. (BTW - 10% of the Synod did not vote in favour of the ban, makes you wonder how morally secure they are!)
Link here.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. After all, I'm benefiting from it right now. I would even argue to allow the BNP their right to have a voice in politics. Just as I have the right to criticise and pull apart their opinions.
I just wonder if the BNP consider that they have the moral high ground? But then the bible does have very useful rules on how to treat your slaves, who you are allowed to persecute, what respect you should give others and details the eternal suffering for those who don't follow these ideals.
Some members of the church might even adopt the BNP as their poster boys! ;-)

Sunday, 5 April 2009

You are praying in the wrong direction!!!

This was laugh out loud funny.

Brilliant. Apparently some 200 mosques in Mecca (Islam's holiest city) point the wrong way to pray.

And according to the BBC: "Some worshippers are said to be anxious about the validity of their prayers."

If you are one of those unfortunate theists, then let me assure you that you are indeed going to Hell! Ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of your god as you quite clearly did not perform your sacred duties!

Further clarification can be seen in this helpful website below. :-)

Shame. Looks like they have been wasting their time praying... oh the irony!

Thursday, 2 April 2009

Papal Whacking...

So it looks like the Poop got the majority.

41.7% Would cheer if the Pope got punched.
58.3% Said they wouldn't.

Reassuringly, you seem to be a more pacifist bunch of readers :-)
However I do have now way of knowing whether it was atheists or theists voting either way. (I know plenty of theists who would be happy to cheer if the Poop did get punched!)

Considering this man (nothing special, just a man) has such persuasive power in the world, and he can make such blatantly stupid statements such as 'condoms spread AIDS' and as a result WILL cause the unnecessary deaths of thousands, a little dark part of me would think "He deserved it."

Next vote coming soon :-)

PS. I am really enjoying being a blogroll member of the 'Atheist Blogroll'. I've had some great comments, I'm enjoying other people's blogs and it does make you feel as if you are part of a massive campaign for rationality. Dip in and see for yourself!