Subscribe to Charlie Hebdo Or Just Buy the Next Issue

here We must make this a sell out. 1 million copies. Pah! They have underestimated.

The Charlie Hebdo Massacre Proves All Religion Is Evil

I had very much lost interest in this blog. I have been developing the worthing skeptics website instead and also maintaining its twitter account. The Charlie Hebdo massacre changed everything. If I had met the Charlie guys in the pub I know I would have liked them. Their murderers are now without challenge the most hated people on this planet. I know that they did not kill as many people as Hitler etc. But their most hated status is deserved. Hitler is dead. Others who share their faith leap to disassociate themselves and claim that theirs is a god of peace. This is a lie. It is no less a lie when christians and jews say it. All of their holy books are founded on hatred of others and the absolute necessity of inflicting genocide on those others. Other religions have learned to take cover. They work from within and do not murder people. The simple fact remains: ALL RELIGION IS EVIL.

Hell for Hitchens

Bryan Fischer demonstrating the insane logic of a psychopathically deluded christian:

To pray or to think?

Dawkins and Fry on Hitchens' Penchant for the... by FORAtv

Sack Maria Miller: Essential Resources

She may only have to pay back £5,800 but the capital gain and the dodgy bit where she benefits her parents clearly show that she is just another snout in the trough.

See updates on the saga here.

This is frequently updated and the best place to go. After all, the saga must be nearing its inevitable close.

Listen to the blatant attempt at blackmailing the Telegraph:



Sign the Petition here.

This is a modest petition letting her off with a £45,000 payback.

Attempts to launch a petition on the government website are in the dozens but all attempts so far have been rejected. Go here.

Listening to Grayling

If my previous post did not convince you to read The God Argument this will; unless you believe in god. In that case, you dare not either listen or learn.

If you believe in a god , this may be your best shot:



Or if you like some moving pictures with your debate or like to watch obvious flim-flam nonsense advanced with confidence watch this:




Or read this:

Grayling: Messiah to Dawkins's John the Baptist?

I bring The Good News. Professor Grayling's The God Argument:The Case Against Religion and for Humanism is better than The God Delusion. I write as a Dawkins fan but this is calmer, more philosophical (as one might expect), and might appeal to other sections of the audience. Underlying the calmness is, however, a ruthless logic and rationality - you will even understand the difference between those two descriptors when you have read part one.

This is not a review but a preliminary impression because I only downloaded the book very recently and am only just about to read part two. Part two embarks on different territory to that covered by Dawkins; if I attempt a review it will be after I have read that.

I have read various responses to Dawkins, most recently The Dawkins Delusion by McGrath (whose delusional self-belief manifests itself, and whose disreputable rhetorical devices manifest themselves, on virtually every page). Professor Grayling's less fire and brimstone approach may render him less susceptible to such pathetic attempts at refutation but, in the end, our religionist bretheren will find his text no more consoling; and no less contemptuous of their incapacity for rational thought.

Read this book.

Romney Not a Complete Moron

It is tempting to classify all mormons as moronic by definition, given their weird beliefs - even by christian standards, but it was not until 37 minutes through  the documentary that Romney began to come across as such. This was when he made the 47% remark condemning that percentage of his fellow Americans for their failure to pay taxes.

Fourth Diatribe: The One Child

That Christians are deluded is not always best demonstrated by criticism of their writings. Just watch McGrath's eyes.

The one child issue arises about two thirds of the way through the above video.

McGrath is, of course, intellectually dishonest. His book The Dawkins Delusion refers to lectures he has given that demonstrate that Dawkins is wrong and, indeed, he tells us that he converted an atheist who was present at one of them. Publish the lectures. His book is short. He tells us that he is not going to deal with a large number of Dawkins' arguments because "those books will be written".

Third Diatribe: The Satanic Hierarchy (Catholic Version - blog interruptus}

If you are a catholic priest you must feel in need of forgiveness, even if you have done nothing wrong.

James Joyce told the rest of us quite a lot. Indeed I believe I know you intimately. No, I didn't mean it that way. Get your hand off my willy.

Second Diatribe: The Satanic Hierarchy (Anglican Version)

It is Sunday. So you get two posts for the price of one. This is an atheist tradition. I just invented it so it is now holy scripture.

The priesthood is not corrupt because of the fact that vestments enable child sex abusers to host tea parties for little children. This is less of a problem for Anglican priests (as opposed to Catholic priests) since they are at least allowed to have wives to fuck. It is still a problem, however. But, that is to confuse a single consequence (among many other undesirable consequences, equally inevitable) with an underlying cause.

One of the underlying causes is simply a matter of nomenclature.

For a religion based on the kid's philosophy to have generated such a list of titles is inherently evil and points to deeper levels of corruption. For instance:

The Most Revd and Rt Hon the Lord Archbishop
The Most Revd the Lord Archbishop
The Rt Revd and Rt Hon the Lord Bishop
The Rt Revd the Lord Bishop
The Rt Revd
The Very Revd the Dean
The Very Revd the Provost
The Ven the Archdeacon
The Revd Canon
The Revd Prebendary
Rural Dean
The Revd Professor
The Revd Dr
The Revd

What does Revd signify?

It is an abbreviation of "Reverend".

What does Reverend mean?

One who is to be revered. There is an alternative meaning but it is no better: one who must be respected (begging the question: for what?)

What did God say?

Well, you know that. He said he was the main man (I'm the Daddy) and you shall have none else.

Would the Daddy have approved all of these tin pot reverends aggrandising reverence for themselves?

No. The gates of hell are swinging wide open and the more "mosts" and "right honourables" they add to their self-diagnosed deservation for the reverence of us mortals the wider they gape.

Footnote

Deservation will not be in your dictionary. Deservedness will be. I like my word better.

First Diatribe: The Corruption of Prayer

In the beginning was one prayer, now there is prayer for the day on radio 4.

And He said unto them, “When ye pray, say: Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in Heaven, so on earth.

Give us day by day our daily bread.

And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

Or in Matthew

In this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name.

Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Thine is the Kingdom, and the power and the glory for ever. Amen.

One of the kid's disciples badgered him into it because John had done it before. So the kid gave him a prayer, the prayer. He did not say - go forth and multiply. He did not say, now go away and create a million banal prayers of your own. The kid said if you need a prayer, ok, here's a nice simple one, covers all the bases. Don't fuck around with it.

All subsequent prayers are therefore blasphemy perpetuated by harlot priests. That, as you know, opens the gateway to hell.

Brian 1 Spanish Inquisition nil

Reverend Professor Richard Burridge has recanted for the past sins of the church in denouncing Brian. 

Brian is now back on the list for canonisation and tipped to make rapid progress after earlier setbacks in lower divisions. We wish him well (and a good goal average) in the forthcoming season.

Muggeridge and Stockwood (see video) are now wholly discredited.

Burridge is himself mistaken, of course, but we forgive him for that. Better a penitent sinner who has wholly missed the point than an unpenitent believer who otherwise displays outward (but misleading) signs of a capacity for sentience.

Of course, Life of Brian is blasphemous you idiot. Cleese and Palin were just being polite because blasphemy is against the law. The poor old fairies at the bottom of my garden have no redress when I defame them (as I often do) other than to pour magic dust all over my porridge (which they often do). If I insult your imaginary friend then that should be exactly the same kind of redress you are entitled to; an imaginary one.

How old am I?

If you're 26 how old does that make me? Let's see. 2013 minus 26 is 1987.I was born before you so I am at least 26. No that is wrong. I was born in a later month than you so I am only at least 25. But Emily was born before you so, assuming I am also her father, I have to add the difference between your ages to my base figure. You are 26 (we'll assume that for now so that we can make this equation work) and she is (given that she was born two years earlier than you) 26 plus 2 equals 28, but she was born in an earlier month than you so we have to add one to that giving 29. The difference between 26 and 29 is 3. Adding 3 to my base figure of 25 gives 28 so I am at least 28. This would make me younger than Emily so, assuming that you are both my children, the result would be irrational. That is because we forgot to add in the age when I first had sex so the true result is 42. I hope that you are sober enough to follow my impeccable logic. Thus, if anyone should ever ask you: How old is your father? you will have a ready made and entirely rational answer: My father is 42. I find this an entirely satisfactory answer. It means that I am the ultimate answer to life. the universe and everything. So you still have to do what I say.

Altered Perceptions

Read this book. I have not even finished this book yet. It is unbearable reading. You will need a bit of distraction going on whilst you read it (I am listening to Rolled Gold). It is well written but getting through it is a painful experience because we cannot bear too much reality. Your perception of reality may be changed as you read. There are few texts (apart from Shakespeare's) of which that can be said.