Blah Blah Flowers

Oh Mr Deity I've missed you!

Labels: atheism, atheists, Christianity, Fundamentalists- Christian, humour, religion, YouTube

To complain to youtube follow this link;
YouTube complaints (needs a YouTube account)

Scroll to the very bottom and click on "new issue"

Select "suspended account" from the options and express your opinion.

The mediafire link to download the video is;
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=4d77967b07dff9ac8c9e7c56ba37815f99433de67f37e9e4.

Labels: atheism, atheists, Fundamentalists- Christian, religion, skepticism

Christ's fat cock. A nine-year-old Brazilian girl, sexually abused by her father (who also has abused her physically handicapped elder sister) and somehow made pregnant was given a termination. That is where the wonderful Catholic Church steps in as the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife has now announced he's going to excommunicate everyone that was involved in the abortion. Because it's much better that a girl far, far, far too young to be able to bare children be made to go through pregnancy and face the risk of dying or, if not dying, giving birth to twins who would have unguessed congenital problems due to their father and grandfather BEING THE SAME MAN because God loves foetuses more than humans.

Remember this, any time you feel the need, whoever you are, to whine about Atheists being 'mean'.

Labels: abortion, angry, atheism, atheists, Brazil, child abuse, children, Christianity, God, women

You may also like to read Towing Jehovah by James Morrow.

[via Pharyngula]

Labels: atheism, atheists, Christianity, God, humour, YouTube

Atheists on death. How can you offer comfort to bereaved people if they don't actually believe in the magical make-believe land run by a big beardy guy that you go to after you die?

Labels: atheism, atheists, death

Christians plan response to Atheist bus adverts.

A trinity of Christian groups have created their own series of advertisements to run across London buses... The new campaign is organsied by the Christian Party, the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church... In a somewhat cheeky move, the Rev George Hargreaves of the Christian Party has created a bus advert which proclaims: "There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life."

Now, I definitely have no problem with this. My one concern is that the Humanists had to put the 'probably' into 'there probably isn't a God' in order to cover themselves from complaints by any fundamentalist wackos that happened to be passing. Will there be any double standard if an atheist complains about the definitive nature of these pro-imaginary being statements? What if we have atheist bus drivers too 'shocked' and 'horrified' to drive buses with those advertisements on?

It's unclear whether the charmless bigots have a position on this yet as they are busy helping to advertise the University of Saint Andrews' amateur performance of Jerry Springer The Opera for them. Isn't that the very spirit of Christian charity?

Labels: adverts, atheism, atheists, Christian Voice, Fundamentalists- Christian, Jerry Springer The Opera, religion, Stephen Green

An atheist UK bus campaign which uses the slogan "There's probably no God" does not breach the advertising code, a watchdog has ruled.

Yes, the complaints that tedious bankrupt Stephen Green encouraged people to send from charmless bigots HQ, otherwise known as the Christian Voice website, have been turned down, on the grounds they were dumb. I wait to see whether Green will now try to sue the ASA or whether he'll go back to begging in the street for the money to pay the BBC's bill.

Labels: adverts, atheism, Christian Voice, Flickr, Fundamentalists- Christian, religion, Stephen Green

Labels: adverts, atheism, Flickr, religion

Christian bus driver claims to be too offended by Atheist bus advert to work. I'm sorry, but I'm calling shenanigans.

Ron Heather, from Southampton, Hampshire, responded with "shock" and "horror" at the message and walked out of his shift on Saturday in protest...

Mr Heather told BBC Radio Solent: "I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face, my first reaction was shock horror. "I felt that I could not drive that bus, I told my managers and they said they haven't got another one and I thought I better go home, so I did. Mr Heather said he was shocked at the "starkness" of the advert. "I think it was the starkness of this advert which implied there was no God."

There might be no God. For his own sake, pay attention. But I can't believe that anyone, even a committed Christian, would genuinely feel they were too offended to do this job.

First Bus said it would do everything in its power to ensure Mr Heather does not have to drive the buses.

Now get back to work Heather!

Labels: atheism, atheists, Christianity, Fundamentalists- Christian

Labels: adverts, atheism, Flickr, religion

The atheist bus adverts are go!

Labels: atheism, atheists, Christianity

Richard Dawkins to write book to prove that atheists can miss the point almost as badly as the religiousi.

The prominent atheist is stepping down from his post at Oxford University to write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales.

Prof Hawkins (SIC) said: "The book I write next year will be a children's book on how to think about the world, science thinking contrasted with mythical thinking.

"I haven't read Harry Potter, I have read Pullman who is the other leading children's author that one might mention and I love his books. I don't know what to think about magic and fairy tales."

Prof Dawkins said he wanted to look at the effects of "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards".

"I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know," he added.

I said 'almost' because at least he's not suggesting we ban the books or burn them, but otherwise this is the same objection that the Fundies make, albeit they have their wiggle room in that when one of their side does magic it's called a miracle and so therefore it's okay. But how come the His Dark Materials series, with their magic, dimension crossing, harrowing of hell and absolving god of responsibility for the shitness of creation gets a pass? Don't misunderstand me, it's a great series but is Dawkins suggesting that it's miracles are okay because it's been embraced as an Atheistic text? I've had no luck trying to find the press statement this report is created from on Dawkins website so the Telegraph's use of a Harry Potter photo seems to be irrelevant as Dawkins says he hasn't read them.

Labels: atheism, Philip Pullman, Richard Dawkins

I've just watched God on Trial and, if you haven't, you really, really, really should. Go to your Torrents oh my brothers and sisters! Set in Auschwitz as a cabin of condemned Jews wait for some of their number to be taken to the gas chamber they decide that all they have left is the power to put on trial the one they hold responsible for them being there, namely God. By allowing the Nazis to seek the destruction of the Jewish race, has God abandoned his Covenant with those he called his 'chosen people'?

While finding it a piece of piss to fly my flag in Atheism County when it comes to any organised religion, I find it difficult to do so absolutely outside of religion and personally. Sure, this is not a question of whom to bend the knee to or doff the cap, I can't understand why any Supreme Being would show any interest or need for my love, respect or fear and, if ze has any interest or concern for it then ze comes up far short of Infinite (although as it's only the religious types that try to curry favour with hir by describing hir in such terms). This is the entirely personal problem I have with Skepticism, Richard Dawkins, the Brights and that whole cabal. Sure I trust science to save my life and not crap like homoeopathy, but seeking to silence all the stories under the belief they have no value is wrongheaded. A plague o' both their houses.

I don't claim to know what God is. Us reflected back through our own history in the glare of the Eschaton? Sure, why not. An ancient robot servitor of some alien race designed to cultivate intelligence? If you like. A vengeful old Jew who really doesn't like it when the poofs and blacks forget their place? If we must. However, I find it easy to keep my ruminations private and not let it leak out into my professional or daily life, so can only conclude that those who are unable or unwilling to show the same restraint insist on expressing themselves on the grounds that they are deeply afraid that they are wrong and lack the faith to wait until they die to see who was right.

Anyway, back at God on Trial. The set is simple and the acting first rate, Stellan Skarsgård as the judge, Jack Shepherd as the elderly Jew who continually seeks to have the proceedings brought to a close out of fear of the blasphemy and Anthony 'National Treasure' Sher as the elderly rabbi that has the final word. The last scene, in which modern day visitors stand reading the memorial in the gas chamber, surrounded by the naked ghosts of the Jews waiting for their last shower, is extremely well-shot and upsetting. Many of the arguments in the 'prosecution' against God are those against his existence but in the end it remains balanced as it addresses that oldest imponderable, if there's a God, why do bad things happen?

Labels: atheism, God, religion, skepticism, Television

So Iorek and Aslan are standing at the bus-stop...

Labels: atheism, cartoons, Christianity, humour, Narnia, Philip Pullman

'The Four Horsemen', a discussion with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Admittedly there are two good reasons not to watch this, and I say this only because I don't know what Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris are like, but I'll watch it anyway.

Labels: atheism, atheists, Christopher Hitchens, Fundamentalists- Secular, Richard Dawkins

Harsh but fair, The Guardian Digested Read on John Humphrys' In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist .

I did find this book rather disappointing when I put it down. I suppose I was hoping for the Agnostic The God Delusion but instead I got one-third 'If there's a God then why do bad things happen?', one-third 'If there isn't a God then how did the universe start then huh?' and one-third 'We've got a letter from a Mrs Thoughtful of Middle-Englandshire'. Perhaps all that this book demonstrates is that rational sensible argument is unlikely to change the phase-state of a person's belief, that can only occur when they think for themselves. Humphrys largely skirts religion to concentrate on belief, which allows him to put his impartial boot into the Dawkins and Hitchens of the world but the problem is there's no sense of a journey, after a vaguely religious upbringing he lost his faith as a young man and is now an old man and it hasn't come back. In the end he makes Agnosticism seem like the Liberal Democrats of theology, able to stand on the sidelines and take pot shots at the other two positions but not doing much to convert others to the cause.

Labels: Agnosticism, atheism, atheists, books, Christianity, ethics, Islam, Judaism, Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams

The Catholic League call for a boycott of the His Dark Materials movies. That's nice, a good boycott always helps drum up extra publicity for a movie. The C.L. are mostly honest, claiming the film is an attack on Catholicism rather than Christianity, though they use author Philip Pullman's atheism as a reason for the boycott to be observed by more than just Catholics. Having read the books I must say Pullman's premise ends up being almost Gnostic, the real God is held prisoner by the first angel he created, Jehovah, who has usurped His power for his own. However, in the books, although God dies the Church is left untouched, so the C.L. are calling for a boycott because someone said something mean about a religious structure which the C.L. are choosing to claim is them.

Labels: atheism, atheists, Christianity, Philip Pullman

I found this last week but didn't get round to linking to it until today: 'The Problem With Atheism', a transcript of a talk by Sam Harris to the Atheist Alliance conference. Sceptical before reading, he makes a strong argument, to me, in favour of atheists going back to their constituencies and, rather than identifying as atheists, just trying to act like sensible, rational human beings. Certainly it's always worth confronting disorder with reason although some might not like Harris advocating going stealth.

If you label something then, while it's easier to oppose it, like The West against Communism, it's also easier to organise (like the Gay Lib movement). So is it better for atheism if those who believe in it speak without wearing their identities on their sleeves, or is their strength in numbers? I'm dubious about whether the political behemoth of organised Christianity, primarily in places like North and South America, and Africa, can be challenged by just trying to assemble an opposing force, especially when you've got to put up with Christopher bloody Hitchens as one of your poster boys.

Labels: atheism, atheists, Christianity, religion, Richard Dawkins

You've missed your last chance to see the Yangtze river dolphin as the little blighter has been declared extinct. I remember reading Douglas Adams' book about endangered species in the early Nineties and the almost farcical lengths his radio crew went to try and record what the Yangtze river sounded like underwater, they eventually found that there was so much noise pollution caused by man that the dolphin's sonar was completely useless, with boat propellers and other dangers it would be the equivalent of you or I walking through a room of rotating blades with a blindfold on. As the report says, it was thoughtlessness about this that did for the dolphin rather than active malevolence.

Here's some Last Chance to See MP3s.

Also: Douglas Adams on Atheism You Tube videos.

Labels: animals, atheism, atheists, Douglas Adams, environment, extinction, YouTube

Let's ease in to this gently by going with The Sun, always trying to position itself as The Onion for urban Conservatives: Paris Hilton scared of prison lesbians. Elsewhere, Pete Doherty has apparently been caught with drugs again but no doubt the trial judge will find some way to see this as proof that he's trying to stop taking drugs and he'll get off scott free.

In real news The Times reports Cameron's Conservatives finally ready to start explaining what they stand for, which is handy just after a national round of local elections which were seen as a referendum on the Labour Government. Seeing as the Murdoch stable seem happy to big up Blair while giving Brown any number of paper cuts it seems the first principle of Cameron Conservatism is to get News International onside, hence the fact that The Times seems to have been told what will be said tomorrow. There's still some scepticism apparent, as we wait to see whether Tories are desperate enough for power again yet that they are willing to go with Dave.

The Guardian has an article on New Atheists, they loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it, apparently. Google currently gives 'about 44,000' results for a search. The claim that Richard Dawkins goes too far in attacking religion is not a new one, nor is it particularly inaccurate. The problem is that by trying to grab a bunch of authors who have nothing in common other than having written books attacking the religiosity most commonly typified by the Conservatives of the United States and the Conservatives of a number of Muslim countries < pause for breath > and calling them The New Atheists makes it seem as though they sit together in their secret volcano base plotting each day how to defeat religion.

"What are we going to do tonight Richard?"
"The same thing we do every night Dennett, try to vanquish the religions of the world!"

Also, by ignoring completely what may have caused this small spate of anti-religious books (and their apparent popularity) Madeleine Bunting gives the unfortunate impression that religion of various denominations had been pootling along for the last decade minding it's own business and hurting no-one.

I've never really understood religious anti-Darwinism and anti-evolutionism, I'll admit I haven't read On the Origin of Species but I have read the Bible and, while it's true to say that it doesn't say that God creates evolution it says nothing to deny the possibility and would also suggest that God is a non-omnipotent being, with limits, who needs six days to make a planet and who needs a day to rest up. I haven't got a copy to hand so I'm not sure if it explicitly states that God creates the passing of time or the ability to reproduce through the interaction of people's naughty bits. Anyway, this is just a long preamble to a link to an article in the NYT in which Conservatives are battling the ultra-religious elements in their own ideology over Darwinism. I've always assumed that the urge to oppose Darwinism was no more than the desire to oppose what the Religious Right assumed the scientists stood for, birth-control, abortion, separation of church and state and so on. Can the Conservatives take the Republicans back from the Christians? Could they still have power if they aren't following an unreconstructed two-thousand year old ideology?

Labels: atheism, atheists, Conservatives, David Cameron, Evolution, Fundamentalists- Secular, Islam, newspapers, politics, religion, Republicans, Richard Dawkins, science, United Kingdom, United States