SHOUTWIRE: Religious Rant

A fun read

Religion Rears Its Foul Head Yet Again…
Xxoozero (Shoutwire)

I believe religion is nothing but a crock of shit. It has monkey-wrenched its way into every facet of society and mocks common sense with its evil, unyielding, strangely homosexual looking grin. I have to see it everywhere I go. I’m sick of it and I want it to die.

I’m not saying I hate religious people. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to. My beef is having it pushed on me. I hate being approached on the street and asked “Have you heard about Jesus?” Man… who hasn’t heard about Jesus? He has been saturating the “holy prophet” market with his propaganda for the last 2,000 years. I’m pretty sure I already know the story.

No… but they insist upon telling it again. The son of god gets owned by the Romans… blah… blah… blah… Then out of nowhere I’m told I’m going to hell if I don’t close my eyes and hope really hard that this dude forgives me for some shit I did that I didn’t even know about.

This Jesus fellow demands my allegiance. He wants nothing less than my very soul. I begin to think to myself “What the fuck did I do to this Jesus guy to make him want to fuck with me?” I start to think back… nothing comes to mind. My hands start sweating and I grab the guy by his collar… “What the fuck did I do, man?! Why?!”

“You were born.” He replies. I was what? Born? Wow. I never thought that would be the thing that did me in. Of all the things to get fucked over by… being born. Shit, I didn’t even get to choose that one. Then I begin to think about it and realize that is a bullshit excuse and this guy wants something from me.

“What are you selling?” I demand in a strict tone. “I’ll buy it if you promise to go away and call off this Jesus fellow.” Despite my offer he refuses to produce a product. He doesn’t want my money. Instead, he wants me to be saved by Jesus.

I regrettably decline his offer, explaining my memory card is already full with my other saved games. I really don’t want to buy another memory card because the platform is becoming outdated, so this just really isn’t the right time for me to commit to such a purchase.

Ah… but he is clever! “Jesus doesn’t need a memory card,” he claims. “Bullshit!” I cry! “Does he have a pre installed hard drive?”

The guy looks at me like I’m shit nuts. “Jesus… doesn’t need a… um… pre installed hard drive?”

This is purely and simply crazy talk. Everyone needs a preinstalled hard drive or you can not get on the internet. I mean, sure, you do need a lot of other stuff. A monitor, keyboard, mouse, and everything in the box… but I’m sure he could get that cheap at newegg.com.

Surely this Jesus fellow isn’t too good for Newegg. “Bullshit!” I cry again and punch the guy in the arm. He looked startled at first but then he turned and said “Punch me in the other arm.”

“Why… did you not learn your lesson?” I replied. He proceeded to explain that this Jesus fellow taught that if someone punched you in your right cheek, you should turn and let him hit your left as well.

I was confused. I had punched him in the arm, not the cheek. Did he want me to punch him in the cheek? I had no choice but to swing, just as he had no choice but to run away afterwards. Frankly, he was starting to scare me anyways.

It is not just the Christians. Islam is a pretty wicked religion in itself. They will punch you back. Not only that, but any writer who speaks ill of them risks a torturous murder. Well… take aim, extremist scum, because there is no way I am leaving you out of this one…

First of all, what kind of a religion doesn’t eat pork? That’s just missing out on the goodness. Why would a person do that to themselves? The best meat I have ever tasted was a slow roasted pig. To chew it was to know true love…

Now… I know what you’re thinking, and you’re wrong. I’m going to let them off on the whole terrorist thing. To be fair, Islam doesn’t teach terrorism or suicide bombings or any of the other rhetoric you hear on the idiot box. Sick fucks teach that stuff, not religious people. (Authors Note: maybe an oxymoron?)

But I digress… back to bashing Islam. The problem with the majority of the followers is they make it publicly known they are Muslims. They always want some special type of shit everywhere they go to accommodate their religious beliefs. Asking for special time off to pray, which strangely looks like napping…? I wish atheists had it so good…

Speaking of religions who tend to impose their beliefs on others, Judaism is no better. What they are doing to the Palestinians is criminal. Of course there is going to be tension. They have absolutely no reason to wonder why random attacks are so prevalent. The civil thing to do would be to provide the Palestinians with their own land and help them form a proper government. It seems Israel would rather blow them to pieces than show a little neighbourly support.

Before you start to bitch that Israel is a country and not a religion, they are the only Jewish state in the world; there actions reflect their beliefs just as much as the Vatican represents Catholicism.

Speaking of the largest undercover gang of hoodlums in history, what the hell is up with so many of them touching little boys? A small number of instances could have been written off as a coincidence… but the volume such as we have seen cannot be explained off so simply. Maybe it’s all the half naked statues of Jesus combined with children following him around everywhere and the central idea of being more “Christ-like”.

Also, why do they worship in such scary places? In my book, nothing is more frightening than a Catholic church after sunset. Fucking dead Jesus’s everywhere all bloody stuck forever crying out for help that will never come… those places are downright morbid. It seems a priest is always hiding in the shadows watching your every move. After the previous paragraph, that is one fucking scary thought.

Now, before I even start on Buddhists, let me just say I respect their religion. They seem to be the most peaceful of the bunch. That doesn’t mean they aren’t condescending and sarcastic bastards though.

All the Buddhist parables I have read centre around one concept: owning the other guy with your superior knowledge of the art of sarcasm. Someone always has to be made out as the dumbass. Plus, how did the Buddha get so fat if he was fasting all the damn time? Something about that whole story is mighty fishy…

Hindus don’t eat beef. What the fuck? That is all I have to say about that. I refuse to dignify such a heinous act with any more words.

Scientology can suck a big fat cock. It is not a religion; it is a bunch of swindlers involved in a dead science fiction writers shoddily put together pyramid scheme. Guys like John Travolta and Tom Cruise should be ashamed of their idiocy and outright dishonour in involving themselves in such a fraud. They are already rich; they should have no need to prey on the limited funds of others. The rottenest of the rotten those two are…

Scientology does have one thing going for it though; they have yet to cause a war. Not on Earth. They are waiting for some kind of intergalactic fire fight to start; aiming mighty high. Fucking geniuses, those guys are. I bet they dress up in Star Trek uniforms and rape teddy bears when no one is looking…

You may think I am being harsh on them because they are famous… no. I really think these people are shit nuts. What the fuck is a Xenu? Why do they stress that they can help make you a better person? I am satisfied being a jackass. More people should be like me. Fuck scientology for working against my kind!

On the other hand, you have the far eastern religions of Confucism and Taoism. These seem to be the most level headed on the surface. However, when you look at the history of the regions represented by them, you find thousands of years of warfare. These days you also find communism. As communism is an atheist-based government, could atheism be the ultimate product of the most sensible religions?

No. Atheism is fucking stupid too. Boring as well. At least the others give you something to look forward to… some kind of afterlife. It is almost like a jip. This is all you get or will ever know, life sucks, there is no meaning, and when you perish you are gone forever. That’s it. No real selling points at all; except it is the most logical solution.

On the upside, atheists do have the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It started as a way to mock religions over their wild and fantastic beliefs. I believe this is most likely the way all religions started and one day people will totally take the joke seriously. It is scary to think that 2,000 years from now Vatican City may be populated by the secret alliance of the Spaghetti counsel. Though I doubt they could do a worse job than the Nazi who lives there now…

I have come to the conclusion that any and all talk of what happens after you die is a waste of time. We will all find out eventually, there is no need to argue about it until we are all a bit more well-informed on the subject. In other words… to die is the only way to find out for sure. I’m sure after reading these last few paragraphs there are some folks out there who would like to help me along on my own journey upon this earth. Before you load up your M-16 and kiss your family goodbye one last time, hear me out…

All religions have good points and bad points. The belief part ruins everything. It turns humans against each other. The perfect idea of religion would be to let folks study them all and take out of each what they like without adhering to one doctrine. A mix and match sort of thing so everyone is different. That way everyone gets what they want and no one fights.

Abolishing religion, while a nice idea, would never work. Some people need it so as to not be threats to society. It keeps them on track and not out killing folks. Don’t get me wrong; if we would have done it in the beginning it might have worked. But religion has its clutches too deep in society’s skin. It couldn’t be removed now without a lot of bleeding. It is a curse we just can’t get rid of. All we can do is sit back, sigh, and let the prerequisite “dammit” flow from between our lips as we realize we have been screwed by our ancestors and there is not a thing we can do about it.

Religion should be marginalized. It should be treated as importantly as a clan affiliation in that damn World of WarCrack video game everyone plays these days. It should never be brought up amongst public conversations with decent people in real life. Have your religion, I say, as long as you recognize the fact that no one cares what your cockamamie ideas are and you have the good sense to keep them locked behind the closed doors of your house and not posted on billboards all over the motherfucking god damn place.

Still want to shoot me? Yeah… those last few paragraphs didn’t exactly exonerate me. I’m not really good at that sort of thing. I’m more of a provoking type.

What I wrote above does not include everyone who is religious. The majority of people involved in all the aforementioned religions (except Scientology) are generally good folks who only have the best of intentions in mind. They don’t take their texts literally and just resolve to live a nice and decent life. This is nice, because they aren’t out trying to steal my car stereo. Or sending me shoddily written emails claiming to be the prince of Uganda offering me a fortune for my personal information and $40 in transfer fees.

Fuck you Ali Ibrahim. One day I will find you and piss in your fridge.

I’ll bet he is a god damn Scientologist…

[Read The Full Article Here]

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

Why Real Scientists Scoff At William Dembski

This is so, so true!

Why real scientists scoff at William Dembski
Daniel Dickson-LaPrade

I first heard of Philip Gingerich while looking up “Whale Evolution” on Wikipedia. Gingerich is a professor at the University of Michigan, and he directs its Museum of Paleontology.

Anti-evolutionists like William Dembski contend that there are few if any “transitional fossils” which show evolution in action.

Thanks in part to Gingerich’s work, whale evolution provides one excellent refutation of this claim.

There are, in fact, over half a dozen species of extinct whale ancestors — many with their own Wikipedia entries — showing a clear development from prehistoric land-dwelling carnivores to today’s whales and dolphins. Two of these were co-discovered by Gingerich.

Don’t take my word for it, of course. Just look up “Whale Evolution” yourself, but don’t bother looking up “Philip Gingerich.”

You see, unlike the extinct animals which he discovered, Gingerich does not have his own Wikipedia entry.

William Dembski, on the other hand, does.

Do you know why real scientists scoff at intelligent design advocates like Dembski? He and his cronies want the scientific prestige, the awards and the Wikipedia entries without doing the necessary hard work.

For example, add up all the articles supporting intelligent design that have ever been published in peer-reviewed science journals.

Even according to the most bloated and unlikely estimates of this total, Philip Gingerich alone has published more peer-reviewed journal articles within the same time period.

While Dembski was still in college, Philip Gingerich was digging fossils out of the ground in Pakistan.

While Dembski was helping Ann Coulter write a book arguing there are no transitional fossils, Gingerich was painstakingly measuring those fossils bone-by-bone.

The theory of evolution is complicated and superficially taught in public schools.

Doubts are reasonable.

Before running to slackers like William Dembski for an alternative, however, look at the evidence of evolution for yourself, either online at Web sites like Talkorigins.org or in person at our excellent natural history museum.

Given the toil that went into amassing this evidence, the least we can do is examine it impartially.

You can read the whole article here: Why Real Scientists Scoff At William Dembski

Well said that man!

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

Liberal Wing Pinko Scientific Bastards!

I just started reading James Blish’s “Cities In Flight” novels and he said something that linked freedom of speech (to my mind an inherently liberal and/or left wing concept) to science … broadly speaking he said that in an atmosphere of scientific secrecy (if taken to extremes) the scientific method cannot work which of course means that it is impaired in climates where there are some restrictions on science. Depending on your POV that means science, whilst not inherently liberal in any sense, DOES rely on an inherently liberal society, one that enshrines such concepts as freedom of speech, the freedom to investigate without restriction and the freedom to make & publish data and conclusions whether those conclusion be popular with the population or powers that be.

In fact I was chatting to my brother the other day and I mentioned that freedom of speech was so very important to which he replied that poverty, health, education etc. were important (implying more so) … I thought about this for a moment and then said but from free-speech all of that follows and I think that is true.

If we have free speech we are free to talk over issues, we recognise inequality and so on … it seems to me that it is from our ability to communicate freely that our recognition of bad things and thus our efforts to resolve them stem … in that sense the extremes (both left and right) are anti-freedom of speech and inherently bad.

Add that to a decent education system, something I think goes had-in-hand with freedom of speech, and you have intelligent discourse and in my humble opinion from intelligent discourse good things follow! So it seems to me that we need more left wing pinko scientific bastards!

It was just a thought

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

The Guardian: This Is So Damned Cool!

Look at this:

Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Sounds bad doesn’t it but wait a minute, not only is ID being discussed in RE classes (exactly where it bloody well should be if you ask me) but …

Teenagers will be asked to debate intelligent design (ID) in their religious education classes and read texts by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins under new government guidelines.

In a move that is likely to spark controversy, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has for the first time recommended that pupils be taught about atheism and creationism in RE classes.

ID, which argues that the creation of the world was so complex that an intelligent – religious – force must have directed it, has become a contentious issue that has divided scientists and Christians in Britain.

Some of the world’s top scientists have expressed outrage over the teaching of creationism and ID in school science classes, which they say is an attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into science teaching. They argue that it should be made clear to pupils that science backs the theory of evolution.

Now the QCA wants pupils in England to debate the relationship between science and religion in their RE lessons. The teaching of ID and creationism should prove less contentious in this part of the curriculum (although the scientists who argue that ID is a science may be disconcerted), as pupils will investigate and role-play disputes between religion and science, such as Galileo, Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins.

… it sounds like a fairly spectacular own goal to me

Oh yeah, uh huh, uh huh!

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

An Article For Creationists To Read!

*** Initially posted by BCSE member George Jellis ***

There are many atheists, agnostics and others who don’t like Richard Dawkins (I admit to being a personal fan of his) and, because the SJS campaign was always conceived as being theist friendly, some of his other publicly expressed views cannot be representative of  the campaign’s stance but this article is a work of brilliance IMO!

The focus of the article is one I hold dear though I had never directly thought of it these terms … if creationists are right then I am wrong! Not just me but every intelligent atheist here, virtually (take that as read from now on) every science teacher, every science lecturer, every popular science writer, every scientist an entire establishment is wrong. They are not simply wrong, this isn’t just a mistake but we, they, the entire scientific community is wrong, mind-bogglingly wrong on a scale that almost impossible to imagine.

Check it out:

“The Only One in Step”
Richard Dawkins

I can’t find the original volume so I may have got the exact words wrong, but I recall one of those marvellous old Punch cartoons in which every last detail is painstakingly explained. A devoted mother is looking proudly on at a military parade as her son’s platoon marches past: “There’s my boy, he’s the only one in step!” On The Guardian letters page of December 19th 2006, I initiated an exchange about Professor Andrew McIntosh of Leeds university, who has publicly stated that he believes the world is only 6,000 years old, and publicly stated that the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Both these beliefs place McIntosh out of step with his scientific colleagues, not just his platoon but the entire regiment – to paraphrase Evelyn Waugh, the whole ruddy division. Amazingly, McIntosh is Professor of Thermodynamics at Leeds, and, equally amazingly, a letter supporting him has now appeared from Professor Stuart Burgess, Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University . Other letters to the Editor indicate that a distressing number of otherwise knowledgeable and intelligent people have little conception of the enormity of what is being said.

Science doesn’t work by vote and it doesn’t work by authority. It is possible that Burgess and McIntosh really are the only ones in step, and the whole scientific establishment is flat wrong. Indeed, I shall bias my discussion in their favour by continuing to use that word ‘establishment’ with all its pejorative overtones of fuddyduddy, stick-in-the-muddy authoritarianism. I like mavericks. I like free spirits who buck the trend and strike out on their own. They are not usually right, but on the rare occasions when they are, they are very right indeed: importantly so, and all power to them. Maybe Burgess and McIntosh are right and all the rest of us – biologists, geologists, archeologists, historians, chemists, physicists, cosmologists and, yes, thermodynamicists and respectable theologians, the vast majority of Nobel Prizewinners, Fellows of the Royal Society and of the National Academies of the world – are wrong. Not just slightly wrong but catastrophically, appallingly, devastatingly wrong. It is possible, and I am going to follow that possibility through to its logical conclusion. I shall not here defend the views held by the scientific establishment. I am among those who have done that elsewhere, in many books. My purpose in this article is only to convey the full magnitude of the error into which, if Burgess and McIntosh are right, the scientific establishment has fallen.

[Read The Rest Of The Article Here]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,453,The-Only-One-in-Step,Richard-Dawkins

Yes he can be blunt, yes he can get right up yer nose but sometimes he is just plain awesome!!!!

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

The Guardian: Thermodynamics & Closed Systems

In response to the following letter (itself a response to The Guardian’s “Creative Science In Our Universities”) by Christopher Jordan, Derby:

“It would have been interesting had Richard Dawkins addressed the assertion by Professor McIntosh that evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are incompatible. While not wishing to question the law, nor to support creationism, a consequence of the second law is that the randomness of the universe is increasing, whereas when we consider the increasing complexity of life, that can hardly be said of evolutionary processes.”

I replied:

Sir,

Christopher Jordan (Guardian Letters, 20th December) implies that a consequence of The Second Law of Thermodynamics is that evolution could not work however a little research indicates this view to be based on a lack of understanding of the nature of the laws.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of physics that states that there is a general tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder (or more accurately, move towards a higher state of entropy) and Mr. Jordan is apparently unaware that it explicitly states, “…in a closed system…” A fully closed system cannot contain anything external to itself and planets, stars & stellar systems are not closed as they feature elements external to themselves indeed the only example of a perfect closed system is the universe itself.

Of course the laws of thermodynamics do not rule out the possibility of intelligent design, such considerations are simply not factors that are considered with respect to the calculation of thermodynamic probability. Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease is possible as long as sufficient energy is available and the ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun.

Nature is replete with examples of structures forming spontaneously but in fully explainable terms that, if Mr. Jordan were correct, would also defy the laws of thermodynamics for instance sand dunes, snowflakes, crystals etc. and in objective terms about all the Second Law of Thermodynamics really says about living organisms is that an organism that stops eating will die.

James C. Rocks
“Science, Just Science” Campaign.

We shall see

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

Financial Times: SJS Letter Published

For serious scientists the question is not if evolution occurs but how it works
By James C Rocks
November 4 2006

From Mr James C. Rocks.

Sir,

With reference to Andy McIntosh’s letter (October 28) claiming there is controversy in science: he is of course correct. Science thrives on debate and disagreement. It is how those theories that are “fit” enough to do so survive to be those regarded as correct.

There is, however, no controversy concerning the theory that evolution or its ability to explain the current diversity of life observed around us and touting a religious idea as the equivalent of a fully fledged scientific theory is disingenuous.

Indeed the theory of evolution is so fully accepted by scientists and science as a whole that no serious scientists work on whether evolution occurs any more but instead they concentrate on the mechanisms by which it does.

It is inappropriate to target these theories at schools because, as Prof McIntosh is well aware, new or challenging theory and any evidence that he may be in possession of are published in appropriate scientific journals and not in the public arena. That he and his friends chose not to adopt accepted standards in this respect is highly suspicious and implies that he has no such evidence. The theory of evolution does, of course, stand solely on the available evidence and if Prof McIntosh has any new or challenging evidence, which I sincerely doubt, I suggest he submit it via the appropriate mechanisms.

With reference to Richard Buggs’ letter (also October 28): Of course I agree that children should understand that there are alternatives to Darwin’s theory of evolution but the amount of time devoted to them should be proportional to the amount of evidence supporting them.

For creationism and its variants (including Intelligent Design) I estimate that particular discussion will be over in rather less than a minute.

James C. Rocks

Well done me

Kyuuketsuki (Co-Founder: “Science, Just Science” Campaign)

Dawkins On Theology

Here is Dawkins view, one I happen to agree with 100%:

The Emptiness of Theology
Richard Dawkins
Free Inquiry, Spring 1998 v18 n2 p6(1)

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and “theology.” It remarked that “People want to know as much as possible about their origins.” I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover., in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?

And the key point Ladies and Gentlemen is this … science reveals things, explains things, progress us both technologically and to some degree socially; theology proves nothing, it achieves nothing, it is no more or less than a comfort blanket for the weak minded.

Kyuuketsuki

Why I Defend Science!

I believe science is important … I believe it represents our best effort to understand the universe around us, that regardless of whether the understanding it engenders is used for good or ill that knowledge is a good thing. Though there are those that will use knowledge for ill I have faith in the human race and I believe that the greater our knowledge the better a chance we, the human race, will have of surviving whatever disasters may befall us over time. I believe that our search for objective knowledge, for real understanding of the nature of the universe in which we exist is one of the finest endeavours (perhaps THE finest endeavour) to which the human mind can put itself. It therefore stands to reason that I wish that that knowledge is passed on to my children and the children of the human race in general … I want us (the human race) to reach as high as we can, I want us to leave this lonely planet in this far flung corner of what may well be a lonely galaxy and throw ourselves outwards exploring and finding out more about the universe. The further we throw ourselves the greater we ensure our survival … if the universe is inhabited by others I hope we can meet them in friendship, if the others are aggressive I hope we survive to be the victors and if the universe is a truly lonely place I hope we can bend it to our will. Whichever way I look at it I believe that science holds the key to our survival.

Religion (and whilst I don’t believe religion of any kind to be a good thing, when I say that understand I refer particularly to fundamentalist religions and not the moderates of this world) stands in opposition to science and to freedom as it represents and engenders IMO the worst of our bigotry, our hatred & our isolationism. Religion teaches us to be satisfied with what we have when I believe we should always strive to improve, to know more, to be better!

Fundamentalist Christianity in particular has mounted a tirade of attacks on science (largely on what they see as science’s bastard child, the theory of evolution) in the US challenging it successively (and unsuccessfully) at the state court, the supreme court and finally at the school board level where it has had some success … and it was with some dismay (and anger) several years ago I learned that the very same fundamentalism had struck at the heart of the UK education system and that that attack, more frighteningly, had bypassed the earlier legal steps and had gone straight for the jugular of the school boards where it was having much more success in the US. In effect they are striking at the very young of our nations and that is not, never will be, something I can idly sit by and accept … before their strike at the UK I almost considered this a game but I can do so no longer.

Science is important, the theory of evolution (a fully paid up and supported child of true science) is important and the sad fact is that scientists are typically too wrapped up in their own world and views to understand the threat that fundamentalist religions represent … science has taken its eye off the ball! That’s where people like me come in, people (science adherents) who are prepared to put in the time and effort to ward off the threat that religious fundamentalism represents. Science is important to our comprehension of the universe around us; it is rational, logical and appears to be correct in terms of its methodology … no religion can say the same and that is why I find creationism, fundamentalism and evangelism generally to be so abhorrent.

If fundamentalist religions gain control it will (IMO) usher in an era where thought and word (spoken and written) will be curtailed, where our basic freedoms and choices will be heavily limited where my children will not be able to appreciate the wonders (the truly awesome majesty) of a natural universe. We’ve been there before … it was called the Dark Ages and I will not stand by and watch these lunatics destroy everything I hold of value and deny the basic freedoms and rights which I hold dear for myself, my children and those I love.

So, I have every intention of defending science (& evolution) from the ravings of a bunch of religious cultists apparently intent on destroying everything I consider good and decent in this world and, on the basis that the best form of defence is (probably always will be) attack I inhabit forums, build websites and mount campaigns with the aim of undermining the belief systems of those who oppose science as they are on destroying the credibility of mine.

It is unfortunate in debates of this nature that this means I have to attack people’s core beliefs, things quite evidently meaningful & important to them, but there would be no point in this kind of debate if the various proponents didn’t seek to win. I do not seek to understand the fundamentalist POV any more than I have to nor do I expect to change the minds of people whose minds are already set but there exist those who lurk, those who read such forums but don’t contribute directly and it is to them that my efforts are primarily directed. It may be that they will read my work as the rantings of an atheist lunatic fighting against the good clean & godly believers of this world but then again it may be that they are not sure where they stand and that they have heard the superficially convincing views of the fundamentalist … to them and for them all I can do is give it my best shot, to put up an opposing argument where I can, to act honourably and concede a point well made where I cant. What I can say is that if I can oppose a fundamentalist point I will, that unlike the fundamentalist debater if I don’t know the answer then I will research it and if I can’t answer, I will not try to blind with bull. However, what I most emphatically will not do is attempt to dodge (one of the defining characteristics of the fundamentalist/evangelist debater) behind irrelevant responses, attempts to turn the conversation in a new direction, defamations of character or run away (though believe me there are times I feel like it, coming back to places like this strikes a chill into my heart at times) repeated appeals to “common sense”, unprovable authority and plain lies.

I am an atheist and proud of it … it took time, effort and a great deal of thought & courage to shed the beliefs I was brought up with. I did not get my views or my morality off anybody else’s shelf, my views on this are entirely home grown and I am proud of that. I am also, I know, a militant and regard this as a kind of war … as such I will adopt whatever strategy I feel best to achieve the aims I have set and if that upsets creationists, fundamentalists and evangelists I really don’t care. If it upsets fellow science adherents it is an issue that I will weigh up at the time. Ultimately I am human and I am prone to aggression on occasion … I can’t help it! I get frustrated at some of the stupidity I see around me! As a friend of mine says of me … I do not tolerate fools (or foolish belief systems) easily.

What an individual believes is entirely their concern, be that creation or otherwise … when that individual brings those beliefs into a public arena and tries directly or implicitly to attack science or to repress free thought on the basis of unjustifiable and supernatural beliefs then, believe me, I get very, very annoyed and I fight!

As Dawkins puts it, “I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything I do not believe to be right.” (1986)

FILM: Mr. And Mrs. Smith

My wife thought it was appalling but maybe that’s because she isn’t a man!From the first moment the two main stars appeared on the screen I couldn’t help but grin at the whole idea of it (which of course I already knew about) … two very good looking, obviously sophisticated, people hooked up with each other for 5 (or 6) years of marriage and they still had no idea what each other did or that what each did was essentially the same as the other. Dumb! Worse than dumb! Fundamentalistically dumb!

But with Pitt looking every bit the suave secret agent playing at happy families and Jolie, the same (and looking damned hot to boot) I simply couldn’t help but enjoy most of it. I don’t know what it is about these two but there was definitely a certain chemistry going on … they sizzled

To cut a long story short they each find out the other is an agent and then (I’ll keep the why’s to myself) set about trying to wipe each other out, kicking, punching, attempting knife and shoot each other etc. etc. Up to about halfway the film is (assuming you aren’t my wife) quite acceptable entertainment but at that point whatever grasp on reality the director/writer had seems to vanish and the film disintegrates into a series of (admittedly good in their own right) set pieces that have no appreciable link with the one before or after. I’m not sure if that’s because the writing was truly awful or whether the relevant bits ended up on the cutting room floor.

At the end the film seems to recover itself a little and give the audience the ending they wanted (though weren’t expecting) and I managed to go away felling fairly satisfied.

The film relies on special effects (it sure as hell didn’t make it on the acting) and these do grow repetitive by the end but at the end of the day I wanted to be entertained and it did so even if it was a little bit over the top in many respects.

My wife, as I say above, thought it was appalling and perhaps she’s right because the film is essentially pointless but I’m afraid I couldn’t help but like it. I only give it a 6 out of 10 but yes I will buy it on TV if only to watch Jolie amateurishly smoulder her way around the screen but also because I KNOW my oldest daughter will love it and because the extras (if any) should reveal why it ended up the way it did.