On weird beliefs

August 15th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

It’s funny the things we do and don’t believe, isn’t it?

I asked a Hindu doctor what psycho-something-or-other was (sorry, I can’t remember what it was now) as we walked past a ‘shop’ with a big neon sign above it for this psycho-whatever-it-is. I got the reply…

Probably some load of rubbish, like homeopathy. You know about homeopathy, don’t you?

Yes, I do know what homeopathy is. A load of bollox…

One third of a drop of some original substance diluted into all the water on earth would produce a remedy with a concentration of about 13C. A popular homeopathic treatment for the flu is a 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum. As there are only about 1080 atoms in the entire observable universe, a dilution of one molecule in the observable universe would be about 40C. Oscillococcinum would thus require 10320 more universes to simply have one molecule in the final substance.

I also know a little about Hinduism…

Further it is believed that the world undergoes cycles within cycles forever. The major cycle is based upon the Life of the God Vishnu – The Preserver. At the beginning of each Cosmic day Vishnu lies asleep on Seesha, the incredibly large thousand (1000) headed snake, the symbol of endless time (collective unconscious) who rests on the cosmic ocean (Milky Way). A lotus on a glowing stalk, springs from Vishnu’s Naval symbolising the Creative Urge. Brahma is born from the unfolding Lotus and Creates the world, then Vishnu awakes and governs it. At the end of this cosmic day Vishnu again retires absorbing all creation.

source: Dr R Ramnarine: Some Concepts of Hinduism – -An Introduction.

I don’t think I need to comment any more.

(Unfortunately it wasn’t an occasion where I could point this out)

Oh no! Another christian being fucked over

April 18th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Here we go again (istyosty link)…

An electrician facing the sack for displaying a small cross in his company van was backed last night by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey.
He said it was ‘outrageous’ that Colin Atkinson had been told by the housing association he works for that he cannot show the Christian symbol of his faith on the dashboard.

Oh, just fuck the fuck off you doddery old cunt. Time for the previous head fantasist to wheel out the ‘christians are marginalised’ speil.

Devout Mr Atkinson says he is prepared to lose his job at Wakefield and District Housing (WDH), where he has worked for 15 years, and has accused bosses of marginalising Christians in the name of political correctness.
‘The 64-year-old grandfather from Wakefield, West Yorkshire, said: ‘It’s a scandal that we live in a Christian nation and yet Christians are not allowed to practise their religion.
‘I expect to be sacked but I have no fear of man, just a fear of God.’

And there it is. We don’t live in a christian nation, it may be filled predominantly with christians, or at least out of those that actually believe rather than the population as whole, but we are not a christian nation as say, Iran is an islamic nation, or The Vatican is a catholic nation. Britain is a secular nation. Twat.

And that’s some kind caring god you’ve got that you have tobe scared of him/her/it.

Mr Atkinson’s battle, revealed by The Mail on Sunday, follows a series of similar cases involving Christians who claim their freedoms have been infringed by controversial equality laws.

These equality laws are only contraversial for deluded fucknuts like these wankers.

Lord Carey said last night: ‘It’s outrageous that anyone cannot display a small palm cross. This is political correctness gone mad once more.

I’ll tell you what is outragous. It’s outrageous that cunts like the Daily fucking Mail keep giving these shit stirrers a fucking platform.

‘I salute Mr Atkinson for his bravery and all Christians who quietly stand up for their faith

Hahahaha! Bravery? That’s not fucking brave. Go to fucking Afghanistan and try to convert some fucking muslims to christianity, then we’ll talk about who’s fucking brave.

Former Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe, a devout Christian, said: ‘It’s one rule for Christians and another rule for followers of any other religion.’
WDH promotes its inclusive policies and allows employees to wear religious symbols – including burkas – at work.

Jesus snapping arseholes! They would drag that shrivelled old bag out for quote, wouldn’t they?

If you read through the whole fucking article, you’ll see that the Mail contradicts Widdie and pokes a big fucking whole right through her chuffing statement.

‘It is permissible for WDH employees to display, within the spirit of the Act, religious artefacts and other personal possessions on their desks and themselves.’

Now, even someone as dense as me can see that this cunt doesn’t have a desk. He has a van. As such he is not able to display anything personal on or in his van. But, he, just like sihks and their turbans, and muslims and whatever the fuck their head gear is called can wear these religious displays because they are wearing them.

If this cunt really wants to display the fact that he believes fairy stories then get a fucking necklace or a ring. If a muslim employee started filling his van with islamic paraphanalia he would be told to get to fuck too.

It also looks like this electrician hasn’t just thought of kicking up such a fuss by himself either.

Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Christian Legal Centre, which is backing the electrician, said: ‘This smacks of something deeply illiberal and remarkably intolerant.’

The infamous Andrea from the Christian Legal Centre, of Nadine Dorries failed abortion reform fame, is pushing another load of shit.

A wedding or a ‘wedding’

February 14th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink


Ministers are expected to publish plans to enable same-sex couples to “marry” in church, the BBC has learned.

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone is to propose lifting the ban on civil partnerships taking place in religious settings in England and Wales.

There are no plans to compel religious organisations to hold ceremonies and the Church of England has said it would not allow its churches to be used.

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the change was “long overdue”.

Civil partnership ceremonies are currently entirely secular.

As far as I know, and I’m willing to be corrected on this point, churches religious temples of whatever denomination aren’t obligated to marry anyone, hetero or not, so I don’t see why they should be complelled to marry same-sex couples.

I don’t know why civil partnerships are referred to as such and can’t be refered to a marriages as that is what they are. They are no different to a heterosexual civil marriage. Both are secular and both bring the same entitlements in law with them.

Why should there be a ban on civil partnerships being conducted in the first place? Surely it is up to the church/synogogue/whatever who they allow to marry there and if a couple are legally allowed to marry, or ‘marry’, then what is the problem?

on the Not Ashamed bollox

December 1st, 2010 § 2 comments § permalink

I apologise in advance, but this post may not be very intelligent, intelligable or of any merit at all, but these guys can just fuck right off.

Teh fucking Christian loons have crawled out the woodwork and are screaming about their slowly eroding privilege with a campaign called Not Ashamed. I’m fucked if I know why they chose fucking December for this fucking thing. It’s not like there fuck all else going on this month to promote being a Jesusist.

Christians who believe their faith is “under attack” in Britain have launched a “Not Ashamed Day” campaign.

I read that as…

Delusional, paranoid cunts put their head above the parapet.

And you’ve got to be at least slightly delusional to be able to say…

… I do not any longer see a level playing field in our society,

…with a straight face when you were dismissed from your job for being a religion induced bigot.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey claimed Christians of “deep faith” faced discrimination.

“Deep faith”? What the fuck is ‘Deep faith’? Sounds like a euphemism for ‘extremists’, to me. Either way they’re wrong. They don’t face discrimination. Ridicule and robust arguement, yes. Discrimination? No. Funnily enough, I would use the same examples to make my point as do these ‘deep faithed’ christians…

Their campaign highlights a series of cases involving Christians who have lost claims for discrimination.

They include Nadia Eweida – a British Airways worker from London – and Shirley Chaplin – an NHS nurse from Kenn, Exeter – who both lost high-profile discrimination claims over wearing crosses at work.

And Gary McFarlane, a Christian marriage guidance counsellor from Bristol, lost a court bid earlier this year to challenge his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexuals.

See? All three of the cases these fuckwits use as examples of discrimination are *not* cases of discrimination. What did Lord Carey do with regard to the last case? He only called for a load of judges to sit on the appeal that had “proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues”. That, to me, is code for ‘the judges didn’t understand the special logic needed to be understood on matters of faith’.

If you need special judges with a different understanding of logic to everyone else then that’s not much of a level playing field, is it?

When I first saw this article this morning it didn’t have the counter views. I especially like this one from another bunch of Christians…

The Christian think tank Ekklesia said that there was “no evidence” to back up the Not Ashamed campaign.

Co-Director Jonathan Batley said: “Since 2005, when we first predicted the growth in claims of ‘persecution’, we have been closely examining individual cases and what lies behind them [and] have found no evidence to back up the claim of the Not Ashamed campaign that Christians as a group are being systematically marginalised in Britain.

“We have found consistent evidence, however, of Christians misleading people and exaggerating what is really going on, as well as treating other Christians, those of other faith and those of no faith in discriminatory ways.”

Presumably Ekklesias’ members faith isn’t as ‘deep’ as those wankers from Christian Concern. Or is it that Ekklesia used the wrong type of logic?

defending religion…not very well

June 11th, 2010 § 0 comments § permalink

Via Jesus & Mo I happen across this

June 8, 2010

In an interview last night with ABC-News reporter Diane Sawyer, scientist Stephen Hawking opined that human life is “insignificant in the universe,” and then went on to say that “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.” He concluded by saying, “Science will win because it works.”

Stephen Hawking does have a point. Bill Donohue, the President of the Catholic League disagrees (I’ve no idea who he is either, but he reckons the Catholic priest abuse scandal is about teh gays not peadophiles).

What Big Bill says is…

How any rational person could belittle the pivotal role that human life plays in the universe is a wonder, but it is just as silly to say that all religions are marked by the absence of reason. While there are some religions which are devoid of reason, there are others, such as Roman Catholicism, which have long assigned it a special place.

How can rational person overstate how little a role humans play in the universe? How can anybody think we have a ‘pivotal’ role in what happens outside of our planets atmosphere? We might be able to warm Earth up a degree or two or be really good at making various forms of life here extinct, but anything on a bigger scale is waaaaay beyond us.

Some religions may be more receptive to reasoned argument, but Catholicism is not one of them. Look at it’s stance on condoms, for Christs sake.

Religions may accept certain bits of science and reason, but as soon as a bit contradicts what is in it’s special writings then it doesn’t want to know. Unless of course it can come up with a bit of holy logical acrobatics to say it’s teachings were wrong without saying they were wrong.

It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution; these two historical contributions made possible Mr. Hawking’s career.

Just because somebody is teaching something doesn’t mean what they’re teaching is correct.

Reason, in pursuit of truth, has been reiterated by the Church fathers for nearly two millennia. That is why Hawking posits a false conflict: in the annals of the Catholic Church, there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Quite the contrary: science and religion, in Catholic thought, are complementary properties. Ergo, nothing is gained by alleging a “victory” of science over religion.

No conflict between science and religion? Why did the Catholic church persecute Galileo for saying the earth orbited the Sun instead of saying ‘really? Could you look into it further?’

There is an inherent conflict twix science and religion: religion is based on what old teachings tell us what to believe, science tells us what we find out from evidence.

Religion without reason, Pope Benedict XVI instructed us in his Regensburg address in 2006, leads to fanaticism. That much Hawking seems to understand. What he doesn’t get is its contra: science without faith also leads to disaster—the genocidal regimes in Germany, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia being Exhibits A, B, C and D.

Pope Beni got something right, but the examples given of science without faith are not cause and effect. Throughout history there are appalling examples of religious and non-religious people in power causing atrocities. Being ‘of faith’ or not does not mean one is A Good Guy or A Bad Guy.

Religion will never get to the truth. There are too many reasons not to. Science is about discovery. It doesn’t matter what that discovery is.

Common sense Law

May 4th, 2010 § 0 comments § permalink

This is exactly why law should not be made from religious beliefs.
Lord Justice Law (do you reckon he changed his name just to be that cool?)…

In the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.

read the whole post from Heresy Corner.

The difference between a believer and an atheists

February 12th, 2010 § 2 comments § permalink


The Church of England’s ruling body will close its meeting with a call for more recognition of the compatibility of religious belief with science.

The motion will urge it to fight back in what is the latest move in a public battle between atheists and believers.

The compatibility of science and religion only goes so far.
The scientist that is also a believer may, for instance, recognise evolution and all the current scientific thoeries as true and look deeper in to how the world works, but ultimately, will come to the conclusion that it all started with god.

An athiest scientist will keep looking.

The motion at the General Synod in London is proposed by Dr Peter Capon.

Many religious people feel they are being gradually pushed out of the public sphere by opponents who are using science as a weapon.

‘Science’ itself isn’t the weapon, rational arguement is. And seeing as religion is not a rational ‘thing’*, then religion is on a loser. Science will one day have all the answers. Although it may take a bit of time.

(*I can’t find the link to which religious person said it recently, so drop a link in the comments if you do)

Dr Capon, himself a former lecturer in computer science, says atheists are misleading the public when they claim science and religion are incompatible.

Athiests are misleading the public? Atheists are using evidence and rational thought. It is the religious folk that are misleading the public with stories and assertions and rules that have supposedly come form god but only come from someone or people with a knack for manipulating people and telling a good story.

Think of it this way. Two scientists, one an atheist and one a believer, after rigorous experimentation and testing and research, after following all the evidence they find about the beginning of life, the universe and everything, they end up ringing the doorbell on the Pearly Gates. God answers.
The religious scientist turns to the atheist and says ‘See. I said it was him that did it. Our quest for the ultimate answer has finished.’
The Atheist scientist looks at God and asks ‘So. How did you do it, then?’


February 3rd, 2010 § 0 comments § permalink

After the pope has attacked the Equality Bill ahead of his coming visit there then comes this

Harriet Harman has backed away from a confrontation with religious leaders over who they can employ, making clear that she will not force contentious amendments to the Equality Bill through Parliament.

Those contentious issues are the re-wording, an amendment, of the Equality Bill to make it clear that exemptions from the bill applied only to religious posts within an organisation. Which is fair enough. It would be like appointing an interpreter that couldn’t speak the lingo.

But this exemption is not enough for the God Squad.

What gives them the right to discriminate? What is the difference between discriminating on the grounds of religious belief and discriminating against someone on racial grounds?

Nothing at all. They’re both beliefs, both are grounded in fantasy. It’s just that one is more acceptable than the other… apparently.

h/t chrisplol

God (watch out for Godwins’ Law).

January 18th, 2010 § 1 comment § permalink

God. Where to start, eh?

God does judge the nations — all of them — and God will judge the nations.

Nations are made up of individuals. Even during the Nuremburg trials, individuals were prosecuted, not the German nation. What that statement above says is that God is into collective punishment. But we already knew that anyway.

Look at the original sin. Man is born a sinner now because of the decision of an individual, Adam, to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

What the Vatican says about the original sin is…

It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.

Original sin is not something someone’s done, it is inherited. Even a baby that is just born, that has no chance to develop a character, never mind any knowledge, opinion or attitude about anything, is doomed.

Unless of course it renounces a life without god in a ceremony usually taking place before it has any concept of consent never mind the deeper logical and theological concepts involved in a baptism.

Hmm. Isn’t it also usually considered bad form to do stuff to/make someone do stuff that they have no understanding of?

Dangerous delusions

August 12th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink


Dozens of rabbis and Kabbalah mystics armed with ceremonial trumpets took to the skies over Israel on Monday to battle the swine flu virus, according to local media reports

Nice one. Creep up behind the virus and blow your trumpet. That’ll scare the shit out of it and it’ll run away.

“The aim of the flight was to stop the pandemic so people will stop dying from it,” Rabbi Yitzhak Batzri was quoted as saying in the mass-circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

“We are certain that, thanks to the prayer, the danger is already behind us,” added Batzri.

If the dangers already behind you, why did you bother? And doesn’t that also mean that intervention from you ghostly master was not needed?

If it was any other delusion as strong as this, that wasn’t classified as religion or sprituality, they would be removed by the men in white coats ‘for their own protection’.

via normblog

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with religion at Sim-O.