Category Archives: christianity

A Few Truths

Why do Christians lie so much? What is this “lying for Jesus” all about. A means to an end is not always the morally right thing to do.

There are several Christian lobby groups around these days with The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) and Access Ministries being two very vocal, and apparently quite powerful, examples. The idea of a Christian lobby group should worry every right thinking person, religious or not. Why Christians need lobby groups is a thing to ponder, what ever happened to religious groups just doing what they do best – sings songs in churches and do a little charity work. When did they become so powerful? Are we seeing the march to a theocracy in this country?

ACL wrote this small article titled “A few truths of the religion in schools debate” supporting a Bishop who had written an article in Online Opinion (OO) complaining about The Age’s reporting of Christian Religious Education.

OzAz wrote the following comment in reply to the ACL:

Truth? You wouldn’t know the meaning of the word Truth.

If, as you’d like to portray, Christianity is the predominant religion in Australia (at last census about 60%, BUT only about 20% actual practitioners) then how can you cry “oppression”?

Australians, by and large, aren’t fearful of religion, most just don’t care either way. What we do fear is right wing fundamentalist religious organisations using tax payer funded money (for which they are totally unaccountable for!) to promote their narrow minded view of the world based on, what many believe, to be an out-dated book.

Even adherents of the various holy books do not adhere to everything written in them, so why should the rest of us adhere to anything written in them?

Some may suspect that the only reason your group, and other groups like yours, are so keen to use tax payers and parishioners money to lobby government to spend even more tax payer dollars on allowing CRE, Chaplains in schools and other forms of ensuring you get a foothold into schools and therefore young and impressionable minds is to procure more followers. The more followers the more money you can make. Pity this money isn’t always used for good charitable works.

PS I have copied this and will paste it to various other blogs and forums as I suspect you won’t have the dignity or adhere to freedom of speech and allow this comment to be posted to your site.

OzAz has forwarded this comment to me for inclusion in my blog, as he suspects the ACL will not moderate his comment as the ACL seem to have a habit of not allowing any comment which questions them in any way shape or form.

As usual Chrys Stevenson has written an excellent response to Nicholas Tuohy’s article in OO, I recommend you read it.


Filed under atheism, beliefs, bible, censorship, christianity, church, politics, religion, religious school, secular

But would you put your dog down?

There is an ongoing debate in Australia about voluntary euthanasia, or ‘the right to die’. Polls (as much as you can trust a poll) state that up to 85% of Australians support legalised euthanasia, as long as adequate safeguards are in place. Despite this, euthanasia bills keep getting rejected in our parliaments. In fact some years ago the Northern Territory (NT) passed legislation to make it legal but the Federal government stepped in and overrode them. (Territories have slightly different rules when it comes to making laws, I don’t fully understand it, you can look it up yourself if you are interested. You could also look up the case of when the NT legalised, briefly, euthanasia, it’s not really relevant to this particular rant.)

The prime reason, I can deduce, Australia does not have legalised voluntary euthanasia is because the powerful religious (mostly Christian) lobby, in cahoots with right wing Christian politicians, put political pressure on our governments not to pass euthanasia bills.

I’ve seen many reasons expounded why euthanasia is a bad idea, most of these can be over-ridden by ensuring proper safeguards are in place to ensure euthanasia is completely voluntary, and that more than one medical practitioner is consulted, etc, etc (something all supporters of euthanasia want). However Christians expound one more “reason” which goes along the line of “we value human life”.

Well, I’m sure it’s not just Christians that value human life, I value it, especially my own, as I’m certain do most other people of non-Christian faith or those with no faith at all.

But what is a human life that is lived in total abject pain, or with complete mental breakdown? A life not worth living for some people. So why should those in these extreme conditions not be allowed to end their suffering? To voluntarily end their life before it descends into a living nightmare? What right does someone have to tell those people they have to keep living no matter what pain or suffering they are enduring? Family, relative or stranger; no matter how much they love or care for someone do they really have the right to force something on that person just because they “value human life”?

Personally I think it’s very selfish of someone to prevent a person who is in severe pain and dying not to end their own life, if they have considered all the options, and would rather die peacefully than endure years more agony and suffering.

I have only touched on a few basics in the euthanasia, right to die, debate and I’m not really interested in all the ins-and-outs of the debate. Many others better qualified than me have done this before. However I have one question (in two parts), mainly to the Christians who say something like “we value human life” as an argument against voluntary euthanasia:

Have you, or any Christian you know, ever had a pet “put down” (euthanized)? If not, would you consider euthanizing a pet if a vet strongly recommended it?

Yes I understand that a cat or dog is not the same as a human, but the underlying principle is the same. People, after careful consideration (I’d hope), are willing to put an animal out of it’s misery by euthanizing it and often cite the reason for doing so is so the animal doesn’t have to suffer anymore. So if it is more humane to euthanize an animal that is in severe pain and dying, then isn’t it even more humane to allow a human the right to die when they want to if they are in extreme pain and suffering?

As a note, I’m not going to consider the slippery slope argument that the above paragraph might delve into, any comments that go down that path may be summarily deleted. I also strongly emphasise that your comments should stick to answers regarding voluntary euthanasia. I’m sure we can all agree that for humans euthanasia should always be voluntary and I’m sure any legalisation would have plenty of safeguards in place to ensure it is voluntary.

Please stick to the following questions in your response:

Have you as a Christian, or any Christian you know, ever had a pet “put down” (euthanized)? If not, would you consider euthanizing a pet if a vet strongly recommended it?

If you have euthanized a pet, or be willing to do so, explain in a better way than “I value human life” why you wouldn’t let a human being who is in similar circumstances to your dying pet not be allowed to voluntarily euthanize themselves.

Thank you for your participation.


Filed under christianity, religion

Why Do Good

“where does the desire to do good come from”

Bradley left a comment on my FAQ 1 page – The Ten Commandments and Morality – as follows:

I just have a question, not a comment. If there is no transcendental being from whom we get at least some inspiration to do good, where does the desire to do good come from, and why would we have any preferences any way? I know that certain things are just naturally disliked, but what makes it uncomfortable or not to be liked?

Rather than clog up my FAQ page I’ve copied this to a new post so I can answer the question, as well as make it easier for others to answer or comment.

Well Bradley to put it simply, the desire to do good has just been bred into us, the human race would not have survived if at least most of us hadn’t wanted to instinctively do good. How long do you think humankind would last if everyone wanted to rape, steal, lie, cheat, harm or kill? Not long.

Much like you assert that “certain things are just naturally disliked” so are certain things just naturally liked.

Apart from the evolution of society needing to (mainly) do good to each other to survive [read some literature on the ethic of reciprocity, which by the way was NOT invented by Christians as some are want to believe, as to why] science has also found various chemicals in the brain, and brain functions, that indicate the desire to do good is a physical property of the body. Have a read of some articles about Oxytoxin for example.

I don’t know about you Bradley, but I find when I do something good I feel good, I get a little “kick” out of doing something good, and it makes me happy. Why would this be? Perhaps it’s chemicals in the brain? Perhaps it’s because of the knowledge that I’ve made someone happy or improved their life in some way. But why be altruistic (which is what we are talking about when we discuss doing good things for no apparent reason or expectation of return)? We know that most religions cite altruism as a virtue, but I don’t consider that religion has a ‘hold’ on altruism. In fact it has been shown that many species of animals act in an altruistic manner and that there is an evolutionary explanation for altruism.

I consider it wholly possible to do good without any transcendental being providing inspiration. Anyway, how would we know a transcendental being provided the inspiration? Could it not be that any supposed transcendental inspiration is actually our own innate goodness and inspiration? That due to a lack of knowledge, or a lack of thought, this inspiration was deemed to have come from a transcendental being only because there didn’t seem to be any other way to explain it’s existence?

Time and again science has discovered reasons for things that people thought were the actions of a transcendental being, pushing the reason for a need, or the possibility, of any transcendental being further and further into non-existence. Perhaps one day science will prove where the desire to do good comes from (from what little I’ve read they pretty well already have) or perhaps there are some things that just are. Either way I see no reason to bring any transcendental being into the equation.

Technorati : , , , , , : , , , , ,
Zooomr : , , , , ,
Flickr : , , , , ,


Filed under atheism, beliefs, christianity, compassion, evolution, golden rule, religion, science

The Cognitive Dissonance is Strong in This One

Watched an awesome video last night on ABC1 TV Compass program called: Christianity: A History – God and the Scientists; do yourself a favour and watch it (streaming video or download, about 50 minutes). The presenter Colin Blakemore (a British neurobiologist at Oxford University and Warwick University)

interviews scholars and churchmen in order to understand how science transformed Christianity over the last four centuries. He shows how scientists born of the Enlightenment realised that the laws of the universe were there to be discovered, not read about in the Bible. He argues that science is the biggest challenge Christianity has ever had to face, and that it will eventually make religion unnecessary. from ABC Compass

It was a very informative show covering some of the history of science particularly how it pertains to Christianity. Despite Christianity actually starting many universities and initially encouraging thinking, they changed their mind quite quickly when anyone discovered something that went against church dogma (Copernicus, Galileo et al). The church doesn’t come across as being very open-minded (but has it ever?) and some of the methods used to dissuade free-thinking and scientific investigation were rather cruel (an understatement, torture methods used during the inquisition were horrendous), As Blakemore points out, the church didn’t always have to actually physically torture people, sometimes the mere threat was sufficient for people to recant their (correct) ideas. Self censorship is a powerful weapon.

The cognitive dissonance shown by some of the people Blakemore interviewed was interesting, the Vatican astronomer seemed fully conversant with all the latest astronomical findings and seemed quite happy to discuss the earth being 4.5 Billion years old, but some how still managed to fit God into the equation. But the greatest cognitive dissonance shown was by Dr Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist and scientific adviser for the Creation Museum! He fully believes the biblical version of creation that God created everything in six days, that dinosaurs roamed the earth alongside humans, including Adam and Eve. I could hardly comprehend it when Lisle replied to one of Blakemore’s questions with

“If we find some experiment that seems on the surface to disagree with the word of God, we go with the word of God”

at about this stage I think a part of my brain melted from the sheer idiocy. The scientific method, which someone with a PhD in Astrophysics should know, does not allow you to disregard results of an experiment just because you don’t like those results; you have to go where the FACTS direct you, like it or not. I could not understand how someone could get a PhD in Astrophysics and be so deluded, as the title of this blog says: The Cognitive Dissonance is Strong in This One. If you just want to watch Blakemore’s visit to the Creation Museum, including the interview with Lisle, check the link, it goes for about 4 and 1/2 minutes. But be warned, the Stupid It Burns!


Blakemore’s visit to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) left me wide eyed with the sheer enormity of the project, that thing is HUGE. People talk about the majesty of some religious buildings, and I agree some churches are architecturally and/or artistically inspiring, but the LHC is truly majestic in its own right.

How could anyone not be amazed with what science can achieve? How can anyone disregard scientific facts and instead accept what was written thousands of years ago by people who knew no better. We know better now, it has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that much of what is written in the bible is wrong, that the bible is not a scientific book. So why do so many people still cling to the biblical fallacies, and prefer (misguided) belief over scientific evidence?

Technorati : , , , , , , , , : , , , , , , , ,
Flickr : , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Filed under atheism, Charles Darwin, christianity, creationism, evolution, ID, religion, science

Reasons why Religion is Wrong

Nun Excommunicated For Allowing Abortion –

Gay couple jailed for 14 years – with hard labour–with-hard-labour-20100521-vrux.html?autostart=1

Search for leaders of doomsday cult

Technorati : , , , : , , ,
Flickr : , , ,


Filed under atheism, Catholic, christianity, cult, gay and lesbian, religion


The last few days I’ve been watching the twitter stream of the hashtag #livetweetingabortion started by Angie Jackson to document her abortion live on the Internet. I’ve been following Angie on twitter for a while and knew about this, but following mainstream media reports (see above link) there seems to have been more interest in the whole abortion “debate”. Additionally, yesterday Angie reported that she had had death threats from one of the religious people who had been debating via the #livetweetingabortion hashtag. The person in question has denied they sent the death threats, so I will not discuss that matter further. I also believe that Angie is looking into the threats, and where they came from, through legal/police means. However the alleged death threats did pique my interest hence spending more time lately following the #livetweetingabortion tweets and making a few comments of my own.

This blog post is some further thoughts from myself, plus additional comments taken from the tweet stream.

Any debate on abortion always come down to the rights of the unborn baby versus the rights of the mother. Many anti-abortionists, who strangely call themselves “pro-life”, state that abortion should never be used under any circumstances. A plainly stupid and ignorant stance. As @snobographer pointed out in the following tweets there are more deaths of mothers during live births than there are due to legal abortions. There are also many infant deaths during live births.

@snobographer: 13 deaths per 100K live births in 2003

@snobographer: Less than 1 death per 100K legal abortions in 2000

The State of Our Health – Women’s Health: Death In Childbirth

The death of infants is much more common – the nation’s infant mortality rate was 679 per 100,000 live births in 2004. From U.S. maternal deaths on the rise article.

From these reports it is clear that in some instances it can be lethal for the woman to go full term and for the baby to be born . One would have to wonder how many of these deaths could be prevented if the woman had had an abortion earlier in the pregnancy? Ah, I hear all the anti-abortionists scream ” but millions die by being aborted every year”. Well that’s not strictly true. The majority of abortions are done very early on in pregnancies before the “baby” can really be classified as a “baby” or a “person”. Every sperm is not sacred. If the so called “pro-lifers” really are pro-life then surely in some instances they should allow abortions especially if is going to save the life of the woman? Unfortunately the vast majority of anti-abortionists / “pro-lifers” see it all in black and white where no abortions can be good or allowed. What the anti-abortionists / “pro-life” brigade don’t seem to realise is that abortion has been going on since the dawn of time and will occur even if it is made illegal (as they seem to want to make it). One of the reasons abortion has been made legal (in varying degrees) in many countries is that eventually it was realised that illegal abortions were being carried out anyway and that women were being harmed during them.

I agree that late term abortions can be an ethical and moral dilemma (see the question further down) and I would prefer late term (post 22-24 weeks) abortions weren’t carried out except under exception circumstances. However I see very little problem with women choosing to have an abortion early on in the pregnancy. After all it’s a womens body and she should have a say in what she’s allowed to do with it.

Another argument put forward by the anti-abortion / “pro-life” brigade is the psychological ordeal women go through having an abortion.

as @aagblog said “RU486=appalling psychological ordeal? I’ll show you an appalling psychological ordeal. PARENTING”

especially if the women is not prepared for it or doesn’t want to do it. Looking after a baby is a huge commitment and many women suffer various forms of mental anguish, including things such as post-natal depression, after having a baby. I personally know more women who have suffered a psychological ordeal from having a baby than ones having an abortion.

I can imagine that some women could be traumatised by having an abortion, for all sorts of reasons. Society in general still stigmatises abortion to some extent, though this is mainly driven by the religious. It certainly doesn’t help when religious bigots campaign outside abortion clinics. There is (depending on who you speak to) an instinct for (most) women to have babies, so I could see that for some women getting pregnant might ignite their maternal instinct, but, for whatever reason, they decide to terminate the baby, no matter how much they rationalise it, there may still be some doubts or regrets in their mind. For these women some form of counselling or therapy might be useful, though I’d prefer they went to a qualified psychologist first, however a trained counsellor, or even sometimes just a good friend may be all these women need. There are religious post-abortion counsellors, I just hope that organisations like ARIN provide the counselling in a non-judgemental way, free from any religious language, and free from stigmatising abortion in general. However it would seem very few women actually do have a “psychological ordeal” from having an abortion.

as @triptrain pointed out from one of the studies looking into the negative psychological impact of abortion:

“This review identified several factors that are predictive of more negative psychological responses following first-trimester abortion among women in the United States. Those factors included perceptions of stigma, need for secrecy, and low or anticipated social support for the abortion decision; a prior history of mental health problems; personality factors such as low self-esteem and use of avoidance and denial coping strategies; and characteristics of the particular pregnancy, including the extent to which the woman wanted and felt committed to it. Across studies, prior mental health merged as the strongest predictor of post-abortion mental health. Many of these same factors also predict negative psychological reactions to other types of stressful life events, including childbirth, and, hence, are not uniquely predictive of psychological responses following abortion.”

and what do you think would be the biggest cause of the stigma, and therefore the need for secrecy? My guess – religion. The vast majority of people who complain about abortions are religious people, I have never heard of a non-religious group campaigning against abortions outside a family planning clinic, but I have seen the evidence of a lot of religious groups doing it. What must the poor women who are attending these clinics be going through having to make the decision to have an abortion then having to run through the gamut of small minded bigots to have it done?

This tweet (via Twit-Longer) sums up the “debate” nicely:

On Monday 1st March 2010, @snobographer said:

#livetweetingabortion #prochoice #prolife

Okay so let’s review, shall we?

We’ve established:

That most women who’ve received abortions don’t regret it and aren’t traumatized by it

That the few women who are traumatized are women in communities where #abortion is stigmatized

That the maternal mortality rate for live births is more than 13 times the rate of death for abortions

What things are like for women and girls when their rights to make their own reproductive decisions are restricted

And we’ve established just how much the lives of women and girls matter to the #prolife community

Anything else?

Yes, Some of the christians on twitter are neither very ‘christian’ or ‘pro-life’ when they threaten @antitheistangie or anyone else for that matter.

One of the ‘pro-lifers’ has a blog on which they have a question for people who are in favour of abortion. The question is pre-empted by an article on a rather disturbing incident in an abortion clinic.

Having read most of the, mostly sycophantic comments, I was going to reply, but they want me to login and I’d rather not, so here is what I would have said:

are you male?
If so you have no right to say what a women can or can not do with her body. Additionally you have no concept of what being raped would be like and the natural consequences thereof.

What you “pro-lifers” all seem to forget is the life of the mother. Sure the child of a rape victim might grow up OK. However, how is the women going to feel toward that child? Resentful? Would having the child send her into depression? Suicidal? You can’t and will never know, and it will be different for every woman. Therefore abortion should be legally and safely available to them. Preferably in the early stages of pregnancy.

are you religious?
Then you have no right to dictate what the rest of us do, solely based on what your religious tracts tell you to believe.


Oz (a sympathetic, non-religious male)

The reply was, in part, a response to people who responded to the comment, from a religious person, that sometimes abortions should be allowed, particularly in “cases such as rape, incest and immediate life-threatening health issues”. This is a very logical and sensible view to hold, it’s a pity not all religious people hold this view. Whilst I’m all for pro-choice and allowing abortions, it does seem there should be some limits, which I believe there are in most countries, usually after the 22-24 week period they aren’t allowed except in serious life threatening (to the mother) situations.

As usual there was some discussion between two opposing faiths. It always makes me laugh when one christian tells the other they aren’t a True Christian. If none of the christian faiths can agree on which one is the right one, then why should we believe in any of them? Ask anyone of any “Christian” faith and they will tell you they are a Christian. However followers of one of these branches of Christianity will often tell you that followers of another branch aren’t “Christians”. If they can’t even get their definition of “Christian” right, what chance have they got of getting anything about their faith right?

From wikipedia this nice picture shows the major branches of Christianity

Christian Branches

Of course these branches get broken down even further, check the directory listing Christian Denominations and Sects on Yahoo Directory for a much bigger list of different “Christian” faiths.

If there is only one God there should be only one faith, so until that occurs why should the rest of society have to accept anything you have to say based on your particular interpretation of God and his so-called holy book? So some faiths don’t accept abortion, fine don’t have one. But shut the fuck up about everyone else who wants one and stop trying to prevent others from having one just because you’ve interpreted your faith to say that they shouldn’t.

Feel free to leave a comment, if you haven’t commented here before your first comment will have to be moderated (to stop spammers) after that you’re free to comment. However please try and keep it relatively civil.

Technorati : :
Flickr :


Filed under abortion, atheism, atheist, christianity, religion

Eviscerating a fundie

I have been getting a few new readers lately, posting their first comments which, as I’ve pointed out before, have to be moderated. As I recently blogged about, not all of these are very informative, on topic or lucid. Some just resort to insults, which for a first time visit is a little rude. Would you just walk up to some one you’ve never met and say “you are a fool”? Well Wolfsbane seems to think that is an OK introduction, as the following comment from him shows. (shown in it’s entirety, then broken down so I can address each part)

You people are fools ! Every single one of you ! You will all miss the snow in the UK, hell is a pretty hot place. Reason why you are fools: There is but no evidence, other than a dude who makes money from his opinion paid by people who believe in the same opinion, that God does not exist. You may argue, but their is little evidence to support that he does. Whether he does or not, why make a scene about it. Why do you people need to believe that he doesn’t. Will it make you feel better when looking at child pornography? Will it make you feel better when stealing or killing?

You are fools, cause you live like there is no God, but take to chance to find out that there is one, and what then? You’re screwed?

If you have the balls to attack christian faith, why not attack allah or buddha? You most prob scared after they bomb you! Christians won’t, right?

Understand, that you attack christians, because you are scared, and putting your faith in mere person, hoping he might know what he is talking about, just as I, might not know what i am talking about. You are weak, and looking for the easy way out.

I feel sorry for you people. Not willing to have responsibility for your own lives, and living someone else’s. Good for you, I am happy I don’t have sleepless night about fools.

Adios me foolish wanderers !

Well welcome to you to Wolfsbane, next time try and be a little more polite in your opening sentence. I’ll admit I’m a bit foolish sometimes but I think you are drawing a long bow calling all my readers fools. For a start if you are having a go at non-believers (not entirely clear who the “you people” is) then it may pay you to know that I get a few religious people who frequent this blog (some of them very nice people).

You will all miss the snow in the UK, hell is a pretty hot place.

Personally I won’t miss the snow in the UK as, in case you didn’t guess from the blog name, I live in Australia, so I don’t really miss snow anyway (though now you’ve mentioned it, it’s been a while since I last went skiing, may have to think about a holiday to the snow fields this year). I was in Adelaide last week, now that’s a pretty hot place and it’s real and exists, unlike your imaginary hell. Take note: trying to scare atheists with threats of non-existent places is really not much of a threat.

Reason why you are fools: There is but no evidence, other than a dude who makes money from his opinion paid by people who believe in the same opinion, that God does not exist. You may argue, but their is little evidence to support that he does.

Don’t know which ‘dude‘ you are talking about, but there wasn’t one person that made me think there is no evidence for any gods, it was my own intelligence, thinking and reasoning that made me think that way. I’ll admit people like the authors of all the books in my reading list (see sidebar) have been of assistance in my defining myself as an atheist and prompting me to be vocal about it. They have also provided me with clear and precise reasons why there is probably no god, but I don’t slavishly believe in all their opinions.

Whether he does or not, why make a scene about it. Why do you people need to believe that he doesn’t.

Atheists like myself and the countless other bloggers (see my blog roll page) “make a scene about it” because a large proponent of the religious community from all the varying sects/creeds/cults/versions spend way too  much time and money trying to influence the way the rest of the world behaves. There are many good reasons for doing what we do, but I’m not going to cover them again here. Atheists don’t  “need to believe that he doesn’t” we just don’t accept that he does.

Will it make you feel better when looking at child pornography? Will it make you feel better when stealing or killing?

As for the  “feel[ing] better when looking at child pornography” that is just plain insulting to myself and all other atheists, just because we see no evidence for any gods doesn’t automatically make us paedophiles (by the way have you checked how many catholic priests have been charged with paedophilia lately? pot calling kettle!). Same for the stealing and killing insult. Wolfsbane get off your high hobby-horse and appeals to godly moral authority, go have a read of some articles on morality (you can start with my FAQ 1 page) and find that humans developed morality all on their own in order to survive as a species, no requirements from any gods. Additionally if the fear of god is the only thing preventing you from stealing and murdering then I think you should get some professional psychiatric help.

You are fools, cause you live like there is no God, but take to chance to find out that there is one, and what then? You’re screwed?

Drop the Pascal’s Wager it just doens’t work.

If you have the balls to attack christian faith, why not attack allah or buddha? You most prob scared after they bomb you! Christians won’t, right?

If you’d paid any attention Wolfsbane, or bothered to read more than just one or two posts of mine, you’ll find I have “attacked” several different religious faiths in the past, and will again in the future if I consider it necessary. Go ask a few of the people who have been killed by Christians, such as some of the workers in abortion clinics that have been blown up by Christian extremists, if they think Christians won’t bomb them. Oops that’s right they are dead, killed by Christians. EPIC FAIL Wolfsbane.

Understand, that you attack christians, because you are scared,

Scared of what exactly? If anything we should be scared of the christians because we do “attack” them (only verbally mind you), because time and again the religious have demonstrated they don’t like being critiqued, and quite often the religious demonstrate their displeasure in a violent manner.

and putting your faith in mere person, hoping he might know what he is talking about,

WTF are you talking about? If you are trying to infer that atheists put their “faith” in one person then you are so grossly mistaken as to be laughable. Frankly most of the atheists I read do know what they are talking about, they are generally highly educated and have done their research. But there is no one person who is always right. If you are trying to infer I put my “faith” in humankind then you are right, becuase that is all we have. I would like to think humankind has a bright future and that through commonsence and decency we can all grow as a species, though sometimes I despair at what I see humankind doing to itself sometimes.

just as I, might not know what i am talking about. You are weak, and looking for the easy way out.

I strongly doubt you have a clue what you are talking about. Easy way out of what? I think it would be a lot more easy just to say ‘god did it’ and that I don’t need to take any responsibility for my actions because I can always ask god for his forgiveness.

I feel sorry for you people. Not willing to have responsibility for your own lives, and living someone else’s. Good for you, I am happy I don’t have sleepless night about fools.

And I feel sorry for you Wolfsbane, sorry that you are so misguided and deluded. Just mentioned this in previous statement, but as aetheists we don’t accept that there is any “higher supernatural authority” so we have to take responsibility for our own lives. Unlike religious people who can commit any sort of atrocity but as long as they ask for gods forgiveness they think they still get to go to heaven. Yeah lots of responsibility there….not!

Adios me foolish wanderers !

Adious to you Wolfsbane, I have a feeling that, like Jeffrey, you will never return, you are like a random drive by shooting. Pointless, dangerous, nasty and gutless. <sarcasm> Thanks for that final insult </sarcasm>

Like the previous one of these I wrote, Wolfbane’s comment has been left in my moderation queue (and will probably eventually be deleted as spam), I would prefer if Wolfsbane were to return that their next first comment might be a bit more polite, accurate, and to the point.

Oh, and I fixed the spelling mistakes in their comments. Why are so many of these fundies illiterate?

Feel free to continue my critique of Wolfsbanes comments, or just have your own rant about whatever you want, the likes of Wolfsbane, Jeffrey et al seem to think it’s OK to just drop in and rant so why don’t you all join in the fun? Consider comments on this post open to general ranting. 🙂 but don’t make it too personal OK.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Filed under atheism, atheist, christian, christianity, god, islam, religion

bible study of the day

Don’t worry folks, I’m only studying bits of it to verify something I just read.

subtitled “bonking for god”

sub-subtitled “make up your freakin’ mind god!”

Gen 6:1  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them,

Fair enough, god’s made man and woman and they’ve started to procreate. I’m also guessing sons were born as well, but they are not of much interest at this stage, as we shall soon see.

Gen 6:2  that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.

So if I read this right, gods sons (angels?) took a fancy to all the good looking daughters of the mere mortal men and took them as wives (whether they liked it or not by the looks of things). Of note in the Good News Bible  (GNB) the verse is as follows:

some of the heavenly beings saw that these young women were beautiful, so they took the ones they liked

Nothing about marriage here, just pure bonk fest by the sounds of it. Hey being a son of god has to have some perks.

By the way I thought god only ever had one son? But these passages indicate he’s got lots?

Gen 6:3  And the LORD said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be an hundred and twenty years.

So we could all have lived for ever but god decided that we couldn’t be immortal like him, so he set a time limit – maximum 120 years.

Gen 6:4  The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men which were of old, the men of renown.

Nephilim – for those that don’t know (I didn’t), are the children of angels and humans (see bonk fest in Gen 6.2 and 6.4). The Nephilim are also called Giants in some versions of the Bible, GNB and King James version (KJV) to name a couple. So the angels bonk the earthly women and they have ‘giant’ babies, ooohh that could be painful.

Gen 6:5  And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

So the story takes a major turn here, we’ve been discussing how the “sons of god” (angels) have been ‘getting it on’ with all the good looking human women. Having ‘giant’ babies who turn out to be “heroes of renown”; and god thinks the humans are being wicked? What the heck were they doing wrong, poor blokes had to suffer for second best after the angels took all the good looking women. Wouldn’t blame them if they were a tad upset and got a bit uppity.

Gen 6:6  And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

So after going to all the trouble of making man and women, knowing full well that they’d procreate and have fun, he decides he’s made a mistake? He decides that ‘man’ is wicked and he gets upset that there are so many of them; but he thinks his ‘sons’ are nice guys? God doesn’t strike me as much of an ‘all knowing god’ like some people profess him to be. So god regrets making man, and then we get to the flood…

Well here endeth the lesson


Filed under atheism, atheist, bible, Bible Study, christianity, god, religion, sex

I’m an Atheist

According to the “Which Enemy of the Christian Faith Are You?” quiz I’m an atheist. Hardly surprising really.

I'm an Atheist

I'm an Atheist

Go ahead, do the quick quiz, it’s only ten questions, find out which enemy of the Christian faith you are. Once you’ve got your results click on the ‘See all enemies?’ link and have a look at all the possible enemies,  some are quite funny, I like the Catholic Priest one.

One other thing for today, Zeno left a comment in my about page today with a link to his site selling anti-religious t-shirts. Normally I think it’s bad etiquette for a first post to be plugging your own blog, especially if you are trying to flog something. But I’ve given Zeno the benefit of the doubt this time as some of his t-shirts are quite funny, in an obscene way. Anyway, here’s the link to his blog, which has links to his apparel.  Don’t think I’ll be this nice and generous next time.  🙂

Hat Tip to Adrian at The Atheist Blogger for the link to the quiz.


Filed under atheism, atheist, christian, christianity, quiz

Uncle Tom Atheism

Austin Cline at wrote two articles titled: You Might Be an Uncle Tom Atheist If… and Avoiding Uncle Tom Atheism.

I was going to provide my take on these articles but others have already beaten me to it. VJack at Atheist Revolution asks Who’s a Real Atheist? and is already creating some interesting debate.

Personally I think Austin has some good points, even if some of his terminology and analogies are a bit off the mark.


Filed under atheism, atheist, beliefs, christianity, religion