Random Atheist Tag Game

After a 4 month absence, I have decided to actually post again.

So I am going to join in on a tag game from ERV.

So here we go.

Q1. How would you define "atheism"?

The lack of a belief in any Gods/Goddesses. Normally accompanied by a lack of a belief in other crap such as New Age bollocks, Fairies, Ghosts, Fate, "Every thing happens for a reason" (I hate these people most of all, they wouldn't think that if they had cancer. They just like to say it because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside to not have to contemplate that the world doesn't give a shit about them.), etc.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

None of my family are religious, but one of my schools was very religious. They got to me too late, I wasn't going to accept their bullshit.

Q3. How would you describe "Intelligent Design", using only one word?

Abracadabra!

Q4. What scientific endeavor really excites you?

I have to pick one?

Almost all physics I come across in my degree is exciting at some level. (Except vibrations and waves, but that may be more down to the lecturer). I also find lots of biology interesting.

Probably would go with nano-tec, just because I was really excited by imaging an atom on a Scanning Tunneling Microscope, during one of my first Labs. Even though it just looked like a fuzzy grey blob, I still really enjoyed it. So being able to manipulate individual atoms, and even see the electron waves is just awesome.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the "atheist community", what would it be and why?

Get rid of the whiners, who constantly claim that we shouldn't tell people that, the idea that an invisible sky wizard rules the world, is rather retarded.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said "I'm joining the clergy", what would be your first response?

Why was I not informed of your existence? Are you SURE that I am your dad?

But if I did have child and they wanted to join the clergy. I would probably inform that that they are wasting their lives, helping people talk to themselves, when they could actually do many more useful things.

Q7. What's your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

Any version of the argument from design.
I refute with SCIENCE! (It works BITCHES!)

Q8. What's your most "controversial" (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

Apart from the view that there is no God, there aren't many standard atheist views. so it is hard to be too controversial. But I do spend more time arguing with theists than most think is healthy.

Q9. Of the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Dawkins, I only very rarely seem to disagree with most things he says, and when I do most of the disagreements are relatively minor.

Hitchens, is great sometimes but I despise most of his politics, and find that many of his arguments against God, lack enough science.

Harris, I agree with more often than Hitchens, but there is something about his style of communication that bugs me a bit.

Dennett, I really need to get round to reading something by him.

So Dawkins wins.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Probably the Pope. I would love for him to suddenly stop and think.

Why the hell did I just wast my entire life here talking to nothing?
Why do so many people follow me when I have been talking such utter vacuous bollocks?
Why the fuck am I wearing these stupid robes, I look like a complete tit?
Hmm I should probably start campaigning for contraception and gay rights to make up for being a complete ass for the last 80 years.



So yeah, that's my answers. At this point I am meant to tag people. But I would be rather surprised if anyone with a blog reads this. But anyone reading this can consider themselves tagged.

Best article ever!

Read this! Read it slowly and take it all in. It is brilliant. The same logic from the article, equality for all and integration not segregation, can be put towards other issues like faith schools. Anyone who reads this blog (Laurence is about it I think! Hi Lozz!) will know that I have tried to raise these issues before, but I am not too eloquent.

In conclusion, if you still haven't read the article GET ON WITH IT!

Arch-nutjob replies (Not to me personally)

Yes, the stupid crazy fool who we all love to mock, Dr Williams, has replied to everyone who pointed out that what he said last week was a load of shit.

Let's see what he said.
Well he starts off with the usual, "I didn't really say it like that.", "Taken out of context.", etc. He also apologised and admitted it may have been his fault in being unclear.
Taking responsibility for being misunderstood is probably a compromise position. As if he carried on denying any fault people would get annoyed at him, yet if he admitted he was wrong then he would be admitting he said something stupid. So this way he can sneakily pretend he has apologised without actually apologising for what actually caused offence.

Moving on:

"I believe quite strongly that it is not inappropriate for a pastor of the Church of England to address issues about the perceived concerns of other religious communities, and to try and bring them into better public focus."

True in a free society anyone can address anything, what people were saying was not, "Don't comment on that!", but "That is a really really REALLY REALLY stupid comment." Most then went on to explain why it is such a stupid comment. So to claim that people aren't letting you address issues is bullshit. Just as you have the right to make a monumentally stupid comment, we all have the right to tell you are stupid.

OK, there isn't much more that I know of of the speech except:

The relationship between law and religion was a subject on which "Christians and people of other faiths ought to be doing some reflecting together", he added.

Apparently us immoral bastards, who need evidence before we believe in things, are not allowed to to comment on the relationship between laws (That affect us too) and religion. Maybe it is because we may make things fair for everyone, ruining their special status under the law?

In conclusion his reply was slightly more well though out but still extremely stupid, which makes me wonder about these kind of comments:

"We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day. He is undoubtedly one of the finest minds of this nation. "

Finest minds? I have seen finer minds, behind the till at McDonalds, yes he has a lot of theology qualifications. This doesn't make you clever, with theology the whole idea is not to give a good argument but to

• Give a good excuse they you have no argument.
  OR
• To think of an idea you want to be true, then think of a eloquent way to pretend a contradictory book agrees.
  OR
• To disguise your lack of argument using very complex language, so people just assume you know what you are talking about.

In general NOT an academic subject. Just an exercise in linguistic gymnastics.

In lighter news Gordon Brown has said he believes religious law should be subservient to UK law.
Which is in principle the same as my position, "I don't give one hoot of a flying fuck what you want to call a religious law, as long as it isn't an official law and doesn't break the actual law."

Arch-nutjob being nutty again.

The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams) has said the government should let Muslims have the choice of using Sharia law instead of British law for some issues.

Let's hope not the right to kill apostates and adulterers.

Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Well that doesn't give them the right to have their own legal system, if you choose to move to a new country with a completely different legal system, then you should be prepared to abide by it, if you want to live by a legal system like you had before, then stay where you are or move somewhere with a similar legal system.

I am not against immigration, but I am against giving immigrants different rights to everyone else, whether that is more rights or less rights. Democracy is built on equality, for this reasons no one should be exempt from the law.

Unfortunately Dr Williams, with his stupid views, has a position in our Government, let's hope we vote him out next election. Oh wait, he never was elected they just gave him a position in government just because he is a ranking member of a group of people who believe an invisible sky daddy is supreme dictator of the world.

My opinion on moderate Christianity

I have to say it is one of the hardest things to have a fixed opinion on, as moderate Christianity is so vapid and wishy washy it is hard to pick anything out to form an opinion on without it disappearing as soon as you start to question it.

But then recently one of my friends suggested I read a little book of his, which I am currently halfway through, and I think I have finally managed to form an opinion on moderate Christianity.

The book is called “Bacon sandwiches and Salvation” (I plan to review it fully when I finish) and is written by Adrian Plass, it claims to be and A-Z of Christian life. It is written in a style like a dictionary, taking a word or phrase then giving a short explanation for each. The book starts off funny but with about 6 puns and anagrams per page the humour quickly subsides (and turns into irritation) and I actually started to get a feel for the message in the book.

One of the main messages that stuck out like as sore thumb was, the message favoured by fundamentalist evangelicals, the message that if you don't die “with Jesus” you will be eternally tormented. But I found it more sickening from this source, as normally the fundamentalists are deadly serious when talking of this disgusting subject, they are trying to help you (in some sick perverted way), where as this Adrian bloke actually thought the subject, that 2/3 of the world will be eternally tormented when they die, was something of a light idea to joke about. Now I was hopeful that he didn't actually believe it but he does clarify himself:

Hell: (1) place of eternal unhappiness for those who have decided to refuse God's invitation to come home to him (2) a concept that has been denied or significantly diluted by many modern teachers and theologians. But before getting too excited by cheery optimistic views, it might be well to check with God that he actually goes along with them. The Creator of the universe can be very slow and (let's be brutally honest) a little dense when it comes to staying au fait with new exciting theological advances. (See also Good News)

I have many problems with part 1, especially the fact that I “have decided to refused God's invitation”, sorry but I don't thing this God guy exists, if I did then I would be in the position to refuse to go to the home of a genocidal maniac. As it stands though, I no more refused God's invitation than I refused the genies invitation to turn me into a prince (for those of you who are unsure I never met a genie!).

And the second part, well that is just disgusting, using light hearted language to explain that anyone who says I wont be eternally tormented is just wrong. Thanks Adrian, at least I am glad the subject of us non-believers in Hell is amusing to someone.

Now of course none of this talk of damnation scares me, it is like threatening to behead me with an invisible sword, it just isn't scary. The reason it bothers me so much, is the fact that this whole religion, is based on a central theme of, “We Christians are super, as long as we are fairly nice and apologise for our mistakes we will be eternally rewarded. Everyone else is going to be eternally tortured because they aren't one of us.” A theme which runs through the New testament and is normally visible somewhere even with the moderates. And this is taught to children before they are old enough to see it is just a disgusting tactic to keep people in line by fear, and soon enough we have a new generation of indoctrinated people to carry on the sick cult.

Now I should probably stop here and address the anyone saying “I am a Christian, I don't believe in any of that.”
There are many people who claim to be Christian, but when you question them they really are far from it.
Ask them directly on just about any story of the bible, and eventually they will conceded it isn't true, even while holding onto their core belief.
But it gets to a point where either they do actually believe that Jesus died for them, or they don't.
If they do then they have to explain why he was dying for them, if it wasn't so save them from the “lake of fire” mentioned in the same book that tells of this sacrifice.
If you can find me anyone with that answer I will add them to my list of Christians with out a sick cult-ish belief, which is currently zero.
The other option is no they don't really think Jesus died for them, but they like some of the things Jesus supposedly said, and they have some kind of feeling that there is more than just the material world. As far as I can see these people aren't Christians, they are 'spiritual' people who, while I still think are completely wrong, their beliefs are much less perverse.
Now of course, who am I to say these people are or aren't Christians? I am no one of course, but it seems to me to use a rather extreme analogy that these “Christians” are like people who are claiming to be Nazis because they think blonds are hotter than brunettes, they almost agree with one little bit while rejecting all the other completely vile bits. I do apologise again for the extreme analogy, I just couldn't think of a better one.

So in conclusion my opinions of moderate Christianity is that it is just as sick and twisted as the fundamental version, while trying to focus on making cakes and growing pretty flowers, instead of thinking about the implications of believing that 2/3 of the world are doomed wile they can carry on baking and gardening in eternal bliss. And none of them think that this God guy is a colossal DICK for damning most of the people in history to eternal torment for such a petty thing as not believing in one specific message from a bronze age book that got most things completely wrong.

Save Physics Petition

The UK government is planing to cut Physics funding considerably, affecting most UK Physics departments, some may even be facing closure.
Please sign this petition to the UK Prime Minister to reverse this devastating decision. (Open to UK residents only, I think.)


Link:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Physics-Funding/

Petition Text:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reverse the decision to cut vital UK contributions to Particle Physics and Astronomy.

Due to cost overruns the UK's funding agency for particle physics and astronomy, STFC, is recouping £80M with deep cuts to UK physics operations in these areas. These include ending the UK's involvement in the International Linear Collider - the next generation of particle physics experiment. This risks relegating the UK to second tier involvement in future research and critically damaging the country's standing within the community. Furthermore UK Astronomy will be seriously hit with up to a 25% cut in grants. This is incompatible with the government's stated aim of making Britain a world leader in science. A review of this decision has recently been announced and we urge the Prime Minister to press for another solution to this problem before UK physics is set back by decades.

Extra information:
(From an internal email at the Physics Department of Nottingham University, edited slightly)
The Science and Technology Facilities Council has announced huge cuts to support of particle physics and astronomy in the UK. There are also major consequences for mainstream physics in terms of the level of support available for running national experimental facilities. Some areas of the subject, like ground-based solar-terrestrial physics, are being axed entirely.

Nottingham's exposure to these disastrous cuts is fairly limited, but some of our colleagues in other physics departments, which depend on STFC for up to 80% of their funding, are facing serious cutbacks if not complete closure. Given the Government's commitment to supporting science, this seems a perverse position in which to find ourselves.

(From BBC News: Full article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7210342.stm)

UK astronomers will lose access to two of the world's finest telescopes in February, as administrators look to plug an £80m hole in their finances.
Observation programmes on the 8.1m telescopes of the Gemini organisation will end abruptly because Britain is cancelling its subscription.
...
Gemini is one of the international "science clubs" in which Britain has been a major partner and investor. It has a 23.8% share in the project (which also includes the US, Canada, Chile, Australia, Brazil and Argentina) and to date has invested some £70m in construction and running costs.
...

Britain will incur a penalty of about £8m for cancelling its Gemini membership early; but this would still save more than £15m in "subs" that no longer needed to be paid between now and 2012, according to the STFC's statement.

A stupid agnostic.

Now I don't really have much against agnostics, they normally seem to be wishy-washy people who for some reason can't decide if there is a dictator-wizard in the sky. Of course a rather strange position, but a far less bizarre one than the theists, who actively think there IS a dictator-wizard in the sky.

But I have found a very special agnostic, one who seems to know about as much about science as your average creationist. The author of AgnosticWeb.com.

In the beginning, we are told, was the Big Bang.

Correction: Scientific evidence shows the universe started in "The Big Bang", whether that was the beginning we still do not know. Also you have the problem of defining beginning as time started with the big bang. The main thing I object to is the "we are told" as the author is attempting to make it sound as though it is taken on faith not evidence.

After aeons, everything calmed down, cooled down, settled down, until conditions were just right for life.

The universe was just right for life? No. Part of one planet, orbiting one of the hundred billion suns in our galaxy, which is just one out of billions of galaxies, had the correct conditions for life (I should point out it is only correct for a certain type of life, as there may be other types of life we don't know about).
When you explain it properly it sounds far less of a coincidence, as it is far less than on billionth of a percent of the universe that was "just right for life".

Next, various inanimate globules of matter suddenly became animate and, at the same time, managed to reproduce themselves. They were very simple and very primitive, you understand, so you needn’t think too hard about them. A flash of lightning, perhaps, and the little bits of what’s-it came alive and straight away knew how to produce new generations of living what’s-its.

Now he if just getting stupider, I know many creationists who would love to be able to be this stupid, but just can't quite manage it.
Abiogenesis, the study of the formation of life, is actually a very interesting field of science, and is not a place where people make assumptions about spontaneous generation of "what’s-its". We know from experimentation that if you simulate the early atmosphere, with the correct gasses, water vapour and lightning, this produces amino acids (amino acids being the building blocks of life). Now to get evolution started we need self replicating entities, and there are many hypotheses for how this happened. To characterise abiogenesis as "globules of matter suddenly became animate" is just bollocks.

These simple, primitive life forms, which were totally unconscious and mindless, managed (over aeons) to combine themselves into new forms, and out of the blue developed sensitivity to light (= sight), sound, touch, smell, taste, organs that enabled them to eat, drink, move, and even reproduce in new ways. “Out of the blue” because these things had never existed before. The very concepts were totally new. Pick up a pebble, and ask yourself how you would make it see. Where would you, conscious though you are, even begin the process? And “out of the blue” also because if they hadn’t worked straight away, even in their most primitive form, they wouldn’t have survived. What is the use of something that doesn’t work? Imagine a primitive, blind eye reproducing itself and trying to perfect itself over thousands of years until at last the umpteenth generation of this particular creature is able to cry out (in its own language, which is another of the amazing inventions of the unconscious, mindless ones): “I CAN SEE!”

This nutjob didn't even do the slightest bit of research for this article, the evolution of the eye is actually rather easy to explain. Anyone who doesn't believe me please read Climbing Mount Improbable of if you cant be bothered then at least read the wikipedia article on the evolution of the eye. I would go into it my self but I am actually rather poor at explaining science when I am not in the mood, and also it would make this post way too long.
Also, no it wouldn't have to come "out of the blue". If no other organism has any form of sight, then any organism with just the ability to sense the presence/absence of light gains an advantage over others, remember these organisms had to survive in the conditions of those days, not the conditions now. Sight built up slowly from: being able to detect light; to beg able to detect which direction the light is coming from; to forming fuzzy images, to forming clearer and clearer images. Not: nothing...nothing...nothing...nothing... FULL SIGHT!
Similar arguments can be made for the other senses.

Or imagine a rudimentary penis hanging around for aeons, unable to perform, and of course waiting for a suitable, self-made vagina to insert itself into.

I would love to be able to mind read just so I could see what goes on on inside this morons head. Does he really believe that scientists think that first the penis formed and then by a stroke of luck a vagina formed aeons later. Evolution happens as very small changes, and it is not hard to think of a path from "fish sex" (female lays eggs on the sea floor, male sprays his semen all over them) to "mammal sex" (I hope most of my readers know how this works) where each step is tiny and is beneficial to both the male and female.

This is only the first paragraph of the stupid article and my brain has almost melted from the stupidity. So I send out a message to any sensible agnostics out there to tell the author of AgnosticWeb.com that he should modify his arguments for agnosticism, as not to tar all the agnostics with the brush of mental retardation.