Friday, February 08, 2008


Yes. Awake, again. After a long sleep. Only to find what? The Archbishop of Canterbury saying that some form of Sharia Law is "inevitable". Only, being a nice liberal, he doesn't mean those bits about stoning women to death. No. He just wants , apparently, some nice arbitrtation panels. So, what's the point? The current laws don't stop people from asking others for advice. Or, indeed, arbitration, if that's what they want. Where's the need for a legal change? Such a thing would only enable people whose moral code comes from their imaginary friend to ignore laws that the rest of us have to obey. I, for instance, don't feel comfortable with the law that states I can't chin the Archbishop of Canterbury, for being a lying fuckwit who convinces the gullible to part with their money and reasoning powers. But I'm not allowed to. And no one's suggesting the law is changed for rationalists - why should it be for superstitious idiots?

Friday, June 22, 2007

School uniform debacle...

Meanwhile a schoolgirl has been told she can't wear some silly ring certifying she isn't going to have sex until she's married. Apparently this is an infringement on her human rights. Eh? Is she being tortured? Has she been forced to recant her beliefs under threat of violence? No. So where's the human rights issue? Apparently it isn't fair that Sikhs can wear turbans and yet she can't wear her jewelry. Hmm. Surely the issue of school uniforms is one for the school to decide. If they decree she can't wear jewelry, why doesn't she just do what her teachers tell her?
Her lawyer is also objecting to the school claiming that the ring isn't an integral part of Christian faith. Which it obviously isn't as most Christians don't wear them. But he's questioning their right to make doctrinal claims. Why, exactly? Given that the whole subject is one of superstitious nonsense, then all claims are equally absurd.
And I managed to write all this about a ring without once slipping in an anal sex joke. Albeit not for want of trying...

And now for something completely different

Lunacy of a more amusing kind is found, as so often, in Glastonbury. A man - Ross Hemsworth - a self styled "scientific investigator of anomalous phenomena" is apparently attempting to prove the existence of an afterlife. Erm, quite. How, exactly? Surely there would be difficulties in finding willing volunteers, for example. And using unwilling ones would almost certainly be ethically questionable. Furthermore, what, exactly, would constitute proof? And would you have a control group of people still alive? Making it double blind, so that neither the testers nor the control group know who is alive? That, again, would be tricky to pull off.
Sadly, all Mr Hemsworth would come out with was that scientists and doctors are working around the clock, and that he was keeping the details under wraps. Hmmm....yes....
Or don't, if you've got better things to do with your life.
Meanwhile, since I am in direct communion with the modern god of knowledge, Google (Praise Be His Name), I made the correct sacrifices and ceremonially typed Ross Hemsworth into the sacred search engine. Apparently he presents a radio show (well, a net-broadcast show) entitled "Well, that's weird". Last year, just before the world cup, they tried to "heal" Wayne Rooney's broken foot by concentrating on it. Some days later (after, coincidentally, approximately the amount of time it would take such a break to heal), Wayne Rooney played. If that doesn't prove Ross's greatness, I don't know what does.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

But, more seriously....

I am allowed to be serious. It's my blog, after all. It's not all pies versus pasties, you know.
Is it possible to debate rationally with theists? We can nit-pick over the bible, and point out flaws in their moral code, and so on, but, ultimately, there is an unbridgeable divide. They assert, on the basis of no evidence, the existence of some all-powerful being. Regardless of the fun of all the rest of it, until they can present some evidence for this rather ridiculous claim, there's no point in even debating the rest. Irrationality cannot be debated rationally. It doesn't accept the rules.

God Hates Fags

This is true - Keith Allen is currently on Channel Four talking to Fred Phelps's mob. But, more than this, that great Christian, Mr Tony Blair, is introducing a smoking ban on the 1st July. He wouldn't do this without God's blessing. God truly does hate fags.
Which makes this all the more blasphemous:
Don't look at it.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

On and on and on they go

What does it take to make them stop? The current head of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland is telling people what to think, again. Cardinal Keith O'Brien has threatened Scotland's democratically elected representatives that they could be thrown out of his club for morons if they accept that women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. This from the man who promotes the view that condoms shouldn't be used in Africa, with its blossoming AIDS crisis. From a man whose boss took a picture of a kidnapped child and recited a few magic words over it, to the adoration of thousands. Why? It won't bring her back, and it won't help her parents, who were negligent enough to leave her on her on own in the first place.
It needs to be stated clearly - taking moral advice from your imaginary friend is a sure road to psychopathy. Forget the condom issue. Forget the abortion issue. Forget even Peter Sutcliffe being told by god to murder women; the tube bombers, who were told by god to blow up commuters and Abraham who was told by god to murder his infant son. Simply consider the difference between an act which is good and an act which is evil. An act which is good is one which helps other people's lives, an act which is evil either harms other people or prevents a good act from being performed. If all your moral advice comes from your imaginary friend, then you're more than likely to perform evil acts, simply by not stopping and considering the consequences. And that's without considering all the evil being done by not allowing scientific research, for example, using stem cells. The more we know about the human condition, the easier it becomes to determine good actions and evil ones - because we know more about what is good and what is harmful for people. But that involves a careful study of evidence, not conversations with yourself...

Thursday, April 26, 2007


I have a small question. I am confused about one little aspect of life at the moment. There seems to be a private members bill going through parliament, brought by David McLean - a Tory MP - but supported by such staunch Labour Ministers as Tessa Jowel; Tony McNulty, police minister; Andy Burnham, health minister; Ian Pearson, climate change minister; John Healey, financial secretary to the Treasury; and Keith Hill, parliamentary private secretary to Tony Blair (thanks to the Guardian, for that cut and paste of their jobs...), which will exempt both the House Of Commons and The House Of Lords from the freedom of information act. Now, I may be missing somethng, but, despite everything, aren't we supposed to live in a democracy? Aren't the theiving, lying, corrupt pieces of shit who sit in parliament supposed to be accountable to us? And yet they want to hide even more information from us? Is this not the yet another nail in the coffin of so-called parliamentary democracy?
These people are scum. We knew it all along, they merely do their best to confirm the facts.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Snivelling cowardice

The Independent On Sunday today splashed a typically over-the-top headline across its front page, apologising for the newspaper's previous stance on cannabis legalisation. It has decided, apparently on the basis of new evidence, that it was wrong to call for decriminalisation. Unfortunately, its argument falls down on numerous levels. Firstly, the medical evidence - yes, further data does seem to have come to light showing excessive cannabis use is more harmful than was previously believed - but so what? Adults should be allowed to make the choice themselves as to what toxins they put in their bodies, after being provided with as much information as is available. Furthermore, this seems to be the current stance with alcohol - are the Sindie calling for prohibition of that? And yet far more people injure or kill themselves or others whilst abusing alcohol than do under the influence of cannabis.
Secondly, they make the claim that stronger varieties of cannabis are more widely available than previously. Yet, if anything, this is an argument for legalisation, so that production can be regulated, and people can be fully informed about what they are taking - something that isn't possible when buying it illegally.
It would seem that the newspaper has taken this backward step more from moral cowardice than any other reason, and is falling under the puritanism of so many of the ruling class, believing that they alone should tell the rest of us how we can and can't spend our free time. For a further example of this, read the Observer, just about every fucking Sunday, when some half-wit will explain why everyone should give up alcohol/meat/sex/whatever, simply because they and Tarquin have, and have found their lives improved no end. The twats.

Respect, etc

According to a NOP poll, commissioned for a BBC television programme, Christians feel themselves "discriminated against". In what way? People don't respect them? Well, why should they - they believe in fairy tales, and will try to convince you that it's OK to murder prostitutes or blow up tube trains if their imaginary friend tells them to.
And there's always the suspcicion that they're a bit stupid - after all, they believe in some truly astounding things, contradicting all known physical laws, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. At the very least, this indicates their inability to think rationally and clearly about subjects.
Obviously, I wouldn't want people to think this applies purely to Christians - it applies equally to all theists.
But, whichever way it's posed, if they want people to take them seriously and treat them as rational human beings, they have to start acting like rational human beings. Which means being able to justify their beliefs through evidence. Unlikely to happen, isn't it?

Monday, March 05, 2007

More intolerant ranting...

Having been described as intolerant, I was planning to ask what's so great about tolerating things that are not merely stupid and plainly wrong, but also lead to great acts of evil. After all, philosophy has no requisite for tolerence - if it tolerated any idea at all, how could it progress? And, in a practical sense, why would it need peer-reviewed journals? But then I became irritated by yet another cretinous fuckwit crossing my path. In the supermarket. Standing happily in a queue, basket in hand, waiting for the cashier, I was asked "Are you in this queue?"
No, you fucking moron, I'm standing here with a basket, behind these other people in the line, for the sheer bollocking joy of it.
The man then compounded his idiocy by saying to the woman at the checkout, "I can't get used to the queueing system here". Why not? It's the same as every other fucking shop in the country - you stand in a line, and wait your turn.
I remember starting this blog as a small effort to save the world. I sometimes wonder if I still want to. I hate people. All of them. Twats, the lot of 'em. Including you. And me. Especially me.