quietAtheist » Stupidity

In support of Rebecca Watson

Slugsie — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:48:00 +0000

Several months ago there was a little ‘scandal’ that rocked the sceptical world that came to be known as Elevatorgate (gawd I hate it when people add ‘gate’ to the end of things). To anyone who is at all involved in the sceptical community they will already know what happened and I have no desire to go over the events here.

As someone who exists largely on the fringes of the sceptical and atheist communities I pretty much stayed out of the debate. I figured that it was all just a storm in a tea-cup and would blow over soon enough. Indeed, as the weeks turned into months the story slowly faded from my sight, only occasionally popping up. Just as any big story does in the press.

Because I wasn’t really paying attention, and I usually switched off when I realised a blog post was about this event I never fully understood the levels of depravity some dirty low-life scum were still sinking to, and how there were treating Rebecca.

Until I decided to read this post:

http://skepchick.org/2011/09/mom-dont-read-this/

I am in utter disgust with the way that some people are treating not only a fellow human being, but also a fellow sceptic. The hate that Rebecca has had directed her way is utterly deplorable, and completely uncalled for.

If sides are being taken, and I really wish they weren’t, then I want to make it publicly known that I am absolutely, 100%, behind Rebecca Watson here.

Today is Blasphemy Day 2011

Slugsie — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:28:16 +0000

(Can’t think of anything more appropriate than my 2009 post on this subject)

As you may, or may not, be aware, today is International Blasphemy Day, and to that end, here is my little bit of Blasphemy… (edit: and dreadful comma abuse, sorry)

I deny the existence of Agdistis or Angdistis
I deny the existence of Ah Puch
I deny the existence of Ahura Mazda
I deny the existence of Alberich
I deny the existence of Allah
I deny the existence of Amaterasu
I deny the existence of An
I deny the existence of Anansi
I deny the existence of Anat
I deny the existence of Andvari
I deny the existence of Anshar
I deny the existence of Anu
I deny the existence of Aphrodite
I deny the existence of Apollo
I deny the existence of Apsu
I deny the existence of Ares
I deny the existence of Artemis
I deny the existence of Asclepius
I deny the existence of Athena
I deny the existence of Athirat
I deny the existence of Athtart
I deny the existence of Atlas
I deny the existence of Baal
I deny the existence of Ba Xian
I deny the existence of Bacchus
I deny the existence of Balder
I deny the existence of Bast
I deny the existence of Bellona
I deny the existence of Bergelmir
I deny the existence of Bes
I deny the existence of Bixia Yuanjin
I deny the existence of Bragi
I deny the existence of Brahma
I deny the existence of Brigit
I deny the existence of Camaxtli
I deny the existence of Ceres
I deny the existence of Ceridwen
I deny the existence of Cernunnos
I deny the existence of Chac
I deny the existence of Chalchiuhtlicue
I deny the existence of Charun
I deny the existence of Chemosh
I deny the existence of Cheng-huang
I deny the existence of Cybele
I deny the existence of Dagon
I deny the existence of Damkina (Dumkina)
I deny the existence of Davlin
I deny the existence of Dawn
I deny the existence of Demeter
I deny the existence of Diana
I deny the existence of Di Cang
I deny the existence of Dionysus
I deny the existence of Ea
I deny the existence of El
I deny the existence of Enki
I deny the existence of Enlil
I deny the existence of Eos
I deny the existence of Epona
I deny the existence of Ereskigal
I deny the existence of Farbauti
I deny the existence of Fenrir
I deny the existence of Forseti
I deny the existence of Freya
I deny the existence of Freyr
I deny the existence of Frigg
I deny the existence of Gaia
I deny the existence of Ganesha
I deny the existence of Ganga
I deny the existence of Garuda
I deny the existence of Gauri
I deny the existence of Geb
I deny the existence of Geong Si
I deny the existence of Hades
I deny the existence of Hanuman
I deny the existence of Hathor
I deny the existence of Hecate (Hekate)
I deny the existence of Helios
I deny the existence of Heng-o (Chang-o)
I deny the existence of Hephaestus
I deny the existence of Hera
I deny the existence of Hermes
I deny the existence of Hestia
I deny the existence of Hod
I deny the existence of Hoderi
I deny the existence of Hoori
I deny the existence of Horus
I deny the existence of Hotei
I deny the existence of Huitzilopochtli
I deny the existence of Hsi-Wang-Mu
I deny the existence of Hygeia
I deny the existence of Inanna
I deny the existence of Inti
I deny the existence of Iris
I deny the existence of Ishtar
I deny the existence of Isis
I deny the existence of Ixtab
I deny the existence of Izanaki
I deny the existence of Izanami
I deny the existence of Jesus
I deny the existence of Juno
I deny the existence of Jupiter
I deny the existence of Juturna
I deny the existence of Kagutsuchi
I deny the existence of Kartikeya
I deny the existence of Khepri
I deny the existence of Ki
I deny the existence of Kingu
I deny the existence of Kinich Ahau
I deny the existence of Kishar
I deny the existence of Krishna
I deny the existence of Kukulcan
I deny the existence of Lakshmi
I deny the existence of Liza
I deny the existence of Loki
I deny the existence of Lugh
I deny the existence of Luna
I deny the existence of Magna Mater
I deny the existence of Maia
I deny the existence of Marduk
I deny the existence of Mars
I deny the existence of Medb
I deny the existence of Mercury
I deny the existence of Mimir
I deny the existence of Minerva
I deny the existence of Mithras
I deny the existence of Morrigan
I deny the existence of Mot
I deny the existence of Mummu
I deny the existence of Muses
I deny the existence of Nammu
I deny the existence of Nanna
I deny the existence of Nanna (Norse)
I deny the existence of Nanse
I deny the existence of Neith
I deny the existence of Nemesis
I deny the existence of Nephthys
I deny the existence of Neptune
I deny the existence of Nergal
I deny the existence of Ninazu
I deny the existence of Ninhurzag
I deny the existence of Nintu
I deny the existence of Ninurta
I deny the existence of Njord
I deny the existence of Nut
I deny the existence of Odin
I deny the existence of Ohkuninushi
I deny the existence of Ohyamatsumi
I deny the existence of Orgelmir
I deny the existence of Osiris
I deny the existence of Ostara
I deny the existence of Pan
I deny the existence of Parvati
I deny the existence of Phaethon
I deny the existence of Phoebe
I deny the existence of Phoebus Apollo
I deny the existence of Pilumnus
I deny the existence of Poseidon
I deny the existence of Quetzalcoatl
I deny the existence of Rama
I deny the existence of Re
I deny the existence of Rhea
I deny the existence of Sabazius
I deny the existence of Sarasvati
I deny the existence of Selene
I deny the existence of Shiva
I deny the existence of Seshat
I deny the existence of Seti (Set)
I deny the existence of Shamash
I deny the existence of Shapsu
I deny the existence of Shen Yi
I deny the existence of Shiva
I deny the existence of Shu
I deny the existence of Si-Wang-Mu
I deny the existence of Sin
I deny the existence of Sirona
I deny the existence of Sol
I deny the existence of Surya
I deny the existence of Susanoh
I deny the existence of Tawaret
I deny the existence of Tefnut
I deny the existence of Tezcatlipoca
I deny the existence of Thanatos
I deny the existence of Thor
I deny the existence of Thoth
I deny the existence of Tiamat
I deny the existence of Tlaloc
I deny the existence of Tonatiuh
I deny the existence of Toyo-Uke-Bime
I deny the existence of Tyche
I deny the existence of Tyr
I deny the existence of Utu
I deny the existence of Uzume
I deny the existence of Venus
I deny the existence of Vesta
I deny the existence of Vishnu
I deny the existence of Volturnus
I deny the existence of Vulcan
I deny the existence of Xipe
I deny the existence of Xi Wang-mu
I deny the existence of Xochipilli
I deny the existence of Xochiquetzal
I deny the existence of Yam
I deny the existence of Yarikh
I deny the existence of Yhwh
I deny the existence of Ymir
I deny the existence of Yu-huang
I deny the existence of Yum Kimil
I deny the existence of Zeus

I deny the existence of any god or gods that I’ve missed out on that list.

I consider anyone that follows any of them to be at best deluded, and at worst psychotic.

I hold the religions that have sprouted up around any and all gods in contempt.

I consider those that try to force their religion on others are morally bankrupt.

I consider those that deny the evidence of science in favour of faith as idiots.

I consider any laws that attempt to promote any religion, religious belief, or any religious leaders above any other or at the expense of any other as being unjust.

There, that should cover most of it.

Just to add a note of fairness…

I respect the rights of the individual to freedom of thought, and freedom of expression.

Draw Muhammad Day

Slugsie — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:51:30 +0000

So today is draw Muhammad day and I of course couldn’t resist putting electronic pen to virtual paper. Although I warn you now that I’m not exactly Picasso.

I’d just like to take a moment to comment on what I feel this day is about, and what I want to bring to the discussion. As you are probably aware Muslims have a rule that you cannot depict images of their prophet Muhammad (although as I understand it the wording in the Koran could be interpreted to say that only Muslims may not depict images of Muhammad), and they take great offence when others, particularly westerners, do. In particular the incidence a few years ago of the Dutch newspaper Jyllands-Posten led to widespread outrage and death threats against the artists, the papers, and even westerners in general. This shows yet again radical Muslims inability to live peaceably with long established western ideals and rights – principally Freedom of Speech. These are rights that many of us hold very dear to our hearts, and will defend whenever possible.

Some argue that Freedom of Speech comes with restrictions. Some would argue that you do not have the freedom to offend or insult another person or their beliefs. I would argue that that is exactly the sort of thing that the right of Freedom of Speech is designed to protect – the right to say things that others may find offensive. You have every right to be offended, but you have no right to stop me from saying something that you personally feel offensive.

Just because you hold yourself to an ideal dictated to you in a book written by a bunch of backward desert dwelling goatherds does not mean that the rest of us feel the need to be held to that same standard. In fact we are perfectly within our rights to completely ignore that standard, and even hold it up to ridicule. And you may do the same about some of our beliefs – that’s the beauty of the sort of free society that we here in the west promote. You certainly do not have the right to threat us with violence and even death just because you don’t like something we said.

Just to quickly explain why I included Jesus and Dumbledore in the picture. I felt it necessary to point our that this doesn’t just apply to Muslims, it applies to others of other belief systems too, be it factual or fictional.

Intelligent Design, or Plagiarism?

Slugsie — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:12:00 +0000

I was just watching this funny Youtube video when my mind wandered a little and a few random thoughts connected themselves.

According to Geneses 1:26:

Let us make man in our image, in our likeness

and pretty much all classical western religious art depicts god as some big grey bearded elderly gentleman in flowing white robes. So, if God made us to look like him then that means he basically just copied a pre-existing design i.e. his own. That’s plagiarism not Creation or Intelligent Design. Nothing to be revered here.

Yes, I’m ignoring modern apologetics which tries to claim that the passage in Genesis actually means we’re made in Gods image ‘spiritually’ or some other such guff. Hey, if they can ignore evidence why can’t I? Not that I consider any of the arguments of apologetics to be valid arguments mind you.

Intelligent Design video dissected

Slugsie — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:48:12 +0000

A few days ago I stumbled upon a web site which linked a video titled “The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design – Darwinism Debunked“. I didn’t have the time to watch it then so I put the link aside. Today I had a quiet afternoon and so I watched it. Below are my notes dissecting the video as it went.

Please remember that I took these notes as the video was playing. I’ve copied them here unedited – spolling mistooks, abysmal punctuation and grammar unaltered.

First few minutes, Behe and Meyer! This should be awful

Overly dramatic music

Are we dealing with Evolution or Abiogenesis?

Bill Dempskey too!!!

Up to 10 mins, OK, not too bad. Standard documentary fayre – narrator with deep gravelly voice, a bunch of names all with impressive sounding titles Dr, Prof etc.

10:00 Aaargh! Darwinism! You lose. It’s called Evolution numbnuts.

And almost straight into micro-eveolution being ok, but macro not being possible.

11:20 Funny how basically every other evolutionary biologist does the same thing but comes up with a very different answer.

12:00 again with Darwinism. Also, seems to think that Evolution hasn’t progressed as a theory in the 150years since publication of Origin.

12:15 OK, onto Behe and his discredited idea of irreducible complexity it seems.

12:30 Nope, you weren’t taught Darwinian biology, you were taught evolution that was started by the ideas of Darwin. There is a difference.

14:00 And none of that knowledge has dented Evolutionary theory at all, in fact it’s completely supported it.

16:00 Hahahaha Bacterial Flagellum. FAIL!

18:00 Not sure when this film was made, but this apparent failure to explain the flagellum is out of date. It has been explained quite successfully.

19:00 The Mouse trap analogy. FAIL. Every single one of those parts works as something by themselves. Just because they don’t necessarily work as a mouse trap individually means nothing.

20:20 Not quite. You need to explain what function they do do individually or in smaller groups. Or at least show they aren’t detremental to the organism.

20:45 Please tell me they aren’t going to mis-quote Darwin about the eye. Please!

22:00 OK, no eye, thankfully.

23:00 A tail that didn’t function as a flagellum would be selected against? What if that tail did do something useful that wasn’t a flagellum? What then?

23:50 And Behe was an idiot.

24:10 And is was religiously motivated.

25:40 Assembly instructions? What, bacteria shop at IKEA too?

28:20 It’s no use, it’s Turtles all the way down. Pity, I was almost starting to … nah.

29:30 Game over man! Game over.

29:35 Oh, wait…

30:50 So, because Darwin couldn’t explain how life began, that means that his theory – which works on the assumption that life has already begun by some other mechanism – is wrong? Fail.

31:50 So, Darwin speculated, nothing more. He never proposed a theory for the origin of life.

32:30 Let’s be clear, using evolutionary principles, is not saying that evolution had any hand in it.

34:30 OK, on to proteins, this is all way beyond my pay grade so I’ll probably mostly shut up for a while now.

37:00 Oh hang on, I see where this is going.

37:51 He said it, he said Computer Code! As a programmer he’s now encroaching on my territory.

40:39 Again, not sure how old this film is, but recent studies have shown that certain proteins can indeed spontaneously assemble.

41:30 And we’re back to saying that DNA is computer code.

42:50 Oooh, name dropper. You worked at NASA huh.

44:20 Chemical evolution theory – proved or disproved has not bearing on the veracity of biological evolution.

44:50 You’re not serious are you? If you have thousands of people doing it constantly for billions of years … well, what do you think will happen?

45:40 Wow, wasn’t expecting that. So, you just basically said that biological evolution was irrelevant for causing the start of life. So why have you just spent so much time going on about how we can’t explain the start of life? I’m a bit lost here.

46:20 Oh please, please, don’t lets have an apparently respected scientist just say ‘GODDIDIT’.

46:30 Bugger, he did. Oh well, you just lost all your science privileges. Hand in your lab coat at the door on your way out.

48:00 All very pretty for sure, but I’m hoping that you’re going to actually give a SCIENTIFIC explanation for it all that isn’t GODDIDIT. Or are you hoping we won’t actually notice that lack?

48:50 I love how this bit is suddenly accompanied by uplifting music. YAY, go GOGDIDIT, I love you now because this video has made me feel so much happier.

51:10 Sure, it’s ‘possible’, but it’s not likely. It doesn’t explain anything, it just poses more – and usually unanswerable – questions.

51:20 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That is PRECISELY what most of the ‘scientists’ presented in this film have done. FAIL

52:10 Because science is about explaining the universe around us, and it must be repeatable and testable. A guiding intelligence doesn’t fit, not when it could change it’s mind and make everything work in a different way when ever it felt like it.

52:29 Nope, because we KNOW how they were made.

54:10 And humans are INCREDIBLY bad at judging how probably an event actually is.

55:15 Peridolia, so, your God really does have nothing better to do that make shapes in grilled cheese sandwhiches huh?

55:55 Nope, because we frequently observe PEOPLE DRAWING IN THE SAND. If we had never observed that we mmight come to all sorts of conclusions. Most of which would be wildly wrong. It’s interesting that you’re not claiming the very regular almost symmetrical ripples left in the sand by waves – which do look at least as ‘designed’ as the writing were created by an intelligence. Is it because you also know how they were formed?

57:00 Huh? SETI? WTF?

57:30 And just to be clear before they carry on, even if we never detect such a signal it does not disprove intelligent life beyond earth. Also, irrespective of the type of signals received, it says precicely ZERO about non intelligent life.

58:50 Oh WOW. In one breath you say we haven’t found any other life, then in the next you say that the life here on Earth is the BEST! Statistically irrelevant sample anyone?

1:00:00 GOD OF THE GAPS! So, presumably when scientists DO find the answer you’ll STFU?

1:01:21 There is no comprehensive case. They’ve still COMPREHENSIVELY failed to provide the actual evidence that both proves intelligence and disproves evolution.

1:02:00 And so far the evidence has pointed comprehensively away from intelligence.

1:02:30 Again with the uplifting music to add gravity to what these idiots are saying.

1:03:09 GOD OF THE GAPS again. Proves nothing.

1:03:45 If there was a supreme intelligence that wanted the world to be understood, then why did he apparently make it so difficult. If I want my young daughter to understand something I explain it in nice simple terms for her. I don’t give her a book on electronic theory and circuit design so she can understand how to use her MP3 player.

1:04:10 Pity we also find irrationality, pain, and suffering. All things that we would expect to find if the universe wasn’t guided by an intelligent agent.

1:05:21 And what do you think will happen in the 22nd century when all that is explained by naturalistic methods just as you are dismissing what happened in the 19th century?

Well, yes, that was almost completely awful. Very little actual substance to the arguments. I can sum the whole thing up with … “We don’t yet understand how it happened so we’ll just go with GODDIDIT.” But my hopes weren’t high to be honest.

As usual, I’ll just take a minute to remind everyone I don’t claim to be a scientist of any kind. I’m just an interested bystander. I welcome reasoned and informed discussion. If I have made an egregious error then I am happy to be corrected – especially if you can provide evidence to back up your position that will allow me to learn my mistake.

Creationism in UK education

Slugsie — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:13:26 +0000

According to this Poll, 54% of UK Adults support the teaching of Creationism alongside Evolution in science classes!

GAH!

Come on people, what the hell are you thinking? No matter how you dress it up neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design is science. It poses no testable theory. It is not falsifiable. There has never been a paper written about it that has been subjected to peer review in any repultable science journal.

It’s NOT SCIENCE.

You can’t teach it in a SCIENCE classroom.

Just like you can’t teach Woodworking in an English classroom. Or Cooking in a Physical Education class.

Please, for the sake of our children, keep the science curriculum strictly scientific. Don’t let educational standards fall any further.

If you absolutely have to teach Creationism then there is already a classroom to do it. It’s the Relgious Studies class (which, by the way, I’m still pissed that no-one told me I could opt out of when I was at school, it could have saved me from a huge amount of tedium).

Today is International Blasphemy Day

Slugsie — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:01:12 +0000

As you may, or may not, be aware, today is International Blasphemy Day, and to that end, here is my little bit of Blasphemy… (edit: and dreadful comma abuse, sorry)

I deny the existence of any god or gods that I’ve missed out on that list.

I consider anyone that follows any of them to be at best deluded, and at worst psychotic.

I hold the religions that have sprouted up around any and all gods in contempt.

I consider those that try to force their religion on others are morally bankrupt.

I consider those that deny the evidence of science in favour of faith as idiots.

I consider any laws that attempt to promote any religion, religious belief, or any religious leaders above any other or at the expense of any other as being unjust.

There, that should cover most of it.

Just to add a note of fairness…

I respect the rights of the individual to freedom of thought, and freedom of expression.

Evolution Test

Slugsie — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:17:03 +0000

Over at the Missing Universe Museum website (another Creation/ID website that can provide many many hours of entertainment) they have created an little Evolution Test which they propose students give to teachers to see how they react. As you can probably already imagine, the test is rather silly, and the questions posed are almost entirely ridiculous. However I (as a non educator and non scientist) shall attempt to provide at least reasonably accurate answers.

1. Which evolved first, male or female?

Neither obviously. They evolved at the same time.

2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?

Stupid question, see 1.

3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.

Err, what? Radioactive dating, and all other methods used to date old and very old stuff are very accurate – if they’re used properly by someone trained in their use. It’s when that simple guideline isn’t followed that the bizarre results Creationists like to crow on about occur.

4. Why hasn’t any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?

Because evolution doesn’t work like that. If this sort of thing occurred it would actually disprove evolution.

5. Which came first:
…the eye,
…the eyelid,
…the eyebrow,
…the eye sockets,
…the eye muscles,
…the eye lashes,
…the tear ducts,
…the brain’s interpretation of light?

Which eye? There are many different forms of eye on different creatures. The mammalian eye is very different from the cephalopod eye, which is very different from the eyes of insects.

It also doesn’t take long to realise that there are many perfectly functioning eyes on creatures that don’t have all those parts. How many insects have eyelids, eyebrows, eye lashes or tear ducts?

Lastly, it doesn’t take a lot of research to find a proposed route for evolving a mammalian type eye. Go read a biology website. Or even Wikipedia.

6. How many millions of years between each in question 5?

Well, given that some creatures have eyes that don’t have all those parts, and eyes have existed in one form or another for hundreds of millions of years, then I’d have to say, at least hundreds of millions of years.

7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can’t all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?

That’s one of the definitions of a species boundary, the inability to interbreed.

8. List any of the millions of creatures in just five stages of its evolution showing the progression of a new organ of any kind. When you have done this, you can collect the millions of dollars in rewards offered for proof of evolution!

Easy, a quick google for the evolution of the elephants trunk leads to this article. Yet again it’s amazing what 5 minutes research and Google can do.

As for the millions of dollars in rewards, give some proof that that exists, and that you will judge it fairly, and I’ll be right over with a big empty suitcase.

9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?

Erm, no, they aren’t. Transitional fossils abound. Is it really asking too much that you take just 5 minutes to Google these things before asking such an inane question?

10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.)

Because a coin cannot be created by a process of mutation and natural selection. Human life was.

11. Why aren’t any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?

Who says it isn’t? The fact that a tree dies tomorrow and doesn’t turn into coal by next week shows nothing. These things took millions of years. OK, if you think the earth is roughly 6,000-10,000 years old it’s a problem, but it’s just a tad older than that.

12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body.

Why 50? Why do you think there are any? What would that prove if there was, or wasn’t?

13. Why hasn’t anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?

Because the reward is almost certainly bogus. Plus, what does that have to do with proving evolution?

14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?

Who says it is? There are many who would claim that there is one species in particular that is vastly over populated (have a guess which one that is?).

15. Why hasn’t evolution duplicated all species on all continents?

Why would it? Evolution throws up creatures that are suited to the environment they find themselves in. Given that each continent has a different environment, the evolutionary pressures are also different and so will generate differing solutions.

There, that wasn’t so hard was it?

Parents in faith-healing case never considered calling a doctor

Slugsie — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:02:37 +0000

From Oregon Live

OK, this just makes me sick. Some religious wacko parents have a daughter who is obviously very ill. Their religion dictates that they don’t seek medical help, but instead they must pray, lay on hands, and fast etc. Funnily enough (although funny is the last thing that it actually is), their daughter died as a result of their mistreatment.

Now for many minor ailments, not seeking medical help won’t kill you. Having a bit of a cough, a head-ache, or an upset stomach aren’t serious conditions. Left untreated the bodies natural defences will kick in and you’ll get better. If someone happens to be doing some ‘faith healing’ at the same time it won’t change anything, the person will still get better.

However, when the illness is more serious, you must get proper medical attention! This is especially necessary in the case of the young, elderly, or generally unhealthy. For them, their natural bodily healing mechanisms aren’t always as strong. But for even the most healthy and fittest there are many diseases and ailments that must be treated by a trained medical professional.

But it’s things like this that really get my goat:

When the detectives told Worthington that the law requires a parent to provide adequate medical care, he said he had provided care.

“I did everything I could do for her,” Worthington said. “What I was doing was working,” he said. “She was getting relief.”

WHAT? F*CK *FF! How can he say that shit? Your daughter DIED, so how much more evidence do you need that your so called treatment wasn’t working? It is my profound hope that these child abusers (and it was without doubt abuse) get prosecuted to the full extent of the law and have a very long time to contemplate the paucity of their actions. Hopefully they will come to realise that their religious beliefs are not only utterly fallacious, but also down-right dangerous.

People are sheep

Slugsie — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:21:04 +0000

The average human being is a simple creature. They go about their daily lives, obeying the law, obeying any commands given to them by authoritative figures, and obeying signs and notices all over the place.

So it was that a week or so ago in the kitchen of my place of work (I work for a large US based international IT company with offices in most countries) a cardboard box appeared, with a note attached requesting that milk bottle lids be left therein. No further information was given at all. Being the human sheep (sheople?) that we all are, milk bottle tops began to appear in the box.

I however, was a little more sceptical. I wanted to know what the collection was for, what purpose was being served by the collection of small pieces of plastic. I suspected that it might be for some charity thing or other but I couldn’t imagine what exactly. For all I knew it was for the local KKK chapter, or maybe the BNP – two causes I absolutely don’t want to support. So I simply wrote ‘WHY?’ on the note. For a couple of days that question went unanswered. But when the response came, it didn’t help. All that happened was that the portion of the notice I had written on was ripped off! Unperturbed I wrote another question. I simply asked if there was a reason for the collection, or if it was just a strange fetish. I figured that should be provocative enough to elicit a genuine reply.

A couple of days later a real response came. Again my question was ripped off, but this time an additional bit was added to the note. Apparently the collection was to help get a wheelchair for a disabled child. At last, some real information, and who wouldn’t want to help such a worthwhile cause?

But, I’m still a sceptic.

So, I fired up Google, and searched ‘wheelchair bottle tops‘. Imagine my surprise (not) when I find that there are loads of people collecting milk bottle tops, and no-one seems to know exactly what to do with them. Many people are calling Hoax, and I can understand why. There may have been such a scheme once, but it obviously did the rounds, and the origins are lost and the scheme is gone.

But the idea persists. Some big hearted people catch a whiff of the idea, and unquestioningly perpetuate it. If just a few more people would ask ‘Why?’ when presented with a command the world may be a better place.

It’s a great allegory for religion I feel.

*I don’t wish to denegrate sheep with this comparison. Sorry if it offends any of my Ovis aries readership.

P.S. If anyone genuinely does know what to do with these tops here in the UK, and can provide a web link to back it up, I’ll be sure to pass it along to the mystery collector. If there is a genuine cause that can be supported, then I’m only to happy to help out.

YouTube – “Discovery” Institute Caught Illegally Censoring Videos

Slugsie — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:31:29 +0000

YouTube – “Discovery” Institute Caught Illegally Censoring Videos.

What a surprise, the ‘Discovery Institute’ being dishonest, who would have thought it?

Pure concentrated stupidity!

Slugsie — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:25:14 +0000

If you find yourself with about a month free, and feel like melting your brain, you could always pop over to http://www.jesus-is-savior.com – but I wouldn’t recommend it.

But when you start reading some of that massive content, that’s when the brain melt will set in. It’s just a constant barrage of idiotic drivel. The use of so many logical fallacies, over and over. The repeating of straw man arguments that have long since been torn down again and again. It’s a mark of a truly faith-based mind that it can still believe that any of this would still hold any weight. The only people that it could convince in any way are those that don’t need convincing in the first place. For those whose minds actually work properly we can see it for the brain fart that it actually is.

Now, I will grant the author one thing (and pretty much only one thing), it must have been a monumental labour of love to create the site. To be able to concentrate such huge amounts of inane, baseless, stupidity into one place… it’s almost a work of art!