Don't be a douche

This post contains Paranormal Activity 2 spoilers

I saw Paranormal Activity 2 last night, and really enjoyed it. I'm not generally a fan of horror movies, I find them a bit dull and predictable (which is funny, as I like action movies which are well known for their complex and original plots).

Any how, it got me thinking. One of the characters I liked was the husband of the couple. He was skeptical about his house being haunted, and came up with rational explanations for the phenomena at first. This doesn't mean he was closed minded, but the reason the film is a work fiction and not fact, is because in real life rational explanations generally work out.

What I liked was his response to the video evidence of his house being haunted. If I saw a video of my (hypothetical) wife being dragged by her feet, by an invisible force, twice, and finally flung down into the basement, I'd think there would be something weird going on.

Earlier in the film he had fired the maid, as she was found wondering around with burning herbs, to ward off evil spirits. His first reaction was to call her back in, as she seemed to know about this paranormal stuff. It was a nice demonstration of re-adjusting his beliefs with evidence, and then acknowledging his ignorance of such matters, having previously dismissed it all, and calling in someone who seemed to know more on the matter than him. In fact her actions drove the demon from the house!

Obviously, he wasn't to know that this demon was out to get his son, and that in driving the demon from the house it possesed his sister in law instead, who ultimately returned, broke his neck, killed his wife too, and made off with Hunter. But hey, the dog and the daughter survived.

This always makes me smile

Not got much time to write anything, so I thought I'd share this vid. It always makes me smile. I had to watch it after getting angry at the subject of one PZ's recent posts. Other people agreed, so I thought I let you all see it, if you haven't already (it's been out a while, and has had 32,200,819 views at time of writing).

Where the hell is Matt? (Do watch with sound. You know what I mean. Synesthetes are excused).

Atheists around the world

Well, following posts on Pharyngula about groups in Greece, Cyprus and Kampala, I thought it'd be pretty cool to get all of these tagged on to a map, and then we can see them all over the world.

So, here we go: Atheists around the world

Feel free to email me englishatheist@gmail.com with your group, and I'll get them on.

Deforestation update

Earlier in the month I highlighted the God fueled deforestation in Chaco, and said I'd update with action that could be taken. Not all action has to involve you having to spend money (which is nice, I've barely got any!), just spending a little amount of time can have a big difference! So please read the following, give what you can afford to, even if it's just the time to write to your MP, or to sign a petition.

The Natural History Museum said:

"Thank you very much for making enquiries about supporting the Natural History Museum's research field trip to Paraguay. Our campaign to raise funds for this research was undertaken 2008/2009 so the campaign itself is now complete. However, I am certain it will be possible for you to contribute to the project in some way - be it funding for the trip itself which is coming up any day now or once the scientists return with their findings.

I would be grateful if you could leave this with me whilst I make some further enquiries and get back to you as soon as possible."

I'll let you know what NHM comes back with, WWF said:

"Thank you for your email. It is great to hear that you are keen to help support our work to protect the forests. There are a number of ways in which you can help our work with high value habitats such as the Chaco and Cerrado or forests such as the Amazon.

Firstly you could take action through our soya campaign at
http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/campaigning/

We also currently have a partnership with Sky in which we have launched a Rainforest Recue appeal. We want to do this by helping to save 1 Billion Amazon rainforest trees in the Brazilian state of Acre - the ultimate goal is to preserve about 3 million hectares from deforestation - an area roughly the size of Belgium.
Donations received will be matched by Sky and will help us protect the forest by tackling deforestation, by working with local communities to look after their forests, encouraging them to conserve trees, rather than chop them down.

Sky Rainforest Rescue has two main elements:

· to help local farmers adopt farming practices that reduce pressure on forestland
· to set up a fund to support local communities - including indigenous peoples, rubber tappers and farmers - to preserve the forest, making it worth more to conserve trees than chop them down

You could also consider the way you live and the food you eat. You may find it interesting to take a look at
http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/changing_the_way_we_live/food/

To make a donation or for more information please see our website www.wwf.org.uk or contact our Supporter Care team on 01483 426333. I hope this information is helpful, and thank you for your interest in WWF."

Atheist blog roll

Further thoughts for the day has has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Us atheists in the UK have quite an easy time to be honest, as a country we're becoming more secular, but in the States and other places it's harder. I think that online communities like this are useful, at TAM I met some folk who loved being around like minded people IRL, but were thankful of the online atheist community, as it gave them some sanity when they were lone atheists amongst their colleagues etc.

Geek calendar is here!

Go check out their blog and buy one! It's not only (as Richard Wiseman said) "a porn calendar for people with brains", it also will help fund the libel reform campaign.

If that's not enough, here's what can delight you for the next 14 months:

So, what are you waiting for?

Andrew Brown, missing the point again

Andrew Brown has had an attempt at satirising Gnu Atheist arguments, substituting "human rights" for religion. He gets off to a bad start with his first sentence being entirely wrong...

The essential point about human rights is that there is no evidence whatsoever that they actually exist.

Sadly, given that there is a wealth of evidence for the evolution of morality, and thus human rights, and so, the nail has not been hit on the head. For a nice satirical piece, it's best not to start with an entirely false premise, and base your argument around it, unless you're supposing that what you parody is as equally false. Unfortunately, the rest of the article is so stupid it burns, as it is essentially a case study in how Andrew Brown fails to see the point of almost every Gnu Atheist argument, or doesn't like us asking for evidence.

Is it so bad for atheists to say "I've not seen any evidence yet, please could you show me some? (Not this kind).

It's also true that children are born religion free, and only learn to have a religion from their parents (backed up by the uneven distribution of religions acros the globe). When this point is made in paragraph three, it's all the more ridiculous as children do actually learn to play fair by themselves when they're not even two years old, also religious indoctination can be a form of child abuse.

PZ Myers "courtier's reply" is also mentioned, it argues that one needn't be a top tailor to reject the Emperor's new clothes. Again, we're back to Andrew Brown not liking evidence.

I'll repeat the last paragraph:

I know that some people will be shocked by this argument. It's all very well, they will say, to dismiss God, or religion in this way, because those are things that other people believe in, and they are silly, and nasty, and wrong. That's why they're other people. But to demand evidence that the things exist which we believe in – that's absurd. 

But, I, and the atheists I have met, have all been skeptics, wanting evidence for everything.

I'm also baffled at how someone sees wanting evidence as a bad thing. How else can you evaluate things? How else could you learn new things?

In the comments he added:

zdenekv:

But one should look at what actual philosophical theories which deal with this issue say instead of just assume ( as Andrew does ) that there isnt anything sensible that can be said about rights.

Well, that is the assumption of this article. It is not my real position, of course. There are sensible things to be said about rights, just as there are about god. But in both cases, a demand that we start by proving their existence excludes all the interesting possibilities.

Evidence doesn't exclude interesting possibilities, it makes things even better! As Richard Dawkins said at TAM: "Science is the poetry of reality".

The truth really is stranger than fiction.

And it's awe inspiring!

And it's exciting!

And it's true.

(We know because we have evidence).

.

Today is...

...Purple Wednesday (hence the new back ground) to show you're against bullying, especially of LGBT, in the wake of the recent publicised suicides. I've had a quick look on google, but can't see who started it, so haven't linked, and haven't got the time I'm afraid (I'm at the launch of the Geek Calendar tomorrow, so am having shorter lunch breaks so I can leave work early at get there. Super excited!).

It's also World Statistics Day and my advice to you, if you're not as hot as you'd like to be on stats, is to read The Tiger That Isn't:

• Paperback: 192 pages
• Publisher: Profile Books (23 Aug 2007)
• Language English
• ISBN-10: 1861978391
• ISBN-13: 978-1861978394

I know Amazon's cheap, but please consider your local book shop instead!


Also a great piece over at the Guardian.

With large numbers of scientists about to become unemployed, the public is going to need some serious protection from statistician who go bad, says Frank Swain

If it really worked...

Science, it works bitches!

The Million Dollar Challenge

For those unaware, the James Randi Education Foundation has a Million Dollar Challenge:

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

They're not just saying this, they actually have $1,000,000 in the bank ready.

Unsurprisingly, it has it's naysayers who don't believe the money's there. Well, in addition to the quite comprehensive info on the JREF's website which should put all this naysaying to rest, James Randi also invites anyone to ask to see a copy of the latest bank statement, if they want that little bit of extra proof. Talking at TAM London, he said no one ever bothers. Well, I thought, let's bother. Here we are ladies and gentlemen, I sent the email last night, and had the statement by this morning:

So there we go, Randi's made a claim that (not surprisingly) turns out to be true, and, not only that, but super quick efficiency at that!

Amazing!

TAM was, well, amazing, I had an absolutely fantastic time!

In an ideal world, I'd give a great run down here, but I've not really got the time. PZ has handily put the links I want to give you in one place, so that shall have to suffice for now. Oh, and maybe some very brief highlights:

Adam Rutherford: "Is this all there is? Too right, and it's f*cking amazing!"

Check out the Beagle Project, it's super exciting!

Rhys Morgan. Legend!

Storm.

It was great to shake the hand and say thank you to people whose blogs, books, work has inspired, helped and entertained me over the years too!

Also, I want to say that, yes it was expensive, but we paid for what we got. I was impressed with every talk given, the food was yummy, and it was in Central London. These aren't cheap things to arrange, and it's also a fundraiser for JREF, and the profits will be used in the UK. I do hope I can afford next year...

However, something that came out of it was that it's made me want to change this blog a bit. Initially I set it up as I didn't really have a decent vent for my frustrations about religion, specifically. But there's lots of other stuff out there that I get excited about (science, especially biological science), and other stuff that gets me angry (quacks making money out of people for example). So, I'll probably blog more, about a wider range of things.

Oh, and if I'm doing new things, please sign this petition to help save the tiger. It's completely free to do, won't take long, and will help save the tiger!

I believe there is no god

Yes, I have shifted from "I don't believe in God" to "I believe there is no God".

I've been quite busy of late, so am only just catching up on blogs and such (and with TAM on the horizon, will be out of the blogosphere a bit more).

Any how, when I first read PZ saying "There is no evidence for God", I thought, that's not very scientific. We've not seen any evidence, but that some won't come along.

Jerry Coyne had similar, and better expressed thoughts, and challenged PZ that there must be some evidence, that, if presented, would make him agree.

Well, PZ has replied with "Eight reasons you won't persuade me to believe in god".

It's convinced me: There is, as far as I'm concerned, no god.

This also highlights one of the things I like about an atheistic/sceptical world view over a religious one: Changing one's mind when presented with a better argument/evidence etc.

Now, I might (but doubt) read a reply from Jerry, or in the expanding number of comments on PZ's piece, that makes me change my mind.

This is, of course, in stark contrast to dogma that is always right, even if it's wrong.

I never thought I'd change from "I don't believe in god" to "I believe there is no god", as, before reading that post, it seemed most unscientific. But, you know what? There is no god.

Credit where credit is due

One of the things that really irritates me about religion is claiming credit from your deity when none is due. The rescue of the Chilean miners has resulted in three different Churches claiming credit from their interpretation of God of Abraham myths.

The three Christian denominations have each claimed credit for what they say is divine intervention in the survival – and expected imminent rescue – of the 33 men who have spent 67 days beneath the earth.

This belittles the enormous effort that real people have gone to, with no supernatural means at their disposal, to attempt this rescue.

Also, the question that springs to my mind is: why did their God let the mine collapse, and then help with the rescue? Answers on a postcard please (or in the comments).

Thankfully, in this instance, none of the miners died. However, I get even more incensed when there's a horrible disaster in which people die. So for example, I typed "pakistan floods god saved me" into Google, and at the top, found this:

“ But my mother recited Psalm 23 for me and held me close to her. I thank my mum for her strong faith that encouraged me to walk along with her in deep dirty water. I thank God for keeping my family safe. I will never forget this experience of how God saved me and my mother from the clutches of death as long as I live.”

I find quotes like these offensive. I could tell you why, but this video does it far better [contains one rude word]:

If you're not religious, for god's sake say so

As I mentioned before:

Less than half of the British people believe in a God, yet about 72% told the 2001 census that they were Christian, and 66% of the population have no actual connection to any religion or church, despite what they tend to write down on official forms.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has launched the Census Campaign, a drive for people who are not religious to say so on the 2011 census.

As the BHA reports:

After the 2001 Census, the figures collected were used to justify the following policies:

Increase in the number of faith schools
The continuation of collective worship in schools
The public funding and support of ‘interfaith’ and faith-based organisations above the support offered to secular organisations
Suggestions of an increase in the role of faith in Britain under the coalition government
The appointments of government advisors on faith
Contracting out public services to religious organisations
Keeping the 26 Bishops in the House of Lords as of right
Continued high number of hours dedicated to religious broadcasting
Specific consultation at government and local level with ‘faith communities’ over and above other groups within society
Continued privileges for religious groups in equality law and other legislation

It's time to change our peculiar habit of declaring on forms a religious affiliation when we have none. Stating "No religion" won't prevent you from declaring your cultural heritage, if you are say, a Jew or a Sikh, but without believing those faiths, you can use the "ethnicity" section. If you have any more questions, check they may well be answered here.

Obviously, this post is probably preaching to the converted, however, spread the word amongst your family and friends - link to the Census Campaign's site, add a banner to your blog, and donate if you can afford to.

Moat importantly:

National Poetry Day

Here's a poem I wrote for Darwin Day, following my status wishing everyone a happy Darwin Day, my friend wrote:

Forget Darwin Day:
Evolution’s disproved by
Spaghetti Monster!

I replied:

And yet it does move
Galileo did not say
But it makes my point

Three observations
And the two deductions
Darwin’s Magnum Opus

For he observed that
Species over reproduce
Observation one

Despite this he saw
Population stays stable
Observation two

Therefore there is a
Survival competition
His first deduction

Last observation
Individuals unique
Each is different

Those differences
They influence survival
The best are passed on

Evidence profound
ATP universal
DNA in all

Fossils abundant
Tiktaalik “transitional”
Tetrapod almost

And so you can see
Noodly appendage absent
Heresy, I know

Deforestation brought to you by god and greed

The Guardian has reported on some alarming deforestation that’s going on in Chaco, Paraguay, one of the last great wilderness areas left in the world. It’s plain old greed, which is poisonous enough, but is made more toxic with religious ideology on top.

"We intend to expand in the Chaco as much as the law allows. Not just physically but by making the land more productive," said Heinrich Dyck, finance director of the Neuland co-operative of Mennonite farmers based in Filadelfia, the largest Mennonite community, of 4,000 people. The co-operative is one of Paraguay's largest meat and milk exporters and owns the country's biggest slaughterhouse.

Dyck added: "Religion is at the heart of everything we do. The Christian faith is fundamental to us. God made it clear in the bible that we should take care of the land and use it as a source of sustainability and production."

People can twist the Bible to justify whatever they want (recently I found out, for example, that it can actually justify abortion): "Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." can be a rallying call for further conservation efforts, or, as in this case, justifying destroying what's there for biofuel and burgers. When that religious fervour is coupled with turning a fast buck, there’s no stopping someone.

The impact would be devastating, for the wildlife, and with religious witch hunts of the indiginous people, the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode, the only uncontacted tribe in South America outside Amazonia, it’s just horrific.

What can we do?

I’ve not seen any calls to action, or specific appeals, but you could support the Natural History Museum who are funding an expedition there. Other conservation charities I like include the World Wildlife Fund and Zoological Society of London. I'll be emailing these organisations to see what their suggestions are, and will let you know.

Sadly, human nature is bad enough, but with religious zeal it can be worse. There’s something about the arrogance that comes from believing the creator of the entire universe is on your side, backing you, and encouraging your actions. Religion is poison.

UPDATE: http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.com/2010/10/deforestation-update.html

You must earn respect

Dear Pope,

Whilst I expect you won't ever read this, I want to say my piece. In your recent visit to my country, you said in your opening address "In this challenging enterprise, may it [the UK] always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate." Too right we no longer value or tolerate it.

Today, your Pontificia Academia Pro Vita came out against the awarding of the Nobel prize saying the award ignored the ethical questions raised by the fertility treatment and that IVF had led to the destruction of large numbers of human embryos. Please, can you stop this talking of respect for life, for two reasons. Firstly, a ball of cells is not a person, in the same way that you don't build ships out of acorns. Secondly, it's immensely hypocritical.

Where is your respect for the life of the two million people who die of AIDS every year? When you stop people using contraception by saying that AIDS is "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”, you are sabotaging an effective intervention which prevents a disease that kills 2 million people a year. Where is your respect for those people that died because, from your pronouncements, they did not wear a condom?

Whilst we're on the subject of sex, where is your, when you deny people who love each other, that love? Saying stuff like this: “Above all, we must have great respect for these people [homosexuals] who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living. On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people.” is not evidence of respect for homosexuals. Saying the word "respect" doesn't mean anything if you don't mean it. Indeed, children of lesbian parents do better than their peers, yet your lack of respect leads to an adoption agency going to court for the right to be bigotted. Thankfully, it lost.

Also, respect for children? You can guess where this is going. If you value the life of the child so much, exactly where was that value and respect when you (yes, actually you) repeatedly moved peadophiles around, instead of bringing them to justice. In Belgium, not one single parish has avoided sexual abuse. Everywhere you look seems to have the problem. That it's been going on a very long time is no excuse. I would have had respect for you if you'd sorted things out then. Not now though, with some lame, meaningless apologies, after countless children have been raped.

When you had a nun excomunicated for having an abortion that saved the mother (whose child would have died any way), exactly where was your respect? Would you have had mother and child die? Surely respect for life is having one life live longer? Why are her actions worse than the priests who sexually abused minors? None of them have been excommunicated.

The Nobel Prize is a celebration of the science that helps move us forward. I have no respect for your Church, it holds us back. Whilst you acknowledge that Galileo was correct in saying that the Earth moves around the Sun, saying that the Church's actions were "rational and just" is yet more evidence of how backwards you and your Church are, and how the world has no need of you.

I hope my country does not always maintain its respect, for when it finally lets it go, if not the rest of the world, then at least we will be free of the shakles that you would put everyone in to stiffle, suffocate and destroy all that does not match your bigoted, out of date, dogmatic, rancid and utterly repulsive world view.

Yours disrespectfully,

EnglishAtheist

On Druidry being officially recognised as a religion in the UK

As you might have read at WEIT, Derren Brown and the Godless Geek, the Druid Network is now a registered charity, and, as such, is the first Pagan practice to officially be regarded as a religion.

It is just the Druid Network that is a charity, and as the Charity Commission say "The form of druidry that is practised by the Druid Network fulfils the four criteria for a religion in charity law and therefore is a religion. However, that isn’t to say that every form of druidry would meet those four criteria."

This is a fair decision – all religions, or spiritual practices, should be charities if they meet the requirements of the law. It’s not fair to exclude less well known, or slightly more minority practices just because they are less popular, or their practices not understood.

The Charity Commission concluded on 21 September that the Druid Network was "established for exclusively charitable purposes for the advancement of religion for the public benefit". You can read the full report. This is a good decision with in the law.

My main issue is the “advancement of religion for the public benefit". Does religion provide a public benefit? I think not, at least not on its own. Druids may, for example, champion conservation causes because of their faith, but, is religious faith really needed here? If people do need faith in a religion to do good, then that is very sad, but I don't think that this is the case.

This seems a good time to high light the British Humanist Association's Charity Law Campaign:

Charity law
The law on charity dates back to 1601, with court decisions on whether an organisation is eligible for the legal and tax privileges of charity status resting on analogies with the types of activity listed in the preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses of that year. In the 19th century a judge categorised charities into four categories (relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion – and the rest!).

In 2005, the Government produced in its Charities Bill a new 13-fold categorisation, with the last still a catch-all “other purposes” group. Over five years of consultations, correspondence and meetings we had argued without success that the heading “advancement of religion” should be extended, in line with the Human Rights Act, to encompass advancement of non-religious beliefs such as Humanism. At present humanist organisations can win charity status only by qualifying under some other head, such as education. Attempts to amend the Bill in Parliament were unsuccessful, and the Charities Act 2006 is now law.

The Act also extended to all charities, including religious ones, the need to be able to demonstrate that they produce “public benefit”. This concept is legally complex and the Charity Commission has been consulting on draft guidance on how it will be applied. We have made substantial submissions on this question and has had meetings at a high level with the Commission, but the resulting guidance remains unsatisfactory, both in seeming to relax the rigour of the law for religious charities and in its definition of what counts as a religion – a definition that anyway under the Human Rights Act should have no place in law. A recent draft of guidance on public benefit and charities based on non-religious beliefs is similar to but more restrictive than the guidance for religious charities and, anyway seems unwarranted given the law’s lack of recognition of such a category of charity. Our submissions and correspondence under this process are available in the Articles and Submissions section on this page.

What we want
Ultimately we want the new law amended to put humanist charities in the same legal position as religious ones.

We have maintained that the Charity Commission should heed the Human Rights Act and treat charities based on non-religious beliefs in the same way as religious ones. It has so far refused to do so but its intentions with the draft guidance about non-religious beliefs are still unclear. The consultation is now closed and we await the outcome.

If you want to help this, or indeed, any other advancements of humanism, then please do check out the British Humanist Association and its work.

Where's Muhammed?

The Friendly Atheist alerted me to this story:

Universal Uclick has confirmed that several papers (upwards of 20) have asked for a replacement for this Sunday’s Non Sequitur because it mentions the word “Muhammad.” The cartoon by Wiley Miller depicts a lazy, sunny park scene with the caption, “Picture book title voted least likely to ever find a publisher… ‘Where’s Muhammad?’” Characters in the park are buying ice cream, fishing, roller skating, etc. No character is depicted as even Middle Eastern.

Responding to the news that his strip may not appear in some papers, Wiley tells me, “the irony of editors being afraid to run even such a tame cartoon as this that satirizes the blinding fear in media regarding anything surrounding Islam sadly speaks for itself. Indeed, the terrorists have won.”

Richard suggested "They have, haven’t they?

When the comic shows up on his syndicate’s website this weekend, please post it wherever you can."

Done:

Spam

Well, my main thoughts with spam were to just delete it. However, I'm new to the blog scene and getting spammed by someone knocking atheism meant it was at least mildly targeted and not just porn, which makes me feel oddly special, plus DM has been very persistent in getting *the same* comment posted. So, please indulge me, or just skip to the end for the Sound of Science.

"The atheists are coming to my city - MONTREAL! http://www.atheistconvention.org/ please be sure to stop by for tea atheism is dead forever!"

I'd love to go to Montreal, and, I'll take you up on the offer of tea, if you don't mind paying my tickets, travel etc.

As for atheism being dead, the Gnu Atheist movement, and these statistics kinda say otherwise.

"add comment moderation to your BS you will not have a PUBLIC FORUM NEW GAME WITH YOU LITTLE F*CKERS - SPEAK N DIE. Come see the latest DM videos for your viewing pleasure! the WORLD TRADE CENTER PROPHECY - THE DANCE OF DEATH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Hez25fFrg http://media.depechemode.com/micro_sites/remasters/gr/wallpaper/violator_8_640.jpg "

I've not added moderation, but blogger has automatic spam detection. Top tip though, one can still get a point across with out swearing.

"And the Pope is 100% correct: The Nazis and the atheists both wish to ABOLISH FAITH.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515"

The Nazis may have been up for abolishing faith, but atheists are a mixed bunch. Certainly, there may be some who would like faith abolished. However, I suspect that, like my self, the larger, and over whelming majority are happy for people to believe whatever they want, so long as that doesn't impose on the rights of others. To do this, one must have a secular society whose laws and governance are based on the evidence of the matter at hand, and not religious dogma.


"hawking is WRONG science cannot explain NOTHING! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMRJJcfEXls& FAIR AND BALANCED! _____ http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm"

I'll ignore your double negative. And your links. I tend to respond better to people who don't emphasise their words with capitals throughout; who maybe engage on the matters at hand, and who don't spit random links out at me. It's quite clear that we disagree on a few things. If you're ever coming to the UK, perhaps we can meet for a cup of tea and talk more civily.

#stupidscientology

Following John Dixon's success after the complaint about his tweet "I didn't know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off." was struck off, I though I'd highlight a couple more things.

Luke Hymas drew my attention to endlesspsych's gif:



Also, we couldn't not have the Tom Cruise's leaked #stupidscientology video:



With these two things in mind, you can quite clearly see why John L Dixon tweeted what he did.