1. Recommended Reading: Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

Comment #268956 by blakjack on October 22, 2008 at 1:07 pm

RHR wrote from Norway:

[quote]In general I just assume that everyone I meet is non-religious, and...[/quote]

Now that's a very positive attitude that I will try to adopt henceforth. Instead of curbing my tongue for fear of offending sensibilities, maybe I should just say what I think and sod the fact that I might upset someone who follows strange religious myths.

Jack

2. Coming soon: 'In God We Trust' tags

Comment #256732 by blakjack on September 29, 2008 at 12:50 pm

A good one would be:

"Nill illigitimi carborundum"

Jack

3. Our scientists must nail the creationists

Comment #247291 by blakjack on September 14, 2008 at 9:12 am

Duff replied to an earlier comment from me:

"What a wanker you are."

A profound observation voiced with eloquence. Yes, I do look after my health. See this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stm

Jack

4. Our scientists must nail the creationists

Comment #247121 by blakjack on September 14, 2008 at 2:08 am

Creationism as popularly portrayed is indeed utterly ludicrous.

However - being Devil's Advocate here - consider instead they postulate that a Creator set up the rules of the Universe, eg the ratio of the mass of one particle to another, the Law of Gravity, etc. A Creator who made the rules would be able to sit back and everything that we see today, including evolution, would be inevitable. I suspect that even the most die-hard Atheists wouldn't be overly bothered by that idea, certainly far less so than they are by naive Creationism.

I happen to think that the Universe is the way it is because that is the only way that it could possible exist. So there is either a Universe with the Electromagnetic Force, etc being as they are, or there would be no Universe at all. That concept doesn't need a Creator.

Jack Harrison

5. Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

Comment #243546 by blakjack on September 6, 2008 at 6:40 am

Skeptic - Definition
"One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions."

I actually object to being called a skeptic; it is the religious view that is the "abnormal" position as far as I am concerned

How long I have to wonder before religious believers are conventionally known as skeptics? ie, believers who don't accept the "norm", namely atheism, will be the new "skeptics".

Jack

6. Faith schools may be Blair's most damaging legacy

Comment #242086 by blakjack on September 3, 2008 at 11:22 am

My four children went to a CofE sponsored school, simply because there was no choice (other than driving many miles each day). One of the four is seriously handicapped as a result of a road traffic accident as a baby. Poor girl (now in her twenties) still believes in all sort of fairy tales so it's hard to be critical that she is officially a Christian. The other three - despite the faith school input between the ages of 5 and 11 - are all atheists.

Faith Schools certainly go against the grain as a matter of principle but they probably do absolutely nothing to produce the next generation of believers. Indeed, the promotion of "belief" is schools is probably the best way there possibly could be to turn people off religion

As a footnote, some 60 plus years ago, my parents (not themselves Catholic) sent me to a Convent School. I look back at that experience and realise that it was one of the defining factors that turned me into the Atheist I am today.

Jack

7. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238319 by blakjack on August 28, 2008 at 1:44 am

I am now retired but I guess you people would have loved it if I had said to my passengers:

"The pressurisation system has just gone tits-up. You're all in the shit unless you bloody well listen to what I'm telling you; and that includes the prick in the back row who thinks he know better than I do how to fly a fucking aeroplane. You might find that the reduction in cabin pressure causes some of you to fart. Ha ha! If that isn't a good enough reason to put on your masks then I don't know what is."

"I'll tell you later what the fuck is going on and to what arsehole of a third world airfield we will have to land at."

Would that announcement inspire confidence that I was acting with a calm and reasoned train of thought? I doubt it, any more than the continual use of unimaginative language on these threads fills me with admiration for its authors.

Jack

8. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238281 by blakjack on August 27, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Non-believers are quite understandably irritated by all the religious propaganda and privilege that we see on a daily basis.

But these threads almost always degenerate into use of obscenities. The over-use of swear words is a sign of a somewhat limited power of expression; there is significant danger of valid arguments being ignored.

Cut out the swearing. It doesn't do the cause any favours.

Jack

9. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #233098 by blakjack on August 19, 2008 at 6:05 am

Quote:
"LETS GET A PARTY STARTED AND RAISE SOME CONSCIENCES"

There is so little to chose between the mainstream political parties nowadays that a Secular Party would offer a much needed choice.

Richard Branson to fund, Jeremy Clarkson as leader - two well respected atheists.

I am actually being serious here. However, I doubt that either would have the stomach for such a big fight even though both enjoy the utmost admiration from the public.

Jack

10. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232593 by blakjack on August 18, 2008 at 11:28 am

The so-called "health officials" are totally spineless to give in to this minority (Catholic) point of view.

So a challenge. Why can't non-religious organisations hand out sex advice leaflets to girls outside doctors' surgeries? It might spark the long-overdue battle between secularists and the religious and bring religion into mainstream politics where it deserves to be.

Jack

11. Poll: Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?

Comment #230227 by blakjack on August 14, 2008 at 12:55 pm

"....it's not as stupid or embarrassing as the British national anthem...."

Too true. I can never bring myself to sing it for three reasons:
1. It assumes that we are all Royalists.
2. It assumes that we all believe in god.
3. The tune is mind-numbingly awful.

Jack Harrison, Cambridgeshire, England

12. Do they really think the earth is flat?

Comment #224731 by blakjack on August 5, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Presumably George W Bush is a member?

Jack

13. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213830 by blakjack on July 19, 2008 at 2:16 am

"....that the scientific world is incompatible with supernaturalism...."

There might be a middle way. ID, as put forward by its proponents doesn't seem the endow their god a with very high level of sophistication. Let us assume instead the ID god didn't so much design individual animals, plants, etc but actually designed the LAWS of the universe (eg the ratio of the mass of one fundamental particle relative to another - any other ratio and the universe wouldn't work), then evolution and all the other wonders of our universe would inevitably follow. That concept of god would be far more acceptable to scientists and go a long way towards mitigating the controversy. Scientists could continue with their research as the god that had set up the rules would make investigation simply part of the "grand plan"

I don't happen to subscribe to the idea of a law-creating god, but am far less irritated by that point view than by the naive statement that the universe began precisely 6,227 years ago (or wherever) with everything in place.

14. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208612 by blakjack on July 11, 2008 at 4:37 am

[quote]"Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs," she said. [/quote]

Substitute just a few words:
"Religious rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their lack of religious beliefs."

It now needs a parallel test case. I might not feel bullied by people with religious beliefs but occasionally I have been harassed by those irritating people who knock on my door and try to sell their religion. In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are quite easy to deal with; I merely offer to tell them about the advantages of non-belief. They soon depart.

Jack

15. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #206935 by blakjack on July 9, 2008 at 1:53 am

Another brilliant own goal. Arguing about women priests, sexuality, etc. Keep going Christians. You look more ridiculous every day.

Jack

16. Evangelical grunts

Comment #200831 by blakjack on June 28, 2008 at 9:49 am

During my time in the (British) Royal Air Force, we occasionally had parades during which prayers were said. Before the Christian prayers, there was the order "Jews and Buddhists - Fall Out". ( I think Buddhist were included). There was certainly no option for other faiths or indeed for non-believers. In those days - the 1960s - I wasn't too bothered about having to put up with prayers, although I certainly didn't mumble the "amens". Now 40 years later and a confirmed atheist, I would certainly raise objections.

Does anyone know the British military today handles parades involving prayers?

However, our Air Force wasn't rigid in imposing religion. By my late twenties, I had become a confirmed atheist and began to irked by official forms that asked me to tick the appropriate box "religion". As there didn't seem to be anything that fitted my views, eventually I spoke to my Commanding Officer to ask for advice. "Do what I do Jack. Cross out all the boxes and write in NONE". In fact, even today that is more correct than filling in "Atheist" in reply to a question "What is your religion? Atheism isn't a religion. It is a LACK of religion.

As an aside, I once flew a senior padre to one of the out stations in the Middle East. We had a few drinks (well, more than a few) that evening and senior padre certainly didn't persuade me of the value of Christianity. I think I probably did a better job arguing my views!

Jack

17. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191991 by blakjack on June 12, 2008 at 9:09 am

I have signed petitions in the past. The PM never pays the slightest attention to them. I can't recall what the last one was but the response was along the lines that "religion is good for people". The PM's mind is made up and nothing will change it.

But I will sign if only to support Paula's comments that opposing religious privilege isn't necessarily a vote loser. Indeed, I have written to all my prospective parliamentary candidates asking for their religious persuasions and implying that I will only consider voting for one who embraces secularism.

Jack Harrison

18. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189775 by blakjack on June 7, 2008 at 8:42 am

Can't for the life of me imagine a sign like that appearing in Europe

19. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181564 by blakjack on May 17, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Keep things as they are. Compulsory collective worship (Yawn, Yawn) is probably the best way to produce the next generation of atheists. Isn't that what we want?

Jack Harrison