Militant Atheist Pensioner Of The Week

From The Boston Standard:

A DEFIANT pensioner is planning to stand up for his beliefs by putting an atheist poster in his front window – even though police have advised him not to. John Richards was told by officers that he may face arrest if he put up the sign at his Vauxhall Road home, as it could breach the Public Order Act by distressing passers by.

But Mr Richards has decided to stand up for his beliefs, and stick the poster up, saying that such action implies a threat to free speech. The sign states ‘religions are fairy stories for adults’...

The article was then updated with a sort-of-back-pedal-but-leave-our-options-open response from the local cops.

Via APILN

"The second your parents bow their heads in prayer, punch them"

From The Daily Mail:

An atheist went on a furious tirade claiming to gave children permission to beat parents who display any sign of imposing religious beliefs. Sean Harris, member of the Berean Humanist Society in Fayetteville, went on the attack in his Sunday speech, saying that religious behavior must be 'squashed like a cockroach'.

He is is a strong supporter of North Carolina's proposed freedom-from-religion law Amendment One. There have been other recent controversies over the law, with footage of a North Carolina resident firing a shotgun at a 'Vote Against Amendment One' sign going viral in the state's agnostic community. There will be a state poll on May 8 to decide if children may be allowed to make up their own minds about evolution...

He continues: "Can I make it any clearer? Kids, the second you see your parents putting their hands together before a meal, you walk over there and crack those wrists. Man up. Give them a good punch. Ok? They are not going to act like that. We evolved to be free-thinking human beings and we are going to act like it."

Harris also has parental advice for girls who like sports: "If you fancy playing soccer or wearing trousers, then go for it. If you want to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you feel beautiful, that's fine too, even if you parents tell you that you look like a hooker. Don't worry - you don't. If you want, you are going to dress yourself up."

Also claiming to give children permission to assault parents Harris says: "Can you take charge like that as a child? Hell yeah, you can. You are authorized. I just gave you a special dispensation this morning to do that."

Fun Online Polls: Next Archbishop of Canterbury and super-food

Thank you everybody for taking part in last week's Fun Online Poll.

Who do you think will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury?

Don't know, don't care - 66%
John Sentamu - 15%
Richard Chartres - 4%
Richard Dawkins - 3%
Nicholas Baines, Christopher Cocksworth, Steven Croft - 1% each
Also rans: Graham James, Barry Morgan, Michael Perham, John Pritchard, Justin Welby
Other, please specify - 13% (including 3% for Richard Dawkins)

So there we have it. There was quite a high turnout for that poll, I didn't realise that people took such a keen interest in ecclesiastical matters.
---------------------------------
Something else about which I know little and care less is super-foods, apparently they discovered a new one last week. So that's this week's Fun Online Poll: which is your favourite superfood?

Vote here or use the widget in the side bar.

Parody Singularity

Longrider stumbled across the absolutely fabulous 300-page Police diversity handbook (Word) and quoted from the section on 'atheism' here, but sort of spoiled the fun by interleaving it with his own thoughts. IMHO the section on atheism is a work of towering genius and must stand or fall on its own merits:

Places of Worship

There are no designated places of worship. Humanist organisations train people to officiate at humanist ceremonies, and compile lists of those who are qualified to do so.

Holy texts

There are no prescribed texts. The oath is taken by a secular affirmation. A number of books containing guidelines for use if non-religious ceremonies are required (see Life Cycle section below) are published, including some written by Jane Wynne Wilson for the British Humanist Association.

Prayer

Atheists have no prayers.

Main festivals

Atheists do not celebrate religious festivals unless they do so in a secular way that celebrates a tradition but unrelated to any belief in the religious significance or worship of God.

Diet

Atheists have no dietary requirements other than those of the individual.

Dress

Atheists have no particular dress requirements.

PS, nice to see the handbook give a lengthy mention for Charles Bradlaugh, not only the first openly atheist MP but also Land Value Taxer of this parish.

Pat Condell says [that he will*] 'Vote UKIP'

* Title amended at insistence of Sir Henry Morgan (not his real name**).

** UPDATE: He says that it is, but admits he's not the famous pirate.

So he's an atheist then?

David Cameron, quoted in The Metro:

"If you are asking, do I drop to my knees and pray for guidance, no... But do I have faith and is it important, yes. My own faith is there, it's not always the rock that perhaps it should be. I've a sort of fairly classic Church of England faith, a faith that grows hotter and colder by moments but... I suppose I sort of started life believing that one's individual faith was important, but actually the institutions of the church were less important.

"I do think that organised religion can get things wrong, but the Church of England and the other churches do play a very important role in society... I think that it's perfectly possible to live a good life without having faith, by which I mean a positive and altruistic life, but I think the teachings of Jesus, just as the teachings of other religions, are a good guide to help us through."

Sub-section Of The Week

Charities Act, 2006

Section 2, Meaning of “charitable purpose”:
...
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (c) “religion” includes—
(i) a religion which involves belief in more than one god, and
(ii) a religion which does not involve belief in a god;

There's probably no God...

I finally saw two of these buses this morning on the way to work, which cheered me up no end.

Thanks to everybody who went to the trouble of organising this.

As easy as ABC

The Atheist Bus Campaign is up and running again, the BBC report thusly:

Stephen Green of pressure group Christian Voice said: "Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large. I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti. People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it."

Dude, WTF!

Is he blaming atheists for the lousy safety record of bendy buses?

Is he condoning vandalism?

"People don't like being preached at"???

Pots, kettles?

Number crunching

Shock! Horror! Only "48% of couples opted for religious weddings" in 2007.

Per a recent YouGov poll "42% of the 2,200 people taking part considered religion had a harmful effect [and only] 28% believed in God".

Hmm.

Assuming no self-selection and that atheists are, by definition, pretty indifferent about their partners' beliefs, then =0.72^2=0.52=52% of couples wouldn't want a Church wedding anyway, as both are atheists.

By subtraction, that leaves 48% where at least one partner is a god-botherer, or, again assuming no self-selection, =0.28^2=0.08=8% of all couples have two religious partners and about =2x(0.28*0.72)=40% of all couples only have a Church wedding because the skye-faerie worshipper drags t'other one down the aisle.

The alternative is to assume that there is self-selection, in which case a maximum of 28% of couples have two religious partners, begging the question, why are 20 out of 72 atheist couples getting married in Church?

I love atheists (2)

From The Metro.

I love atheists (1)

From The Times.

Oliver Letwin MP

During yesterday's Question Time, Oliver stuck up for "faith schools"* (they provide better education), said he had no problem with parents 'exaggerating' their religiosity to get their kids into such schools (up to each parent to do what they think is best) and ... unless my ears deceived me, finished off by saying:

"I have no faith whatsoever. I am not a believer."

Oliver Letwin - you rock!**

* Didn't they used to be called 'church schools'?

** Well, on these particular issues at least.

"Atheistic fundamentalism fears"

As a devout atheist*, who has absolutely no objection to the use of Christian symbols etc in a largely and historically Christian country, may I take this opportunity to tell The Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan to keep his mouth shut until he knows what he's talking about?

* That means I totally 100% genuinely believe in absolutely nothing whatsoever, apart from a few private and personal superstitions.

"Praise be to Pat Condell"

Via The Sage King.

Don't forget, when you are down, there's plenty of Pat's stuff on YouTube and so on.

"Religion causes harm"

Yippee! 42% of my countrymen and -women have woken up to the fact that religion is harmful, per a poll covered in today's Sunday Times.

Also reassuring, Gisela Stuart 'fessing up to the fact that this EU-Treaty is the same as the EU-Constitution.

Even better, it looks like we are going throw in the towel* in Basra.

But Simon Jenkins is talking crap about taxation of higher earners. He admits that Elton John and David Beckham** "operate in a truly open market [and] do not determine their own incomes". I agree, some of these super-salaries in the City and on the boards of UK plc might be a sign of collusion or oligopolistic behaviour, but why does he think that the income tax system should sort it out? How is he going to distinguish between 'open market' incomes and non-open market income when deciding who should pay super-tax?

*If I could be bothered, I'd make a joke about Al-Sadr's followers using the towel as a turban, or something.
** Is David Beckham still tax-resident in the UK anyway?

Time travel

Here's what I posted over at Tim W, I was so pleased with it that I'll repeat it here:

"There was something in 'A brief history of time' where Stephen Hawking reckons that maybe these sub-atomic particles DO travel through time.

It is observed that sometimes a negative and a postive particle appear from nowhere, and sometimes they collide and disappear.

He likens this to an observer in a helicopter flying uphill above a zig-zag road up a mountain. The cars going uphill seem to disappear and turn into cars travelling in the opposite direction (i.e. turn from positive into negative) at the ends of the curve.

Compare the left/right zig-zag with a forwards/backwards through time zig-zag. What appears to be a negative particle flying off to the left and a positive particle flying off to the right is in fact the same positive particle, moving constantly to the right, only the first part of its journey it is travelling backwards through time, so it APPEARS to be negative and APPEARS to be flying to the left.

The point (in space and time) when the two particles appear is just the point (in space) that the particle has reached (at the point in our time) when it goes from travelling backwards through (our) time to travelling forwards.

It's probably bollocks though."

Pat Condell - rabid atheist

This chap is a legend in his own lifetime.

Accurate, incisive and hilariously funny, check out his videos on YouTube.