Marc Stephens... phoney or fruitcake?

The "big" story towards the end of 2011 was the activities of the Burzynski Clinic in the US and those of the curious Marc Stephens who, rather than engage with the criticisms of the clinic, decided to stalk a 17 year old sceptic called Rhys Morgan by posting a picture of his parent's house in his email correspondence.

Rhys Morgan collecting an award from the sceptic Jedi Master James Randi

(There is a debt collection company I will be 'outing' in the next few weeks who also engage in this practice to intimidate potential debtors or, more often than not, random members of the public.) 

I digress.

I won't go too much into the Burzynski issue, because this rebuttal of his methods here is exemplary, suffice to say that trying to cure people with urine is quite an ancient woo woo and that I believe the actions of the clinic cause serious harm to the public. By that I mean his methods are not credible and people are giving his clinic thousands of pounds (or dollars... all money is the same to that fella it seems) for a therapy which is not efficacious (i.e. not proven to work or, more accurately, is BS). 

Buzynski could be a well meaning doctor desperate for a cure for cancer. I won't say he isn't. But in the face of the evidence that his methods do not work when empirically tested he is doing serious harm to his patients. No question. The evidence shows his methods do not work. How much clearer does that need to be?

But of course he is making money from this. LOTS of money. And he doesn't seem to mind taking money for something which, when peer reviewed, does not work. That, in my mind, makes him a charlatan. A snake oil salesman. But he's a snake oils salesman who won't stop; even in the face of the scientific criticism of his work... he carries on, convinced that his method will work one day or, from the evidence us sceptics have, that more people will be tempted by his very polished sales patter... we need something like this to dismiss nonsense:

Buzynski is either deluded or a crook. There's really no other way to put it. I'm sure he is well meaning on some level but the efficacy of his treatment should have told him long ago that he is on the wrong track. How many more people have to die before he is considered a public health risk?

I am certain about on thing... Marc Stephens is a crooked piece of shit. This is the "internet lawyer" who was employed by Burzynski to respond to the criticisms of his work. Stephens is the guy who has literally been doling out legal threats left, right and centre for the past few weeks. According to the Burzynski clinic, he was sacked after the fallout from the threats directed to Rhys Morgan.

Is he potentially a rogue employee or a defender of Burzynski frothing at the mouth when given some power to enact a damage containment exercise? Is he someone who looked at Britain's libel laws and thought...

Mr. Burzynski, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement.
But, just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement

It's interesting that since being publicly sacked he has continued dishing out the threats since and, in particular, to the blogger Ken White over at Popehat (an excellent blog by the way). 

In fact, it was White who convinced me it was worth writing about this when he wrote:

"Thuggish lawsuit threats calculated to chill dissent only work when people refuse to fight back. Let's fight back."

I agree, we need to fight these churlish threats and treat them for what they are; egotistical stunts designed to close down dissent.

I'm already in the High Court defending libel proceedings and have only wrote a couple of posts on my blog since to keep something of a low profile and, mainly, because the case is incredibly stressful and has taken me away from what I would consider a normal life.

It's taught me you should be careful what you say. And it has had the effect of me having to really think about what I write and how I write it. However, this issue is too important to ignore. For an adult to intimidate a young guy starting out in the world of scepticism (and gaining a positive reputation) by posting details of his address and sending a photo of it is nothing short of criminal as far as I am concerned. It's an act of cowardice. It's the act of a pathetic individual desperately seeking to justify their existence. 

Now I'm sure that Rhys could have withstood a rational a reasoned debate were he wrong about what he was reporting. When you start writing in a adult world you need to be able to handle the responses you get. I'm very confident that Rhys would have been able to engage with Marc on a level playing field or even one slightly tipped against him. However, to intimidate someone using the law and use tactics similar to that of a stalker is where a line should be drawn and I'm happy to defend Rhys and any other blogger using whatever means available.

In any event Marc Stephens has been caught out and shown up for what he is. And with his refusal to supply details of his legal registration which, at the time of writing, does not exist, he is more than likely a wannabe who is too lazy to put the work into law school. Taking the short cut never works. 

He could well be someone on the Burzynski payroll or, quite simply, a lonely keyboard warrior who needs attention. 

Cyber Threats 'R' Us... 

Either way, he needs to be shown that people are not intimidated and they will not be bullied, especially by morons like him.

Ken White has my support with this and as soon as I am able I will ensure that I devote some more time to raising the public's awareness of Burzynski's scientifically flawed, and therefore unethical, clinical method (Antineoplaston therapy) and the perverse actions of the shyster Marc Stephens.

If he wanted a fight, he picked the wrong crowd.

Not without a Hitch

He preferred to be called "Hitch", which brought back memories of his own Father's nickname, but you would be given a cold stare and a harsh rebuke were to you shorten his first name "Christopher".

What seems irrational frustration with the removal of letters from a surname being acceptable but not for a first name is part of what made Hitch an enigma of our time. A person with a resolute belief in propriety but not afraid to step away from convention when the need suited. And thus people were never always certain where they stood with him as demonstrated by his fervent argument in favour of the Iraq War. For a "wet liberal lefty" to have agreed with George Bush's crusade into the Middle East with all of the religious and right wing baggage that accompanied it, it left people like Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky incredulous.

But then Hitch wanted nothing more than for people to be continually surprised. He had been doing it all of his life. He was considered, by both friends and enemies, of being a supreme intellect; a person who was articulate, spoke with great force and wit and had a ready accessible library in his head which would send shivers down the spine of his opponents in debate. He could, quite literally, destroy a person with his rancour, concessions and rebuttals.

But he left university with a third class degree. This demonstrates the point perfectly that it's not always "who you know" in the world that gets you somewhere because clearly Hitch was only able to sustain his long career based upon "what he knew". It also demonstrates that a university degree classification demonstrates nothing about a person's potential or ability to apply knowledge and passion to a career.

There is not a lot unique that people can write about Hitch but I hope the above "eulogy" has been something different from the various endorsements that are permeating the blogosphere. All are worthy reads.

What has been interesting is that as soon as Hitch's book "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" started trending on Twitter (#godisnotgreat) there were a gluttony of posts from some religious fruitcakes clearly unable to recognise that the trend was not some random phenomena started by some godless heretics but was the vehicle by which people could communicate common sympathy for the death of a person of great significance.

What was surprising, or which should not have been really as the book in question documented the history of religious irrationality, was the violence espoused by the "Religious Twitterati" in response to the hashtag.

Here is a selection rounded up by others...

These comments speak for themselves of course. What was even more surprising, but again should be expected, is the people wishing to profit from the death of Hitch:

These "psychic readings", attached to the Hitch hashtag, contain a level of crassness that is difficult to fathom. But people need to make a living right?

Ok, well the ultimate challenge befalls any psychic who entertains the spirit of Hitch because the level of eloquence needed to prove to any skeptic that they are in Hitch's presence would be incredible. Hitch was one of the most incredible speakers with a breadth of knowledge and a witty repertoire that is not really found anywhere else.

If psychics can truly speak to the dead, and they claim they are speaking to Hitch, they will need to do more than say "I'm sensing the letter "C"" and warble on about how existence is so much better not being in pain blah, blah, blah...

What sort of information could Hitch bring back? Certainly more than telling his family that he loves them very much. I wonder if we will see any attempts to contact Hitch. And if a medium was able to channel his spirit what sort of information would they need to convey to make us believe that he was really in touch? Hitch was one of the most entertaining orators of his generation (and no doubt many others). Unless they were genuinely in touch with his spirit, a medium would need a level of intellect and readily accessible knowledge that I doubt they possess. I might be wrong and the option is there for a significant script to be learned. It's up to the skeptic community to critique this should it ever happen. I'm hoping that someone isn't crass enough to try but judging by the touting for business on the back of the #godisnotgreat hashtag, don't be surprised.

And what about that religious fruitcake Rick Warren who thinks homosexuality is a sin and not a viable lifestyle? He had this to say...

This is the Christian "I told you so". Rick Warren was the guy who invoked Pascal's Wager during a debate with Sam Harris in his closing comments:

"We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble."

Rick Warren is basically a guy rolling dice with faith. He doesn't seem to get that he could well be wrong about the god he believes in and that any god who accepted his reasons for believing (which essentially rests on the turn of a card) would be a god of immense stupidity (or naivety). Any god who is omnipotent would know that Warren is taking such a bet and wasn't really into the faith. After all, it's just a bet. A win-win for the theist?

It wouldn't surprise me if the faith fruitcakes end up with some crazy theories about a deathbed conversion; they did it with Darwin, for example, and most recently with Anthony Flew (but in realtime)... if you hear or read about such stories, Hitch has left a memo:

I'm sure if anyone would have been sympathised with for turning to Pascal's Wager, it would have been a person in Hitch's position. Death is something we all face and we do not know how we will react when the time comes. I am with Hitch on this and there will be no recanting from me. Therefore the pious should stop using Pascal's Wager full stop as some sort of argument.

In fact it's intellectually repugnant for any faith head to use Pascal's Wager in anyone's presence but if they do just laugh because they are ascribing a level of stupidity to the deity they are placing on a galactic pedestal.

They commit the ultimate insult to their idea of god, their faith and their own intellect.

Seriously, just laugh.

There are many more comments which I could have included from the brainless to the disgusting. You will find them if you only scan twitter for a brief moment. Share the ones which make you laugh, rip apart the ones which are logically flawed and keep a cool, rational head with the ones which are offering a violent retort to the hashtag. Hitch would do no more, no less were he faced with this situation.

Hitch did not, to my knowledge, use Twitter. He never needed to. However, it is a medium which is immensely useful for spreading ideas. Millions of people use it, millions of people probably follow a god of sorts. These people can see what is being written. It is up to the Atheists and Agnostics to offer not so much an alternative to the violent remarks but a Zeitgeist; we need to show that responding with reason and skeptical rationality is the only way to approach such a situation. This in turn will help others realise we are not evil and cruel but fair and critical of bad ideas.

I'll leave you with this:

“The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.”
― Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-believer

EDIT:

This is one of the poignant blogs I was talking about above:

http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/2011/12/16/god-is-not-great/

Please read it. It's extremely honest and heartfelt.

Sally Morgan reveals sex change from the afterlife...

This blog usually concerns itself with faith matters but occasionally will delve into other nonsensical recipes from time to time. Hence the title of course.

Jack of Kent wrote a blog today reporting on the latest libel nonsense which looks likely to hit the courts any time soon. Who is the purveyor of such threats?

None other than Sally Morgan... one of those alleged psychics.

Perhaps her guide should have told her not to wear than horrendous blouse? There is nothing to look smug about Sally... it's a horrendous top. But what do I know about fashion eh? [nothing]

Anyway, Jack of Kent reports:

"There is a statement on Morgan's official Facebook page:

"On behalf of Sally Morgan we would like to confirm that Sally Morgan has instructed Graham Atkins of Atkins Thomson to commence libel action in relation to press allegations that she is a cheat, following her show in Dublin. Thank you for your support and patience in this matter. Sally Morgan Management Team."

Ok, so it looks like Sally has taken exception to being called a cheat. Project Barnum has provided the relevant links so I won't repeat them here... but the webpage provides a very fair and reasonable account of the situation and does not call Sally a cheat and even offers to arrange some independent tests for Sally. A very gracious and kind offer.

I foresee that she won't take the offer up. Does this mean that if she doesn't I am psychic? Maybe I am missing out on not charging £1.53 per minute for people to listen to nonsense too?

Project Barnum's writer(s) said...

"we would like to point out that the burden of proof is with Sally to prove that she is able to communicate with the dead because as it stands there is no evidence to support the notion that she can"

Because libel proceedings have been issued this is no longer the case thanks to Britain's crazy libel laws. 

Here's a video of Sally in action:

To me, "Lynne" and her mate "Debbie" looked like actresses. I don't have any proof... but they looked like actresses. Or paid up. Or idiots. 

But I have to provide balance... here is Sally getting it right on the money with absolutely no allegations of impropriety form me whatsoever...

Yup, you got it... she was talking to the person in the photograph who said that their name was Bernard...corrected by the woman in the audience whose photograph it was who then proclaimed... "that's my Nan".

Sex change in the afterlife? Sally roots 'em all out! Go team Sally!

So, on the evidence I have before me I won't say that Sally is a cheat. Or a fraud. Or bent. Or a shyster.

She's just crap.

It's just a theory

I'm no biologist. Other than a double award GCSE in Biology and Physics I have only an 'interest' in the sciences. I claim no authority whatsoever in this field. But I do know the difference between a 'theory' and a 'Theory'.

And no, the capital "T" is not it. I shall explain...

John Freshwater is one of those Creationist Biology teachers who claims that he teaches alternative views to Evolution to bring balance to the subject.

He lost a case against his dismissal from Mount Vernon Middle School this week where it was claimed that he not only taught Creationism and refused to remove religious material from his classrooms but also burned a cross into students arms with a Tesla Coil. This is a picture used in the case against him:

Horrific.

A report here said:

"Although it is reported that school officials have not completely absolved Freshwater of the Tesla coil incident, a hearing officer had previously found that it was not a factor in the firing, "because Freshwater stopped using it after he was told to do so."

“I have been completely cleared of that but they continue to bring that up. That should have never been brought to the case,” Freshwater said. “The media reports keep bringing it up. I guess it sells papers.” [emphasis is always mine]

So he is a liar as well as a child abuser then because burning symbol into a child's skin IS child abuse. He should have been sacked on the spot for that alone. The school caught him doing it and told him to stop using the device to inflict his warped sense of morality onto other human beings.

I would have strapped to a chair, put the Tesla coil in his mouth and then retire for lunch... hopefully upon my return he would have a different opinion on whether the Tesla coil is a suitable teaching implement? Maybe he would like it too much and this would defeat the object? I digress...

If that wasn't bad enough his lawyers adds insult to injury:

“He never had a negative performance evaluation in 20-plus years. He is a good teacher,” Rutherfor Institute President John W. Whitehead told CP. “The real issue here is that he has obligedly challenged a sacred object in public education, which is the theory of evolution.

“People forget it is a theory. So, our argument is that he should have the academic freedom to do that. If schools just want an official version they should just show a video or get a robot to do it. It would be easier,” Whitehead said."

Creationists LOVE saying that Evolution is "just a theory"... they think it offers a way for them to intellectually discredit Evolution and offer alternatives on a rational basis. 

Now, if they truly think that Evolution is just a theory based on their understanding of the word "theory", then it is entirely rational for them to believe that an alternative is viable. I always look at how people use rationality and reason to come to their conclusions. And I do think that they are operating on some rational level based on their assumptions.

But in this case it is intellectually dishonest for a teacher to believe that a 'scientific theory' and the word 'theory' mean the same thing. Therefore the assumption is wrong. Horribly wrong.

Scientific Theory: "In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains."

Theory: 

By saying that Evolution is "just a theory" it's clear that Creationists are referring to the 2nd description in this dictionary.com explanation. They think that Evolution is an idea... a flight of fancy without verification.

This book rounds on those who think that evolution is "just a theory" and I recommend it highly (I don't get money for links, advertising or purchases). 

Above all, it is intellectually disgraceful for a science teacher to be misrepresenting, via his lawyers, evolutionary theory. And this shows that he has been either sucked into a propaganda machine intent on "Teaching the Controversy" or is simply a fruitcake of the highest order who needs to go back to school. 

The message is; always watch out for the Creationists who deliberately misrepresent the word "theory" whether by intent or lack of education.

I wish the Liars for Jesus brigade would debate honestly. By moving the goalpost to deliberately misrepresent the science they are committing fraud and trying to fuck up public education. And it's all part of an agenda by organisations determined to promote Intelligent Design based on the Christian principle of a creator. We don't see Hindu creationists penetrating public discourse for example in the same way as the Christian fundamentalists but then the resources of these organisations is vast and influence wide.

Answers in Genesis is one popular creationist resource... check paragraph 6 of their mission statement:

This is the intellectual level at which this organisation and their ilk operate on. Nothing can contradict the bible. If it does, even if the evidence is overwhelming then it must be wrong. Simply because it will have been subjected to "interpretation by fallible people".

Anyone else think that this is a contradictory and hypocritical statement to make considering that:

a) the bible was written by fallible people

b) that the bible is subject to interpretation by fallible people

Nothing will convince the fundamentalists that they are wrong. It's their mission statement. I prefer to subscribe to rigorous scientific enquiry. I don't mind being wrong about things. In fact I consider being wrong to be a part of the learning process. Creationists, and particularly the fundamentalists of all faiths, do not want to learn. And that's backwards thinking...

A rather pious Sunday from the Daily Mail

I'm going on a short break until the end of my libel case; it's taking up far too much of my time so something has to give and this blog is it. However, I couldn't resist posting once more after being alerted to some rather religious indignation over at the Sunday Mail (Sunday edition of the Daily Mail) - courtesy of Angry Mob.

Firstly , the front page contains this rather startling headline...

Who is the Mail writing to? The "year of our lord"??? Our???

Do Muslims read the Mail? Probably. Sihks? Hindus? Jains? Atheists? Buddhists? I hate to think how many people this headline excludes.

But then the target audience for the Mail is not liberal minded persons with ideas about equality and fairness.

It's a newspaper for the person who says "I'm not a racist but..."

Moving on from the headline, it turns into a rant about the BBC replacing BC/AD with BCE/CE. They need some religious outrage, and it is duly supplied by the Rev Peter Mullen:

"This is absurd political correctness and these new terms do not mean anything to anyone. I think it's an example of the BBC trying to undermine Christianity by pushing an aggressive secularism."

As opposed to a minority religion pushing aggressive religious dogma in using a term that no-one was consulted on? And despite the BBC saying:

"The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems. Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams."

I swear the idea that Christians are somehow victims in some crazy secular vision is nonsense. And Rev Peter Mullen just demonstrates his ignorance and, once again, how out of touch he is.

On the inside pages, deceased Jade Goody's Mother made this rather surprising claim:

And another pious story is arrived at shortly after and this time it's about police brutality... (allegedly)

The guy owns a cafe and  displayed bible passages which are now considered homophobic (most of the bible is considered completely irrelevant if you didn't know). This guy was, in all honesty, standing up for his right to display homophobic messages in his own cafe.

The owner said:

"At no stage had they [the Police] spoken to me like I was a law-abiding citizen trying to earn a living. I felt like a criminal."

Is the Mail now the first port of call for complaining about oppressive police tactics? I would have thought that the best route would have been the force's Chief Inspector or the IPCC...

The final story is the best. Bestiality in fact.

It's not the story that is relevant here... it's the comment from a Mail reader:

If this is a genuine comment, then it speaks for itself.

So, the message to take away from the this edition of the Mail on Sunday is that if secularism has it's way in removing relics of Christianity to meet the needs of modern society then not only does this lead to racist ex-big brother contestants having their babies sent from heaven die but this will prevent homophobic cafe owners from making a living promoting their hateful material...

...leading to everyone sleeping with their pets.

God sent the Fury didn't cha know!

Today, Tyson Fury, the 6' 9" boxer, was proselytizing in the Belfast Telegraph. Anyone who has watched a Fury fight will know how much this chap loves god and how thankful he is for helping him win his fights in his post-fight interviews.

Here's some of Fury comments to the Belfast Telegraph:

“The ultimate sacrifice has been made for me on the Cross and I could never emulate what Jesus has done for me."

The Seething Primate has a perfect riposte for this. I can do no better. So here it is:

"If you have faith in God you can achieve anything."

You can achieve anything without god too.

“The Bible says that with faith the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains, so if we have faith in Christ you can do anything."

Fury has failed to properly knock out 13 of his 15 opponents so far (TKO doesn't count as the it means the ref has jumped in or the other fighter couldn't continue). If he can't move fat tomato cans what chance does he have of shifting mountains?

“Ask and you shall receive, so I’m asking and I’m receiving — so any problems I have I give them to God and he sorts them out."

Yup. God sorts out all of Fury's problems. In fact, I reckon Fury takes up so much of god's time that he isn't able to get around to less important stuff. Like saving babies in Africa from HIV/AIDS. Or healing amputees. Far too busy for that.

This sense of entitlement makes me sick to be honest. Why the fuck would god want to help Fury cause damage to people and help him earn millions in the process? Twat.

“God is the main thing that drives people even though they don’t realise it. Even those who say they don’t believe in God, because God is speaking to them, they’re very close to their lives being changed."


So now god speaks to people. It's not often that the religious claim this because it makes you look like a loon.

"And I believe God is helping me in my career to help spread the word of Jesus Christ. I have a special opportunity because God has given me the size, the height, the ability to go on and be the heavyweight champion of the world. I never think about damaging someone."

Fury seems to forget that he is the only fighter, in the history of televised boxing, to have punched himself in the face.

If there is a god, then he has a sense of humour at least.

We'll make you worship you damn heathens!

An article in the Guardian raises the important question why compulsory worship of a broadly Christian character still exists in the British state system?

Read that question again and then argue that we do not live in a semi-theocracy.

This brought to my mind a small dispute I had with my children's school when this letter was handed out to the parents:

I can vouch for the fact that those worship sessions are of a broadly Christian character as parents have been invited along to them for as long as I can remember. Hands together, eyes closed and "Amen" are not found outside of Christianity/Judaism are they? No; so the end credits are distinctly Christian then.

Anyway, the headteacher is concerned at the number of children collected early so that they do not have to sit through this compulsory sessions. In fact, she shouldn't be concerned at all because there is a "get out clause" in the Act where parents can remove their children.

But this comes at a cost according to the headteacher because she will subject them to an "embarrassing" ejection from the assembly while in progress spoiling the atmosphere for her sheep sheeple loyal adherents victims of brainwashing pupils.

The headteacher makes it clear, in no uncertain terms that in future, unless it is an emergency you may not collect your children unless you have prior agreement.

Parents may well think that the headteacher has the final say on the matter or be confused as to whether they are breaking the law in removing their child from compulsory worship.

Well their rights can be found here.

Under Section 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 you can withdraw your child from these 'compulsory' sessions.

And this is where the headteacher's letter completely falls flat on its face and demonstrates both the arrogance of religious belief and the deliberate misrepresentation misunderstanding of what the law states.

The sessions ARE NOT compulsory for the children to attend

It is only compulsory that the schools make the provision for the collective worship

Children are not bound to attend these collective worship sessions whatsoever.

EDIT:

Had to post this comment from Twitter:

UPDATE 03/10/11


I've been getting a bit of stick in some places by people who cannot be bothered to read the blog post properly.

I tend to find that it is those in foreign countries who cannot get their head's around the idea that schools with religious administrations in Britain receive government funding or that there is something called a "catchment area" which means you have to travel ridiculous distances (or jump through stupid hoops) to give your child a secular education.

Even so, the standard of my children's education is actually quite good. There is no need to remove them from the school disrupting their work, their friendships and their routine.

What this issue boils down to is the following:

1. A headteacher that has either misinterpreted or misrepresented the law.

2. That even if "collective worship" remained in force, then there should still be a provision within the school for children of no faith (or non-Christian faith) to go to during this period instead of them being led out of the actual assembly in an admittedly "embarrassing" fashion.

3. That the headteacher is a fruitcake.

4. That Atheists and Secularists can be fruitcakes too...

READ THE FUCKING BLOG POST PROPERLY!!!

That is all

Two views on 9/11 from the Pope and a muppet

Two interesting views on 9/11 emerged today; one from Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of Billy Graham (a man who Christopher Hitchens said is "disgustingly evil" and "sick and twisted" in a brilliant TV interview) and the second from no other than Pope Benedict.

We'll start with Yahweh's representative on earth first who said:

"It is my fervent prayer that a firm commitment to justice and a global culture of solidarity will help rid the world of the grievances that so often give rise to acts of violence and will create the conditions for greater peace and prosperity, offering a brighter and more secure future."

It is a credible ambition and call to reason but it's clear that the Pope was referring to acts of terrorism being caused by "grievances". In other words, people do bad things because they are unhappy. And this is a view shared by Ron Paul who says that "U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a main motivation behind terrorist hostilities toward America, and that Islam is not a threat to the nation."

An argument that would gain credibility were it not for the very, very, very limited number of terrorist campaigns and incidents that occur. Extreme poverty, famine and oppression continues to exist in a number of sub-Saharan states yet these hard pressed people are not compelled to blow people up indiscriminately. 

Indeed, the 9/11 hijackers did not come from hard pressed backgrounds at all being mainly middle class, privileged and seemingly "normal" in the grand scheme of things. Not only does this make Ron Paul's comment stupid but the Pope seems to be a worthy bedfellow.

The second comment from Anne Graham Lotz is fucking stupid beyond all doubt. It makes me want to vomit all over my keyboard. Twice. Lick it up. And then vomit three more times. And I feel like this any time I read the bullshit that comes from the religious mind wrapped up in unprovable shite.

She says:

"We've been telling him [god] to get out of our business, out of our government, out of our schools, out of our marketplace. And then when something like this [9/11] happens, we wonder where he is,"

No, no, no. We don't have to wonder where he is. The fact that he is absent from every single major and minor event over the past 4.6billion years gives a pretty good indication that he doesn't exist.

"The Bible says that there's only one way to God, and that's through Jesus."

More contradictory bullshit because if this was the case, what happened in 1BCE? How would people have reached god before Jesus stepped foot anywhere on the earth? And the date of the New Testament presents more friggin' problems. Not to mention the BILLIONS who never had a hope in hell of knowing the word of the bible because they were DYING of HIV given to them in the womb by the cuntish creator who felt it necessary to kill a child before they could KNOW of the Jesus in the bible.

These people really do not stop and think before writing something do they?

Fuck.

More nonsense about the "end of days"...

"We see that in the storms, the floods, the forest fires," she said. "They're not only occurring more frequently, but when they occur, they break the record of the last one."

Says who? Who says they break the record of the last one? Who says they are getting worse?

Research indicates that "wildfires" have actually decreased in the 20th century - http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n10/full/ngeo313.html

This graph shows that she is talking bollocks about hurricanes:

The only argument that could be made for an increasing number of reported storms/wildfires etc is exactly that... the fact that they are reported. You obtain a frequency by measuring storms in the same region. 

You can't say in region A there were 10 storms in 2009 and in 2010 there were 5 storms in region A and 15 in region B and then use this data to suggest that storm rates have doubled... 

I think that's a good place to end this... I've drunk far too much and I need some sleep... but I'll end on these.

Science flies you into space. Religion flies you into buildings. 

Religion also makes normally kind and decent human beings say and do horrible and wicked things.

My thoughts and sympathies are with the people who lost their lives to mammals with far too much faith in fairy tales. If only mankind could learn a lesson from this that religion will keep making excuses for itself in the face of atrocities and fail miserably to attribute proper blame. And if they were indeed as faithful as they claim, they would find good reason for dropping the ridiculous ideas of bliss in the next life.

The reason the bombers took their own lives, as well as others that day, is because they thought that they were going to paradise. Most religions converge on this idea of another life. This happy medium and general consensus from religious moderates allows the idea to prevail that something else is waiting. A very dangerous idea indeed.

If they knew, and I mean really knew, that this is the only life that we have then those hijackers might have thought that this life, and the lives of their fellow travellers, was too precious to waste.

Collective Worship Morons Out In Force

The hot potato topic right now in the world of theological nonsense is Collective Worship. If you have been following the news here in Britain you will know that:

"Almost two thirds of parents questioned said their child did not attend a form of communal worship at school, such as a Christian assembly. The duty on schools to provide a daily act of Christian worship dates back to 1944 but was strengthened in the 1988 education act."

It seems the furore, if we can even call it that, is the issue of Headteachers breaking the law in not ensuring that their assemblies are of a "broadly Christian character". It's all a red herring of course; it's a simple effect of the incompatibility of the Labour multi-cultural initiative and the CofE school system.

Back in 2004 it was revealed that 60% of school students at Sir John Cass Foundation and Red Coat Church of England secondary school in London's East End came from a Bangladeshi background. How can a law be expected to be enforced against people of a different religion?

More importantly, there seems to be a growing understanding of the irrelevancy of Christian dogma, and religion in general, in which the lawmakers need to take into account in amending the legislation.

I'll accept the very weak argument that exists that the original law was there to take into account the cultural significance of Christianity in Britain. I cannot accept, on any terms, that there continues to be a cultural reason why the law should prevail in its current form or in any form which recognises religion. I have to admit it would be amusing to see an assembly about the moral virtues provided by the Flying Spaghetti Monster though.

And the ridiculous thing is that if religion remained within the scope of the Act then assemblies on Pastafarianism would have to be accounted for.

And so we turn to the morons... as ever with this issue you get the odd nutjob preaching and pouting. I've assembled a few here from the Daily Fail Mail:

Good ole' Brother Anthony (I don't know him) feels that "virtually everyone can agree that the 10 Commandments... form the basis of any civilised society." 

Really? 

Take a look at the 10 Commandments... only 3, perhaps 4, would form the basis of any civilised society (I'll cover this another time). I suspect that Brother Anthony hasn't read them properly. But this ignorance is contagious...

It would be funny to hear a school assembly explaining how the first 3 commandments were designed with Yahweh in mind... this renders the commentators argument at the end that Christian values and the belief in god are not inseparable pretty much redundant. In teaching the Christian values, derived from the 10 commandments, they are effectively telling people their belief in other gods is wrong. I'm surprised other religious figures have not risen up against such inequality... or it might be that this would be like punching yourself in the face considering the proliferation of faith schools in Britain.

This person performs a double strawman in one sentence! Firstly, Sam Harris remarked that "Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."

And how is "quality of life" and "Atheism" in any way linked in this context? Secular societies improve the quality of a persons life. But a "secular society" is not "Atheist" in this sense; it simply has no position on them at all. They are not even agnostic.

You can't tell that to people like Ed West who calls the National Secular Societies attempts to drive religion out of public life as "Atheist bigotry"... I'll have to dissect that nonsense another time?

Even Christianity Today acknowledges that "Highly secularized Scandinavian countries consistently rank high on international well-being and life-satisfaction indices... The world's great religions speak of caring for the sick, the poor, and the orphaned, and of practicing mercy and goodwill toward fellow humans, yet these traits are often more evident in the world's least religious nations."

British society does not seem to suffer considering the lack of belief in Zeus or Thor; neither should it suffer from the lack of belief in the Christian god. 

When you are in a theological debate like this, you tend to come across Pascals Wager - put simply, it's the "threat" (for want of a better word) that you'll be judged one day so you had better hedge your bets just in case.

It's such an infantile argument, I'll welcome any persons comment challenging me as to its usefulness in any debate. Just know that I have "plasma TV's" and "glorious modern technology" on my side.

This looks innocuous at first glance but I think it's the most incredulous, stupid, inane, tenuous and bullshittty of all comments I have read today.

Bear in mind the topic this person is commenting on - the law being broken by headteachers who refuse collective worship assemblies of a broadly Christian character - and you should see (hopefully) how mind numbingly stupid this person is.

In her words, "your children have a right to learn about god"; just so long as it's the Christian god referred to in the law yeah?

In any case, children do not have a right to learn about god. That's insane. It's like saying that they have a right to learn about Poseidon and Ananke and Pontus and Vishnu and... ad infinitum.

How many other gods do children have a "right to know about" from the recycling and refuse bins of religious history? I imagine if you taught children enough about Horus and Zoroaster, Mithras, Attis and Dionysus-Bacchus they might well leave their lessons thinking that Jesus was somehow a carbon copy of these other myths... and that wouldn't be no good for the CofE would it?

Actually, let's enforce collective worship and change the law so that every religion has to have a snippet read and in equal measures. 

We should have a fully secular society within around 5 - 15 years and a culture more adept at critical thinking.