I love to see a Christian answer this!
NonStampCollector, my hat is off to you!
Please subscribe to his channel, there’s loads more brilliant stuff there.
.
Showing posts with label Funny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Funny. Show all posts
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Comedy Archbishop
Can we be sure that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not actually one of us? That he’s infiltrated the Church of England in order to mock it from the inside? I’m not sure, on the evidence, that we can entirely dismiss this hypothesis. The latest evidence is this nonsense:
I think that to suggest that God might intervene to protect us from the corporate folly of our practices is as unchristian and unbiblical as to suggest that he protects us from the results of our individual folly or sin.
WTF?! It’s unbiblical to suggest that God doesn’t intervene? I must have misread the Bible. You know, the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, God talking to Noah, Moses, Abraham and Issac, God allowing Satan to torment Job, Mary’s rape by God himself, any of Jesus’ miracles, the Resurrection… The Bible is absolutely full of God intervening in the world!
But the muppet ABC tells us what Atheists argue – that God never intervenes in the world! God acts in exactly the same way that He would act if he was completely imaginary. But never mind, the Archbish lets us know that even as God allows million to die from starvation, drowning, or war from global warming that
God's faithfulness stands, assuring us that even in the most appalling disaster love will not let us go
So that’s all right then!
What a git.
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
Friday, 20 February 2009
The best possible world?
Matthew Paris is an intelligent man. I often enjoy reading his comment, but his most recent column in The Times shows up the poverty of the religious mind.
In the column, he says,
Fascinating to read on The Times's letters page last week a discussion among Darwinian Christians about how a loving God could have allowed (for instance) the creation of worms that burrow into animals' eyes. This took the debate full circle: back to 30 years before this paper was founded, and the great Lisbon earthquake of 1755, featured in Voltaire's Candide.
The catastrophe provoked anguish about how God could allow such suffering. The 17th-century thinker Gottfried Leibniz had asserted that (1) a loving God would have created the best world He could; (2) there exists a loving God; ergo (3) this must be the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire mocks this, through his ludicrously optimistic Dr Pangloss.
I feel for Leibniz, a mathematician and a genius, who only asserts that if you believe in a loving God it follows that, good or bad, the world could not have been better. Voltaire's shallow knockabout does not answer a logical sequence whose sole vulnerable assertion was that there exists a beneficent God. If Voltaire did not believe this he should have had the guts to say so. Instead he cheated. As a boy I stopped reading Candide here and have ignored Voltaire since.
What a glib answer! Voltaire’s argument is flippant, and that’s the point, it is also a serious discussion about suffering.
You do not even need take the idea of evolution seriously (as I take it Paris does) which implies that there has been suffering and death on a monumental scale for hundreds of millions of years to see the flaw in Leibniz’s argument. What a supporter of Leibniz is committed to is that not a single one of any instance of suffering could be removed or even mitigated without the world becoming a worse place.
We now have anaesthetics. Does Paris really believe that the application of a narcotic (by God) to a suffering child (in circumstances where it would be given today) especially in circumstances where not only that child, but also all witnesses to that suffering would shortly also die (such as in a family during the Black Death or in a remote sea wreak) would have been a bad thing? Does he support the use of pain relieving drugs today?
The idea we live in the best possible world does not need logical refutation, the fact that it is so easily mocked and derided in its own terms is evidence that it is a faulty idea.
Laughter is our best weapon. That’s why it’s rare to see religious leaders happy!
Sunday, 8 February 2009
National Secular Society’s Secularist of the Year Award
I spent a very pleasant afternoon yesterday at the National Secular Society’s Secularist of the Year Award at the Imperial Hotel in Russell Square. The award was presented by Richard Dawkins.
The joint winners were Dr Even Harris MP and Lord Avebury for their joint work in abolishing the common law offense of Blasphemous Libel. This has been the NSS’s raison d'être for it’s whole existence, so it was no surprise that the primary authors of its repeal should be rewarded! Both gave fine acceptance speeches, with Lord Avebury commenting that he was just the one who gave the final push, after such a long effort, despite the fact that he has been tabling amendments for 20 years to get rid of that wicked law. Dr Harris MP gave a very amusing speech about the battles yet to be won, including faith schools and faith-based welfare. He revealed that he has drawn fifth in the members ballot for Private Members Bill, and he wants to introduce a bill to stop discrimination against Catholics marrying into the line of succession (and allow female members the same right to inherit the throne as males) so he thought it would be a good idea to ring up Damien Thompson, the editor of the Catholic Herald and give them an exclusive (since he and the Catholic Herald have disagreed on much previously) but Thompson was “disgusted”:
Dr Evan Harris, the Lib Dem MP nicknamed "Dr Death" for his creepy determination to make late-term abortions and euthanasia more widely available, now has a new cause: he wants to remove the ban on the heir to the throne marrying a Catholic.
You know something? Catholics don't want to be liberated from this constitutional discrimination by a politician who advocates an end to the requirement that any abortion requires the consent of two doctors, arguing that the "procedure" can carried out by a nurse or even in the home.
I know I speak for many Catholics when I say that this man disgusts me. He is wrong about nearly everything, and wrong in a particularly nauseating fashion, too: self-righteous, humourless, self-important.
I had a phone call from his office yesterday, with the news that "Dr Evan Harris MP" wanted to brief me on his initiative, as if it was supposed to be some sort of honour. I said I couldn't imagine anything worse than talking to such an appalling character.
Let's leave the constitutional bar in place for just a bit longer, shall we? It's mildly offensive, but Catholics have more important things to worry about. Such as saving late-term unborn babies from the grisly fate that Dr Harris is happy to see inflicted on them.
Ha ha ha!
The other presentations were a special award to Ariane Sherine for her excellent work on the Atheist Bus campaign (of a little model London bus with her slogan on the sides – nice) and two hard working volunteers.
Entertainment was provided by a recreation of the great debate between Huxley and Wilberforce about Darwinism. The part of Bishop Wilberforce was played with great gusto by NSS President Terry Sanderson – I must say, there’s a career in the Church for him if he ever wants to give up on our side!
We also heard from Matthew LaClair, a student from New Jersey, about his efforts to keep his classroom religion-free after his teacher used his position to preach to the students.
It was a fine afternoon, and I’m looking forward to next year.
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Pope Un-excommunicates Holocaust Denier
Opps!
I don’t understand. I thought that the Pope’s magical powers/direct hotline to God would have intervened before he did something this stupid.
Did Ratzinger not get his special tingly Pope-sense that this would be a mistake, or is he *gasp* just an ordinary man with no special/magical powers at all?
Friday, 16 January 2009
MPs Object to “Atheist Bus Ads”
This isn’t on Al-BBC.
The following Early Day Motion:
That this House notes the recent advertising campaign based on London buses, There's Probably No God, the brainchild of the British Humanist Association; also notes the fact that the rationale behind it is that people can be less careful about their lifestyle choices and general approach to life's consequences by discounting the likelihood of a Creator and an afterlife; and recommends to Christian groups considering alternative advertising approaches to There's Probably No God to counter it with the simple addition of But What If There Is?
Why should “This House”, which is a body to make laws that affect everyone, need to recommend anything to Christian groups, especially considering that Christian groups have been advertising on any media available since that media was available.
Furthermore, why is it that the religious again impugn the moral integrity of atheists? “people can be less careful about their lifestyle choices”. WTF is THAT? Where is their evidence that non-religious people are more immoral, more wicked, more depraved than the devout? In fact, having to think about what is moral and what is not is good for the “soul”. The MPs who endorse this EDM simply believe that they Sky Fairy just tells them what to do and that’s that. I just hope they never come to believe that the Sky Fairy wants them to fly aeroplanes into buildings.
The Hall of Shame stands at six as at today’s date:
Conservative Party
Democratic Unionist Party
Independent
Thursday, 8 January 2009
BBC NEWS | UK | 'No God' campaign draws complaint
Good old Stephen Green. He really knows how to liven things up.
If you don’t know about the “Atheist Bus” campaign, go here and here.
Stephen Green of Christian Voice is challenging the ads on the basis of the lack of substantiation and the alleged inaccuracy of the ads, which read:
I suspect that Stephen’s Irony Meter is broken.
The whole of the press release from Stephen Green is here. In fact, his whole website is good for a laugh!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)