A resurrection from Feb 2008 today, on the topic of blasphemy. Today, Oct 10th, is Day of Agreement, an event organised by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All to highlight the absurdity of blasphemy laws. A great idea, you have to agree.

Discussion (63)¬

  1. Alfie Noakes says:

    You gotta respect the courage, integrity and downright bravery of the Taliban men who just shot a 14 year old Pakistani girl in the head for blogging about equal education rights for females. They must surely be proud of themselves.

  2. Dan says:

    Me too! I deeply and sincerely believe that it’s important to mock and satirise the vanity and arrogance of religion.

  3. Nassar Ben Houdja says:

    Must admit the maid who sells beer
    Is for the most part, relatively sincere
    For the atheist creed
    Is dogmatic indeed
    Another cult of religion is here.

  4. It’s incredible that those Pakistani thugs could hunt down a 14 year old school girl and shoot her for… wanting girls to go to school. I keep thinking there will have to be a popular backlash against them in Pakistan, that people who shelter them and hide them will be so disgusted that they will lose their ability to infiltrate and kill. But when I read that there were riots over punishing the murderer of Salmaan Taseer, and that people threw rose petals on him as he entered court, I lose hope for that country. Apparently people who kill unarmed school girls are heroes in some places. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a popular backlash against the Taliban.
    Respect? Who could respect such people, or their religious ideas. I spit on their prophet and their god.

  5. IanB says:

    AFAICS religion exists to be mocked, even more so when it’s adherents commit such outlandish crime in the name of. I’d not hold out much hope either that the shooters in pakistan won’t be feted as heroes still by a significant number of their fellows.

    The recent creeping number of people being jailed for offensive social media outbursts is a little worrying in the UK too, unpleasant as they were it makes you wonder how much further that law could be stretched to include.

  6. durham669 says:

    Sorry Nassar, no matter how many times theists like you say it, atheism is not a religion. Atheism has no creed. An atheist is simply one that doesn’t believe in god or gods. Period, end of story.

  7. Chris Phoenix says:

    Nassar, Muslims disbelieve in Shiva, Thor, Wakan-Tanka, and thousands of other gods. Atheists disbelieve in just one additional god. Why is it such a big deal?

    Most Buddhists don’t believe in a god. (Amida Buddha sounds a lot like a god, from this outsider’s perspective.) But people don’t usually call Buddhists Atheists.

    It seems the real problem is either 1) disbelief in your particular favorite god (in which case, grow up) or 2) lack of religion (which makes us “weird” and different and apparently socially risky).

  8. noreligion2 says:

    hey nassar,

    Sorry to bring take the level of discourse down a notch, but I can’t resist:

    Discerning that myth
    Is a primitive gift
    And merely tales designed to instruct
    Is not dogma unwritten
    Or a sermon not given
    It’s just a defense against being butt-fucked

  9. MarkyWarky says:

    @DH, THAT is why religion makes me sad rather than angry. I’d like to believe that the human race is intelligent and pragmatic, and that one day by applying reason we can all get on, but the fact is that I see absolutely no sign of it ever happening. I think we’re doomed to stay as we ever were, and the depresses me hugely.

  10. noreligion2 says:

    The last bit of verse
    Might seem to be terse
    Not to mention a little bit vulgar
    but Zappa’s observation was keen
    noting the small difference between
    one kneeling down
    and one bending over

  11. FreeFox says:

    @noreligion: HEY! I’ve “bent over” more times than I can count, but I’ve *NEVER* bent my knee to anybody. It’s a HUGE difference, okay?

  12. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Just when you think you’ve seen it all, that you’re beyond being shocked by the insanity in the world, a cowardly thug climbs onto a bus and shoots a child in the head because she wanted an education. Thanks largely – I suspect – to prompt and efficient medical attention, but also to a large slice of luck, it looks as though she’s going to be fine. But I wonder whether it will ever cross her would-be assassin’s insane little mind that maybe Allah was on the girl’s side? Or will he just make sure he gets closer to his next innocent target, maybe use a bigger calibre gun and empty the whole magazine, because Allah’s will must be done?
    These are some very sick people, the result, I feel, of trying to impose Bronze Age rules on a 21st Century world.

  13. noreligion2 says:

    I don’t know FreeFox. An ethologist might observe that putting one’s forhead on a mat and necessarily, their arse in the air, which is mighty similar to kneeling and bowing, is in the animal kingdom a sociological gesture indicating passivity (explicitly sexual), and pretty much says, “Take me I’m yours.”

  14. Dan says:

    @MarkyWarky, you said:
    …religion makes me sad rather than angry. I’d like to believe that the human race is intelligent and pragmatic, and that one day by applying reason we can all get on, but the fact is that I see absolutely no sign of it ever happening. I think we’re doomed to stay as we ever were, and the depresses me hugely.

    (An Ironic) Amen to that brother.

    That’s exactly how I see it. Human beings wallow in believing all sorts of ridiculous shit and show no sign of moving beyond sniffing their own brain farts.

  15. Mary2 says:


    So you are suggesting that all women who take the missionary position during sex (similar to an animal’s submissive stance), and all gay men who are penetrated, are being “passive” and saying “Take me I’m yours”?

    Wow, big call. Some of us prefer to believe we are showing equal agency to the person ‘on top’ and quite often are actually the dominant person in the performance. Thanks for setting us straight (if you’ll pardon the pun).

  16. UncoBob says:

    Been wondering lately what to do for social support and ‘meaning of life’ type thinking after recognising that there is almost certainly no supernatural. Not a lot of point wandering round with a placard saying “There is/are no god/gods”, also probably a bit lonely with no imaginary friends. On the other hand, believers have ready-made in-groups who can spend a lot of time singing ridiculous hymns and trying to find meaning in obscure passages of scripture. They even get out-groups to oppose from those who find different meanings in those passages.

    The comments above suggest that it would be good to get involved in setting up systems to try to protect ourselves and people of similar views from the believers. It’s really scary if you read the list of countries that victimise people who do not believe as the state says you should.

    PS: Can I just affirm I am not a spammer

  17. noreligion2 says:

    Mary2, I’m not talking about one on one (or maybe more, depending one’s sexual mores) behavior in the privacy of one’s bedroom, I’m talking about public displays of body language, and how that sends a message to a social group. I’m not putting down people having mutual fun or razzing anyone about how they do that. I’m not even assigning dominant/submissive labels to private activity. I’m saying group behavior and what we project while in that group is an indication of our role in that group. We’re pack animals. I think religion is mostly a manifestation of those kinds of mechanisms.

  18. noreligion2 says:

    In my own defense, raped doesn’t rhyme with instruct. Maybe I could’ve worked corrupt in there somehow instead of equating a sexual act with one of violation, but I was aiming for juvenile rather than academic. As I mentioned in my prepology, I regret bringing the discourse down a notch.

  19. Alan says:

    Very deep.
    In the pub I use, there’s a chap who has one of those annoying little Jack Russell dogs that barks at anyone and everyone. Once I asked him if the there was anything he could do to stop the bloody thing yapping and his response was atounding. He slammed his pint down and ranted on about me insulting him – before he walking out. After he left someone said to me, you know he’s lived alone, with that dog, for ten years. “Complaining about his dog is like insulting his wife”. – and he was spot on, It’s such a perfect analogy for religion – It makes no difference that someone’s god is pretend, if you insult it, you’re insulting someting they have a ‘personal relationship’ with and they will automatically defend them no matter what. What’s the answer……………………………. search me.

  20. J Ascher says:

    I sincerely and deeply hold that everything should be mocked! Nihilism forever! ;>)

  21. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Alan. buy me a pint next time and you’re forgiven.

  22. beechnut says:

    A doggerel writer called Ben
    (That’s the shortest bit) took up his pen
    And said “Atheists grumble–
    It’s just prayerful mumble,
    I’ve no need to prove it. Amen”.

    By the way, another fine cartoon, O Magisterial Author.

  23. noreligion2 says:

    Alan, if anyone asked me if I could do anything to stop my bloody wife from “yapping,” I’d have to sigh and say, “No, I love her to death, but it’s a lost cause.”

  24. noreligion2 says:

    Mary2, that wasn’t misogyny rearing its ugly head, you don’t know my wife.

  25. hotrats says:

    Belief is just a polite term for pretentious, prejudiced ignorance. What anyone believes is irrelevant, arbitrary and inconsequential. It has no more significance in the real world than the pattern their shit makes on the toilet paper. What does matter is how they behave, and the history of religion is pretty much the history of justifying intolerant, murderous and irrational behaviour with just such glorified skidmarks. Only a tyrant can command respect, and religious belief does not even come close to earning it.

  26. Alastair says:

    As I’ve always said, religious tolerance is a bad idea.

  27. Starfeesh says:

    Are you not also spitting on the god & prophet of Mahala Yousefzai there @Darwin Harmless? Again, you people are ultra-keen to bravely and anonymously bash Islam in general, whenever the media tells you to. Malala Yousefzai represents the local, largely Islamic fight against oppression in the guise of religious extremism. Groups such as RAWA receive(d) little or no support from the Western media – and certainly none from the military force deployed in that area. It’s easy to spit at fundamentalists from behind yr wall of moral superiority – if you really despised the atrocities comitted in it’s name you would be supporting the people who faced and opposed it on a daily basis. Not rubbing yr hands with a “told you so” glee everytime a courageous young woman gets shot in the head, or stoned to death. RAWA provide very nice mugs, I think, if you’re wondering where to start.
    I don’t really get yr point @noreligion2 – Is religion like a sublimation of the desire to take it up the ass? Cool. I’m with FreeFox and Mary2, I think?
    Also, I’m new, so humour me if this already got covered – but why doesn’t Jesus’ beard match his head? Peroxide?

  28. MarkyWarky says:

    @Starfeesh, how do you know that DH and others don’t already support RAWA or similar? Speaking out against the same atrocities that they are fighting is one form of support, but you have no reason to assume that they don’t offer any other, do you?

    And yes, if disbelieving that god exists is spitting on a good person’s god, then that’s exactly what atheists do. Just because Malala Yousefzai interprets her imaginary god’s teachings positively doesn’t make him any less imaginary.

    That said, if all believers in all imaginary friends behaved as she does, I doubt many atheists would have a problem with it. As someone said above, it’s not what you believe that really matters, it’s how you behave as a result. It’s the way some believers behave in response to their belief that DH and others are actually spitting on.

    I think Jesus’ beard is in shadow maybe? Or perhaps it IS peroxide. Why not, everything else about him is false!

  29. hotrats says:

    If you really believe people post on this site because they have been told to by the media, or because they want to bash Islam in particular, you have a lot to learn about free speech. Outside of your own disgusting imagination, no-one is ‘rubbing (their) hands with a “told you so” glee’ when Islamic extremists notch up another victim.

    If it seems to be particularly anti-Islamic at J&M, it may just be because the most egregious examples of religious intolerance come from Muslims. If Christians, Jews or even Buddhists also routinely killed and maimed innocent people, they would get just as much stick, but (as yet) they don’t.

    RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan) will go to any lengths to claim that they speak for Islam and denounce the Taliban as un-Islamic, but it is obvious to everybody else that they are two sides of the same coin. Islam as currently practised, particularly in Afghanistan, is intrinsically misogynistic, and until RAWA can convince their own husbands, brothers and sons of the rightness of their cause, the rest of us can only stand by and weep.

    Along with DH, I also spit on all gods and prophets as a bunch of lying charlatans. Mahala Yousefzai is speaking out for the right to education, which for any reasonable person has no religious dimension. Outside of her commitment to education, what she personally believes is of no consequence. She does not need a god, a prophet, or the support of ‘local, largely Islamic’ groups to make her point – they are only ‘largely Islamic’ because locally, membership of Islam is compulsory in practice.

    If you really believe that the Taliban are un-Islamic, read the Koran more closely and you will see that they exemplify it to the letter. Without the malevolent influence of Allah and his prophet, shooting a young girl in the head could never be a debatable issue, just the action of an deluded psychopath. If spelling this out is Islam-bashing, then it is well deserved, and I’m not only happy, but morally obliged, to bash along.

  30. Starfeesh says:

    @MarkyWarky – Yr right, I can’t know for sure that Darwin Harmless and many of the other commentators here don’t support the local, predominantly muslim grass roots organisations the act in opposition to both religious fundamentalism and imperialist aggresion. But I can make an educated guess to that effect, based on the nature of their comments here.
    To this reader such comments don’t indicate solidarity with people suffering because of actions taken avowedly in the name of religion – instead they suggest that the commentor wishes to use these incidents to illustrate the superiority of his ( yeah, mostly his, I reckon) own belief system. It reads like appropriation, not support. I’m an atheist too, by the way, you can stop patronising me if you like.

  31. UncoBob says:

    Odd isn’t it that any group of people who profess some sort of similar basic beliefs will quickly engage in disagreements, schisms and hypocrisies given half a chance e.g. @Starfeesh patronisingly and anonymously denounces the group for patronising him/her and for a) being male b) not opposing ‘imperialism’ and c) ?denouncing the attempted murder in the name of religion of a child and d) being anonymous. I guess at least we aren’t tempted to murder in the name of our non-belief.

  32. jerry w says:

    Perhaps religion would have better luck in getting the masses (no pun intended) to bend over if they gave them chocolates? They could use the results of years of priest / altar boys interactions as data for their decision about this.

  33. scottspeig says:


    I find it somewhat amusing your confused outlook of the world in which you state the following:

    “What anyone believes is irrelevant, arbitrary and inconsequential”
    “I’m not only happy, but morally obliged, to bash along”

    So either your belief is irrelevant (in which case why even post), or you are morally obliged to do something (which is in itself a belief that something is “good”) Which one is it??

  34. noreligion2 says:

    My point, Starfeesh, is that in order to fit into a group… buy the lie…aquiesce to the meme (or whichever of these descriptions most closely defines such an event based on the level of intelligence of the “victim”), people will do stupid, self-deprecating/damaging things. They are submitting. They are making a deal: “See? I’m willing to go all the way.”
    Sex is the most fundamental instinct we have, that’s why profanity is based on it, it’s why rape is an act of power, it’s why religion as a meme uses it to mentally control it’s host.
    I didn’t say people want anal sex, therefore they’re religious. That’s patently stupid. I’m saying people want to be part of a larger organism, so they communicate that desire by displaying complete submission. Furthermore, it’s stereotypically passive-agressive behavior, hence bashing in people’s brains with rocks or shooting them in the neck for threatening the environment that favors the meme, even it they’re little kids.
    So, I’m engaging in primitive behavior when I point out my observation using childish rhyme and insults of a sexual nature. But I believe deeply and sincerely, as does the barmaid, religion should be mocked.

    You gotta respect that.

  35. Daoloth says:

    Once again we atheists show that our rational, self-critical, and unbigotted approach is superior to their theistic nonsense. Surely with champions like this the end of theism is in sight?

  36. mary2 says:

    I totally respect your right to mock religion, and if you read my rant in the previous thread you will know I now have to be very careful before accusing someone of misogyny for joking about their wife. Carry on mocking! 🙂

  37. hotrats says:

    # So either your belief is irrelevant (in which case why even post), or you are morally obliged to do something (which is in itself a belief that something is “good”) Which one is it?? #

    Neither – you are insisting on a definition of belief so wide as to be meaningless. 1) I wasn’t expressing any belief, just stating the facts as I see them, and 2) morality does not require belief, only the willingness to accept responsibility for your behaviour. (Indeed as we have seen from the child-abusing priests and from Malala Yousefzai’s case, deeply held belief in a loving God can coexist quite cheerfully with insupportably immoral behaviour).

    I don’t believe (in the religious sense) in anything at all, for the reasons given – it is simply wishful thinking granting itself privileged status, and does not intersect with reality. That does not make me a moral vacuum; it just means I do not try to bolster my morality with divine sanction, or attempt to impose it on others.

    Of course I ‘believe’, in the sense of accepting without experiential proof, that I am made of atoms, species evolve, there is no God, and so on, because the evidence points that way, but don’t let the unhelpful spread of definitions of the word mislead you into conflating them; belief starts where knowledge stops, and there is no point of contact where one can shade into the other.

    A moral obligation is no more an expression of belief than a financial obligation is. You don’t have to believe in pain in order to suffer, and when I see murderous intolerance pretending to be spirituality, or indoctrination posing as education, I will speak out about it and encourage others to do so, in the hope that one day humans will stop maliciously lying to themselves and their children about the nature of reality.

    Why even post? Well, this is a site that helps identify and denounce poisonous bullshit, and in doing so with humour and compassion, celebrates the pursuit of truth and human dignity. These demonstrate their worth experientially without any need for an internal definition of goodness from me, and can be fully elucidated without requiring anything to be taken on trust.

    If you want to call that ‘believing’ in reality, or goodness, go ahead, but in that sense I also believe in breathing, eating, and speaking English.

  38. @Starfeesh There are so many assumptions in your rant about MY presumed attitudes that I find it hard to know where to start. But one thing… If you think I take any joy at all in the news that a fourteen year old schoolgirl was shot in the head for wanting an education, you are deeply mistaken. I may be a pompous, pretentious fool, and in fact I know myself to be one at times. I may be smugly superior in my attitudes towards believers, and that’s hard to avoid given the attitudes of believers. I may not be a person who meets your high ideals of intellectual perfection. But I emphatically do not take any joy in receiving this news. Shock. Horror. Intense sadness, yes. Joy. You gotta be fucking kidding. What kind of sick mind do you have to even imagine such a thing, to project such feelings on to me?
    You also criticize my anonymity. This is the first thing trolls do when trying to make us feel bad. Do you also criticize Author for being anonymous? Do you not think there could be some damn good reasons to remain anonymous? Does the name Theo VanGough mean anything to you? I have a life outside of bashing religion. I have people I love who could be hurt if some nutjob decides to silence me. (not that I am important enough to attract their attention, but you never know). I work in an academic institution that does not welcome outspoken attitudes to social reform and sexuality, in a country that has very few human rights. If you are calling me a coward for being anonymous, I think I can call a guy with the user name of “Starfeesh” a hypocrite. Or is that your real name?

  39. But to address the points you made, Starfeesh, you don’t know me. You know nothing about my work, or my efforts to support the oppressed. I’m not going to repeat the points made by others in this thread, but yes, I am “spitting on the god & prophet of Mahala Yousefzai”. She would be happier and have a better life if no raving lunatic had invented that god, or convinced her that her prophet has any value to her life. That’s just my opinion, of course. I don’t generally “bash Islam” for the sake of bashing Islam. But in this case, I think the bashing is totally justified. And I bash all religions, without exception. If you are capable of introspection, you might find that the very characteristics that you ascribe to me fit you equally well. Especially the smug arrogance and need to have confirmation of your superiority.

  40. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that there is nothing quite like surviving a dance with the Reaper to focus one’s mind*, and I have a feeling that one day soon that little girl will be joining us in spitting on her god. Granted, she might just spend the rest of her days thanking Allah for saving her life, or she might be cowed into submission by her ordeal, but I sincerely hope not. She’s obviously an intelligent person, and if she pulls through with no brain damage to hinder her (and, of couse, failure by the ever-so brave Taliban to follow through on their oath to finish her off), she will quite possibly start wondering why the god that saved her life also allowed hundreds, if not thousands of other innocent young women to die – in her own short lifetime alone – for ‘crimes’ against Islam no more petty and harmless than hers; a question which has a very limited scope of rational answers.
    Starfeesh, this is not a smug atheist thinking that being shot in the head could be the best thing that ever happened to the girl if it turns her away from Islam, this is a man constantly stunned and horrified at the lengths some people will go to to perpetuate their myths, and humbled by the incredible bravery shown by little Malala and these people like like her ., and I will continue to do whatever I can to support and help them, just as I have done for most of my life. And no, that support and help does not consist of making smug comments on the internet.

    *My own ‘close calls’ did nothing to change my non-belief in gods, but they certainly helped clarify that we have only a very short time in the sun, and it’s important not to waste that time, or to throw it away lightly.

  41. Necessary Evil says:

    #Nassar. You are correct in that people can be dogmatic as atheists. There can be no certainty that God doesn’t exist, just as there can be no certainty that pink unicorns or the spaghetti monster don’t exist. But dogmatism is defined as ‘based on assumption rather than empirical observation’, from the ancient Greek ‘dogmatikos’, meaning that which one thinks is true, implying that one could be wrong. If and when God appears in his all his glory as predicted then, as the man in the orthopaedic shoes once said, I’ll stand corrected.

  42. hotrats says:

    Found the following in Pen Jillette’s entertaining mash-up of atheism and showbiz tales, ‘God, No!’:

    I was on some Joy Behar show on CNN there was some smart guy sitting next to me. We were talking about religion. I describe myself as a hard-core atheist. Joy and the smart guy scoffed, and Joy said mockingly, “What’s a hard-core atheist?” “I don’t even believe that other people believe in God.”

    He credits this line to the renowned Bell Labs/Google software engineer Rob Pike. It makes a telling point – if you are truly convinced of salvation and eternal life, how could you ever sin?

  43. hotrats says:

    Damn this keyboard – of course it’s Penn Jillette, not Pen.

  44. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    “– if you are truly convinced of salvation and eternal life, how could you ever sin?”

    Confession. Washes white than white.

  45. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    ‘Ere, I just remembered: Didn’t a wise man once say “If you don’t want me to mock your beliefs, stop believing silly things” (or similar)? Sort of knocks any objection the religious have to mockery of them into a cocked hat.

  46. JoJo says:

    In other news, the Jimmy Savile scandal has picked up. I confess I thought the evidence was starting to look pretty damning. But the I saw something that made me thing the allegations must be false. There was footage on the news of him accepting a Papal Knighthood from John Paul II. Surely the Pope would have had nothing to do with Savile if he was really abusing underage girls….? Would he..?

  47. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    JoJo; so cynical for one so young. 😉

  48. IanB says:

    @JoJo IWHT a propensity to abuse children would be a prerequisite

  49. hotrats says:

    I am sure the Pope took the opportunity to remind Sir Jim that although the Man Upstairs seems to be understanding and tolerant about child abuse among the faithful, He draws the line at their using condoms, which remains a sin.

  50. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    IanB, what does ‘IWHT’ stand for?

  51. IanB says:

    @AOS – sorry, shouldn’t let Usenet shorthand carry over I would Have Thought

  52. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Thanks Ian; and as usual it looks so obvious now I know.

  53. Totally off topic, but here’s a de-conversion story for you all
    I have to admit that Oglaf is one of my more guilty pleasures. Actually, maybe monks and monasteries are not that far off topic after all. You were slagging the Catholics again.

  54. JoJo says:

    @IanB – I thought it stood for “If Wanting Halloween Treats”. It did seem a bit random to me as I read it.


  55. hotrats says:

    Anyone having trouble opening to DH’s link to should switch off AdBlockPlus in their browser (middle mouse button by default), as it only lets you see the under-18’s warning page.

  56. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Off topic, but: Anybody seen the unfunniest of unfunny J&M rip-offs aimed at Ophelia, Pee-Zed (can’t help it, I’m British) et al.?
    Watch out for Ophelia’s humungous name-drop in the comments (in a reply to me, as it happens).

  57. Simple Simon says:

    To the believers and nonbelievers, I’ve spent a lifetime to date, searching for answers, only to discover that the writings we call Bibles, Korans, and whatever from all the peoples throughout history are just very accurate records of the rotations of the Solar system and Galaxy. Thats what I’ll be passing on to my kids

  58. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Simple Simon, I’d back that up with a bit of proper science if I were you. According to the best calculations taken from the OT the Universe itself began approximately 14.599,993,996 years after scientific calculations show. A bit of a discrepancy.

  59. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    DAMN! “…scientific calculations show it actually did>”.

  60. Dan says:

    That’s typical science hypocrisy. Science has experimental error why not give religion a break?
    To OT is only wrong to 6 decimal places.

  61. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    I suppose so, Dan. As far as error margins go, +/- 14.5 billion years is a pretty narrow tolerance when calculating the age of the Universe. I suppose by that criteria they came pretty damn close.

  62. Simple Simon says:

    It doesn’t matter what stage of evolution the Universe is at, what does matter is our level of evolution as “humans”. Consider this, we’re all Homo Sapiens and have been for a couple of million years. Multiple societies have sprung up in different parts of the world in isolation and yet their respective religions all have one thing in common. They have a multi tier hierarchy of gods with the top god always having a name which means “Sun” (our Sol). The earthly representative of god (the Messiah) was always born on the 25th of December some time at the Summer solstice. The parallels are numerous, too numerous to discount. History and the written records of these peoples prove all of this.
    And yet the modern day believers have been blindfolded by their own spiritual leaders (with the exception of the Buddhists and Hindu’s). Intentionally or not I don’t care. Checkout the precession of the equinoxes and you’ll find every people throughout history monitored the stars, and the dudes doing the monitoring were called priests.
    Thats my rant and it pisses me off when religious people push their crap in my face, it just displays their ignorance and gives me more incentive to seek the real truth about our planet.

  63. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Amen to that, Simple Simon. If the bullshit hadn’t got in the way of the science, who knows how much further advanced our technology would have been today? But on the other hand, is it possible that we as a species needed the extra time ‘allowed’ us by religion to outgrow our childhood, and so be mature enough to handle the potentially Earth-destroying technology that we now possess? If indeed we are mature enough, which is by no means certain at present.


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.