Tuesday, 14 September 2010

Turns out nobody gives a fuck

About a religious nutter in a dress visiting the UK.

Thousands of tickets remain unsold for events during the visit of the Pope, who arrives in Scotland on Thursday.

The largest organised event is an open-air Mass at Bellahouston Park in Glasgow on the opening day of Pope Benedict XVI's trip to the UK.

The capacity has been reduced to 80,000 after a slow take-up of tickets.

When will the god botherers realise that they religion just isn't relevant in today's society? Nobody gives a fuck - and that's how it should be. As far as I'm concerned, religion is a personal thing. If you're stupid enough to beleive in some made-up deity written about in a work of fiction, then that's entirely your choice. But don't fucking foist it onto me.

And I'm fucked if the taxpayer should pay for the pope's visit. If the god-botherers think he's so important, why the fuck don't THEY fund his pointless fucking visit in its entirety?

FUCK YOU, you arrogant, bible-bashing, child-abuse-advocating, outdated, irrelevant, invented-deity-worshipping CUNTS.


sacredspring said...

And he's ex-Hitler youth.

AngryDave said...

I don't see why i, as a tax payer, should have to pay for some twat in a dress to come here and talk about his superstitious beliefs.
The very same beliefs that are killing people all over the world, while his subordinates molest hundreds of thousands of children all over the world.

The problem with religion is that even in cases where it is 'moderate' the door is left wide open for extremism.

Maturecheese said...

Sorry I can't agree. Since Christian values stopped being taught, by parents and schools, there has been a marked decline in the moral fabric of our society.

I have no problem with people being atheist but they should respect Christianity as it is a long part of our Country's history.

AngryDave said...

I have to disagree with you too. Completely!
Although morality has declined, i don't believe it has anything to do with religion, or as you put it 'christian values'. It has more to do with the culture of 'it's my right'. People now think it is there right to do as they please and beat down anyone who stands up for themselves or morality in general. This is more of a political issue, and caused by the surge in human rights culture. It has left society fragmented and everyone believes they have the right to do as they please regardless of the effects they have on others and on society.

I am fed up with being told by the religious that i am an immoral anarchist because i am an Athiest. Morality predates religion, and was a contributing factor in our evolution. Religion is merely a product of our own imagination.
I behave in a way i believe is right because i weigh up the consequences of my actions and the rights and wrongs of certain actions. The main rule of which has to be, do no harm. I do not pick and choose what bits of some holy book to believe in. The fact that the religious pick and choose what bits they believe and which bits they don't, is evidence enough that the morality of the religious does not come from they're religion. If people do really get they're morals from the bible, then why do they not preach all the hate and jealousy of the old testament? Isn't it not part of the religion too.

People of religion always demand that we athiest's respect religion, yet the same respect is never forthcoming from the religious towards us athiest's. To be honest there is not a lot to respect with regards to religion. All that it has brought throughout history is the death and suffering of hundreds of millions!
Science has opened our eyes, brought us out of the dark ages, cut infant mortality, and made our lives longer and easier.
Religion says 'don't think about that, god did it', and that's the end of it. The usual arguement against this arguement is that science has also brought us new and more powerful weapons too, but science is only a tool, and has no will of it's own. When Einstein split the atom, it was with the intention of providing clean and limitless energy, yet it was used to horendous effect in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet, i am certain science has, and will continue to, save more lives than religion ever will.

I have respect for people who are Christians, but i do not respect Christianity.
Without religion we would have a world where good people do good, and evil people do evil. To get good people to do evil you need religion.

The current pope has the the blood of millions of people dead, and dying in developing countries all over his hands. His policies have killed more people than Hitler, yet he is worshiped. If people worshiped Hitler, we would quite rightly say they are sick in the head.

Before you go spouting the virtues of religion go and have a read of Richard Dawkins book 'The God Delusion'. It will change your life like it did mine, and i was already an athiest.

Maturecheese said...

I would disagree that Morality pre-dates Religion as mankind has always looked to something or someone to get some meaning out of life. The old testament goes back a long way and I'm sure that the pagans and even the cave men worshipped something. As for Richard Dawkins, I really don't like anything I have heard about the man but I won't judge his book until I have read it which won't be yet a while.

This whole culture of 'human rights' is EU led and you can't get a more Godless entity than the European Union. I still say that Protestant Christianity is the best model for a moral society.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

PS I am also impressed with science but remember today's theories that seem to be laid in stone, will probably be disproved in the future.

AngryDave said...

Science is meant to change, that is the whole point. As our understanding of the evidence evolves and more evidence is discovered, our understanding of the universe will unfold.
Science does not say "I am thr truth", instead it says "let us look for the truth".
It was less than 30 years ago that the prominant theory of the origins of the moon were that it came out of the sea, and centuries before that people believed the earth was flat.

It is not about putting up with life and making do, while holding out for something better and eternal. I am truly alive because i know i will die. I will return to the state i was in for billions of years before i existed, therefore i must see the true beauty and majesty in everything nature has to offer.
If there is no eternity, all that matters i swhat i do while i am here.

Religion did not exist before our brains were able to question and think, "where did that come from" or " why are we here". Before we existed in our current form there was (and still is) Alturism, which is the true origin of morality.

I have to agree that the EU is a vile entity that our nation has welcomed with open arms. Unfortunately! As for the best model of a moral structure, i think i will have to agree to disagree with you.
As for Richard Dawkins, he can be a bit forthcomming, but he does get a rough deal from the media (especialy in relious circles).

Anonymous said...

Dawkins and his aggressive atheists are singularly tie most blinkered and arrogant of
them all. While there is no evidence for any of the particular attributes of any deity, arguing that there is no creator because ' we discovered it didn't happen in 7 days' is so fucking stupid i don't know where to start. steven hawkin just said there is no creator for the big bang as the ruler of physics prior to it made it inevitable. So where did the rules of physics come from? How did the almost eternal rules of motion, symmatry, refraction come to be. Dawkins argues ' it just happened' because he has no evidence. Well, this is where human reason comes in to it. As regards to morality, look to the soviet union for an example of a godless society.

AngryDave said...

It's not simple about proving the world was not created in seven days, and if you actually read ANYTHING he wrote you would understand that fact. Virtualy the whole bible can be disproved by looking at things and events independant of the bible that we can prove with evidence. There lies the issue, the facts say that god probably does not exist, and that if the existence of god could be proved then us athiests would have no choice but to change our opinion. As it stands, i choose to stand with the majority of the evidence and the balance of probability.

There is nothing wrong with being an athiest, aggressive or otherwise, as it means i am looking at the evidence and making up my mind based on the evidence. Evidence that is not made up and is completely accessable and provable. The only people that have a problem with athiests are aggressively religious people. It seams to be acceptable to shove religion down people's throats in the street and door to door in they're own homes, but if anyone tries to present a argument for athiesm, they are painted to be some immoral violator of someone's human rights and freedom of expression. What about our freedom to not believe?
When someone stops me and tries to preach to me, i tell them i am an athiest and not interested. But, they seam to take it as a insult and get nasty and aggressive.

These same religious people are the sort who send Dawkins threats and abuse. If the were that confident in they're faith they would not feel the need to get like that. Why cant they turn the other cheek? If the morality of the religious only applies to the religious, then i am glad i am an athiest as my morals are universal and apply equaly to everyone i encounter.

Maturecheese, at least had the good grace to admitt he did not know a great deal about Dawkins, and that he did not like what he had heard from others. He did not attack something he did not understand or agree with all the while behaving a manner he acuses others of without evidence.

Anonymous said...

the science is settled then.

Maturecheese said...

Suggested reading


AngryDave said...

Not settled, and maybe never will be, but it's on the path to the truth.

Anonymous said...

to be fair mate it's probably more likely we don't have a man in a cloud but feel the scientific argument tries to use evolution (the How) to explain the why. How did evolution come to be? There questions brushed aside. If we focus purely no empirical means and not on rational arguments, we lose the bigger picture.

livescore said...

Gorgeous dress and lovely fabric choice! Don't be sad about sbo moving to London, think of all the lovely vintage social events you ผลบอลสด can go to. Also London has great fabric shops!

qingblog said...

Use Microsoft office 2010 Word and had to have the new version so my documents would open correctly. Enjoy the freedom of using Office 2010 from more locations on more devices.

Unknown said...

Having Sex Is Good for Your Health. Lets Talk About Sex.

Unknown said...

Saya dari indonesia.. salam kenal yah.. semoga sukses.:)

Cristina Trevor said...

Hello boys and girls would you like to join Porn industry. If yes, its an offer...share with me your naked pics at beatenblood2@gmail.com . Porn Sex Collection & Hottest Naked Women Sex