This proves what we all already knew.

That people who go to church poop out dead moms.

Posted in God hates kids, religion | 1 Comment

Posted in AIC | Comments Off on

The GOP gets Newt-ered.

Ladies and gentlemen . . . . NEWT GINGRICH <crowd roars>:

“I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9,” Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”

He pre-empts the word “atheist” with “secular”, making certain everyone know what he is talking about, then pre-empts “Islamists” with “radical” indicating how extremely religious these people are.  A bit oxymoronic if you ask me.  Oddly, I’m not really a Gingrich-hater, he seems to be a pretty smart guy who, in his 20s, didn’t associate with any religion, until this (from Wikipedia):

While at Tulane <getting his PhD in the 70s>, Gingrich, who at the time belonged to no religious group, began attending the St. Charles Avenue Baptist Church to pursue an interest in the effect of religion on political theory (!); he was soon baptized (!) by Rev. G. Avery Lee. [9]

Again, an insane juxtaposition.

What annoys me here is WHY he said this.  He was talking in front of a megachurch in San Antonio whose leader is John Hagee – remember him? – attempting to gain approval of those people.  But he is doing it by seemingly mindlessly pandering to their greatest shared fears – atheism and radical Islam.  What’s funny is that Gingrich himself recently converted to Catholicism and the leader of this church is known as a recently reformed Catholic-hater. 


Posted in fuck John Stossel, God hates kids, religion, Weed dream car | Comments Off on The GOP gets Newt-ered.

Religious extinction and the mind of a child

Take that, God!

A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers.

Now there’s some good news for a change. Can I get a hallelujah? The countries:

Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

Of course, I’m so juvenile that I have to point out the name of the researcher cited in this article

“The idea is pretty simple,” said Richard Wiener of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, and the University of Arizona.

What kind of a fucked up parents with the last name of Wiener name their son Richard? I suppose it’s better than Noah, but c’mon.

The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation.

The team’s mathematical model attempts to account for the interplay between the number of religious respondents and the social motives behind being one.

The result, reported at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, US, indicates that religion will all but die out altogether in those countries.

The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

Their means of analysing the data invokes what is known as nonlinear dynamics – a mathematical approach that has been used to explain a wide range of physical phenomena in which a number of factors play a part.

One of the team, Daniel Abrams of Northwestern University, put forth a similar model in 2003 to put a numerical basis behind the decline of lesser-spoken world languages.

At its heart is the competition between speakers of different languages, and the “utility” of speaking one instead of another.

“The idea is pretty simple,” said Richard Wiener of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, and the University of Arizona.

“It posits that social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join, and it posits that social groups have a social status or utility.

“For example in languages, there can be greater utility or status in speaking Spanish instead of [the dying language] Quechuan in Peru, and similarly there’s some kind of status or utility in being a member of a religion or not.”

A man fills in a census form Some of the census data the team used date from the 19th century

Dr Wiener continued: “In a large number of modern secular democracies, there’s been a trend that folk are identifying themselves as non-affiliated with religion; in the Netherlands the number was 40%, and the highest we saw was in the Czech Republic, where the number was 60%.”

The team then applied their nonlinear dynamics model, adjusting parameters for the relative social and utilitarian merits of membership of the “non-religious” category.

They found, in a study published online, that those parameters were similar across all the countries studied, suggesting that similar behaviour drives the mathematics in all of them.

And in all the countries, the indications were that religion was headed toward extinction.

However, Dr Wiener told the conference that the team was working to update the model with a “network structure” more representative of the one at work in the world.

“Obviously we don’t really believe this is the network structure of a modern society, where each person is influenced equally by all the other people in society,” he said.

However, he told BBC News that he thought it was “a suggestive result”.

“It’s interesting that a fairly simple model captures the data, and if those simple ideas are correct, it suggests where this might be going.

“Obviously much more complicated things are going on with any one individual, but maybe a lot of that averages out.”


This entry is now closed for comments

  • I don’t see the decline of religion to be a particularly bad thing. And I say this as a Born-again follower of Jesus. To me relationship with God is so much more.

    Religion implies strict rules and rituals which must be followed in order to gain some kind of benefit or reward at the end. This may appear a good thing, but history has proven all too often that religion is an excuse to fight.

  • One cannot study the universe and possibly conclude that there is no God. It is far too precise, interwoven, complex. Yet, men in their pride exalt their thinking to conclude that there is no God. Yet,God formed the mind of men. To think that mankind just “happened” shows no logical reasoning at all that there was not a divine order and creation to our universe.

  • The sooner religon is consigned to history the better. There is no place in modern society for myths and legends, (except as a good story).
    I cannot understand how otherwise intelegent people can belive in a supreame being that controls all of our lives. This is just a throwback to the uneducated trying to rasionalise he workings of nature by inventing something to attribute it to!

  • This is definitely obvious in my age group (students), you will be hard pressed to find many who believe strongly in a religion of one kind. I think that religion is a natural human way to comprehend what we didn’t understand, filling in the gaps of our knowledge until we found rational scientific explanations for things, in the developed world, religion is running out of gaps to fill.

  • As an Irishman I’m not surprised in the least that Ireland is on that list. Irish people under the age of 30 have mostly rejected religion and the one’s getting married in church do it as a symbolic gesture. The youth do not want to upset older relatives by openly rejecting religon…this will lead to a silent death for religon in Ireland.

    I for one say…good riddance!

Comments 5 of 9

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

More Science & Environment stories


&lt;script type=”text/javascript” src=”!js/12760-79049-22765-1?mpt=49994&amp;mpvc=”&gt; &lt;/script&gt; &lt;noscript&gt; &lt;a href=”″&gt; &lt;img src=”″ alt=”FRS Healthy Energy” border=”0″&gt; &lt;/a&gt; &lt;/noscript&gt;

Features & Analysis

  • GlobeAbout time

    Inside the bizarre world of time zones

  • ShoutingIt’s quiz time!

    Which ‘macho’ country is outlawing sexist language?

  • Protest outside Syrian consulate in Dubai Too late?

    Can Syrian reforms appease protesters?

  • Youngster plays cricket  on a beach in Colombo Obssessed

    Sri Lanka’s insatiable appetitie for cricket

Elsewhere on the BBC

  • A sketch of IstanbulDrawing on experience

    BBC Travel’s new Passport blog features the sketches and observations of one intrepid traveller with a pen


  • Image from Western Digital advertisementClick Watch

    New storage concepts emerge as consumers choose tablets and smartphones over PCs and laptops

Ads by Google

Posted in religion, sad but true | 1 Comment

I just kind of figured it must have been some kind of a “wage two wars, get a third war free” promotion.

That question was posited by a guy named Chris on Jack Cafferty’s blog and it made me laugh, which is good since the rest of this pisses me off.  No, wait, one more thing made me laugh.  In this write up about a U.S. fighter plane that crashed in Libya during a mission (due to mechanical failure, not shot down) where both crew members ejected safely:

The pilot and weapons officer suffered minor injuries but landed safely in Libya, the military said.

I could just see those guys high-fiving each other, proclaiming: “Thank Odin, we’re safe and sound here in . . . . Libya.”

In related news, Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) calls the act of Obama sending fighter jets into Libya without congressional approval an impeachable offenseCNN later takes the story and says that Kucinich turned the accusation into a fundraising plan.  I don’t think CNN likes him, but I like what he is saying.    Should Obama be impeached?  Probably not, but I think he ought to answer to this.

Also, why the fuck are we bombing Libya???  I’m calling Batman.

I LOVE the background of this photo.

Posted in fuck John Stossel, the enemy of my enemy is still a douche, war | 1 Comment

So there was one post in February.

Pathetic.  Well, Ima change THAT trend.  I’ll start with this crowd pleaser by Bernard Schweizer of CNN’s Belief Blog:

There’s a lost tribe of religious believers who have suffered a lasting identity crisis. I am referring to the category-defying species of believers who accept the existence of the creator God and yet refuse to worship him. In fact they may go so far as to say that they hate God.
No, I’m not talking about atheists. Non-believers may say contemptuous things about God, but when they do so, they are simply giving the thumbs-down to a fictional character. They may as well express dislike about Shakespeare’s devious Iago, Dickens’ scheming Uriah Heep or Dr. Seuss’ Grinch who stole Christmas.
For atheists, God is in the same category as these fictional villains. Except that since God is the most popular of all fictional villains, New Atheists – those evangelizing ones such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins – spend a considerable amount of energy enumerating his flaws.
But someone who truly believes in God’s existence and yet hates or scorns him is in a state of religious rebellion so perplexing as to strain our common understanding of faith to the breaking point.

Fascinating subject matter.  I am especially pleased with the author’s apparent understanding of atheists’ feelings.  Furthermore, he goes on to say something that, for me, helps to answer the following question:  “If there were no god, then why has Christianity/Judaism/Islam/etc.  lasted so long?”:

At the same time, they are exercising self-censorship because they dare not voice their opinion openly. After all, publicly insulting God can have consequences ranging from ostracism to imprisonment, fines and even death, depending on where the blasphemy takes place (Ireland, for instance, imposes a fine of up to 25,000 Euros for blasphemy) and what God is the target of attacks (under sharia law, being found an enemy of God, or “mohareb” is a capital offense).

Not to mention that you get ostracized in this country for simply being atheist, let alone hating any of the Christian gods.  We finally have a black president, but how long will it be before we have an atheist one?  My guess is that would come AFTER we have a gay one.

The author then goes on to point out that certain writers displaying “misotheism” (the word that the author coined to represent people who believe in a god yet hate that god) are kept under wraps:

At the same time, these writers count on the reader’s cooperation to keep their “secret” safe. It’s like a pact between writer and reader.

And immediately following that, the author systematically outs them (this is the very next paragraph):

Zora Neale Hurston could write that “all gods who receive homage are cruel” without anybody objecting that “all gods” must necessarily include the persons of the Christian Trinity.
Or Rebecca West could write that “something has happened which can only be explained by supposing that God hates you with merciless hatred, and nobody will admit it,” counting on the fact that, since nobody will admit it, nobody will rat her out for blasphemy.
There lies, in a sense, the awesome, subversive power of literary writing, something that had worried Plato 2,400 years ago when he required that all poets be removed from his ideal “Republic.” Interestingly, though, while guardians of propriety have put Huckleberry Finn on the list of proscribed texts because of its liberal use of the N-word, few people have declared Hurston’s “Their Eyes Were Watching God” or Shelley’s “Prometheus Unbound” or West’s “The Return of the Soldier” as forbidden texts because of the underlying misotheism of these works.
And even where the misotheism is overtly expressed, as in Elie Wiesel’s “The Trial of God” or in James Morrow’s “Godhead Trilogy,” literature offers an enclave of religious freedom that is vital to the human spirit and its impulse to free itself of any shackles, even the commands of God.

Crazy.  Finally, he ends with this nugget:

If people continue to believe in a God they find to be contemptible, then belief is such a powerful force that it cannot be simply switched off on the basis of empirical data.Thus, in the last consequence, the study of misotheism is a testament to the power of belief, albeit a twisted, unconventional form.

Who cares about facts, anyway.  It’s all twisted, Bernard.  What’s my point to any of this?  I don’t know.

Posted in fuck John Stossel, religion, Weed dream car | 2 Comments

Have you seen this guy?

Posted in fun | Comments Off on Have you seen this guy?

Hello, me again

Ricky Gervais hosted – some say accosted – the Golden Globes this past weekend and is under fire for crossing too many lines. I of course didn’t watch the interminable show, but I did watch the highlights of Ricky’s bits and thought he was what he always is, hysterical.

But he accomplished more than just making me laugh and hurting the flimsy feelings of celebrities. He got the Hollywood Foreign Press to finally admit what we all already knew, that their awards are no less subjective than my list of favorite tv shows (see, I had a point with that one all along). Here is what they said after the show

“Ricky will not be invited back to host the show next year, for sure,” the HFPA member said. “For sure any movie he makes he can forget about getting nominated

So the votes have already been cast against films Ricky Gervais has yet to make. Anyhow, here’s Ricky. Atheists should make it a point to listen until the very end

Posted in Stuff | Comments Off on Hello, me again

Favorite Television Shows of All-Time

(All Time I say!)

A drunken conversation with my friends about my ten favorite South Park episodes eventually led us to listing our 10 favorite television shows. As insufferable a conversation as that sounds to have to listen to, here it is in written form! Enjoy.

Oh, and the qualifier is that there are no qualifiers. If you want to be a douche and list Sportscenter or Judge Judy, we allowed that. It’s why The Joy of Painting nearly made my list, had it not been for that horrible episode involving pea green.

Speaking of which, my list:

  1. The Wire
  2. South Park
  3. Seinfeld
  4. Coupling (the British version, of course)

That’s it. Four shows. Everyone else at the table had to try to narrow their lists down to ten. Me, only four. Which isn’t to say I don’t watch TV or I don’t have other shows I like. It just means I’m better than they are.

No wait. I enjoy Burn Notice and Psych and NCIS. The Sopranos was entertaining, at least the parts that weren’t dream sequences (so like 40%). I loved Deadwood for the first season or so. But a favorite’s list? I feel like that has to be something special. So The Wire made my list because it is something special. And South Park because it’s brilliant. And the other two made me laugh and I couldn’t think of anything I didn’t like about them (except maybe that episode where Jerry has an affair with the Super’s wife). And that’s it for me, really. If you notice, three of the four shows on  my list are considered short-lived, by successful, television-show-standards. Coupling ran for just 28 episodes. Seinfeld ended Seinfield at the peak of its popularity. And The Wire was five seasons, all written before a single show was aired.

Hmmm. Maybe it just proves that unless you’re as brilliant as South Park, you should end on a high note and stop making your goddamn shows already, you douchey douchebags from Springfield, asshole motherfuckers. You’ve ruined the memory of a once great television idea. Aye Carumba! Or maybe I just didn’t have anything good to post about tonight. But I’m John, who the hell are you?!? And this is my list. Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb

Posted in It's a post about nothing | 2 Comments

I am torn

about Westboro Baptist Church’s right to protest funerals.  Well let me adjust that;  since it currently falls within their free speech rights to protest funerals, I guess I am not.  They are allowed to do it.  Even allowed are their current plans of protesting the funeral of that 9 year old girl who was just killed in the “Arizona shootings.”  But this may be an area where I might support a constitutional exception, similar to the idea of not being able to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater – make funerals off limits for picketing/protesting.  I don’t like the idea af haphazardly changing constitutional exceptions, but what would the ramifications of this type of change really be?  Thoughts?

I stand at a constitutional crossroads.


They must read my stuff! :

Tucson, Arizona (CNN) — The Arizona State Legislature is expected to pass legislation Tuesday that will bar protesters at funerals from getting within 300 feet of services, a spokesman for the state Senate said.

The action, according to Senate spokesman Daniel Scarpinato, is in direct response to a controversial church’s announcement that it will picket the funeral of Christina Green, the 9-year-old who was one of six people killed Saturday during the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

And for my next prediction, Westboro Baptist Church fights Arizona’s legistature in fedral court regarding the unconstitutionality of their “funeral protest” law  . . . and will probably win.  Woot!

Posted in privacy, religion, Weed dream car | 3 Comments