Wrong. By the 1450s, Johannes Gutenberg’s movable type and printing innovations gave rise to early printed books (incunabula) such the Gutenberg Bible and the 1493 Nuremberg Chronicle, which used mass-produced book with woodcuts for illustrations.
Positive male role models do positively shape a boy’s emotional resilience, social behavior, and academic attainment though researchers and educators also debate the exact weight of gender-specific versus general caregiving. Can you seriously believe that this type of male and many others like him, some as fathers) would do any thing other than produce a low achieving socially inept son?
Predictable.
With men such as these what hope have we got?
Beautiful? “We behold the face of nature bright with gladness… we do not see or we forget that the birds which are idly singing round us mostly live on insects or seeds, and are thus constantly destroying life…” Casrles Darwin
“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ (parasitic wasps]) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.” Charles Darwin. Do these people mean the designer, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, creator, Jehovah, or the lord god that gave that gave us viruses, deadly bacteria, genetic diseases, parasites, , volcanos, earthquakes, blindness, cancers, floods, droughts, starvation, meteorites, death from lightning strikes, pestilence, holy wars, tidal waves, asbestos, infant mortality, trachoma, life threatening radioactive elements, solar flares, malaria, smallpox, despots, dictators, slavery, mass extinctions, ice ages, trachoma, hare lips, cleft palates, animal sacrifices, infant genital mutilation, mental illness depression, bilharzia and anxiety, autism, Parkinson’s disease, Hansons disease, hernias, the appendix, compacted wisdom teeth, acne, dementia and complete morons?
“The God of the bible is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, slavery condoning, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”. Richard Dawkins
Atheists do not say there is no god. They say that there is absolutely zero evidence to justify the claim. If God exists, why does he behave like a narcissistic absentee landlord with a flair for blood rituals and dietary restrictions? The Abrahamic deity, revered across continents, seems less like a cosmic architect and more like a Bronze Age tribal chieftain with anger management issues. Yet billions genuflect before him daily. Religious faith is often praised as a virtue. But what other domain celebrates belief without evidence? Would you board a plane built by someone who “just felt” the wings would hold? Would you trust a surgeon who prays instead of sterilizing instruments? Richard Dawkins famously called faith “a process of non-thinking.” Yet society elevates it above reason, as if ignorance were a badge of honour. Why is faith exempt from the scrutiny we apply to every other claim? Religion thrives not because it is true, but because it is comforting. It offers immortality, cosmic justice, and a celestial surveillance system that rewards obedience. Freud called religion “a universal obsessional neurosis.” Is it any wonder that belief correlates strongly with existential insecurity? Consider: If you were guaranteed eternal life through science, would you still need God? Or is belief merely a coping mechanism dressed in sacred robes? The Bible commands love, yet sanctions genocide (see Deuteronomy 20:16). It preaches humility yet demands worship. It forbids murder yet glorifies divine slaughter. If morality comes from God, why does it resemble the ethics of a medieval warlord? Sam Harris argues that morality predates religion and is better served by reason and empathy than by scripture. So why do we outsource ethics to ancient texts? Enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Church of the SubGenius, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn parody religions that expose the absurdity of faith by mimicking its structure. Ethan Quillen’s “The Satirical Sacred” explores how these mock faiths challenge religious privilege and reveal the arbitrary nature of belief. Ask yourself: If a belief system is indistinguishable from parody, should it be taken seriously? Religion is not benign. It fuels sectarian violence, suppresses scientific progress, and enforces archaic social norms. From the Crusades to anti-vaccine movements, faith has often been a force of regression. Shouldn’t beliefs be judged by their consequences? Religion persists not because it is rational, but because it is ritualized, institutionalized, and incentivized. It is a cultural fossil revered, untouchable, and absurd. The atheist does not merely reject God; he rejects the intellectual laziness that sustains Him. Do you believe because it is true, or because you were told to? And if the answer is the latter, what else might you be wrong about?
I see. The philosophical view that truth, knowledge, ethical values, and norms are not absolute or universal, but instead depend on the specific framework, culture, historical period, or observer perspective holding them. If right and wrong are purely relative to a culture or individual, there is no logical basis to condemn atrocities, human rights abuses, or oppression (such as slavery or torture) committed by others who hold different cultural norms. So radical Islam is just as moral as pacifism? Slavery as in the Old Testament is just fine?
'I do not believe in leprechauns, pixies, ghosts, werewolves, jujus, angels, Tooth Faeries, Odin, Thor, Zeus, Ra, Brahma, Athena, Hera, Poseidon, Yahweh, Allah, or the Trinity, demons, devils, Astrology, the Tarot, Satan. For the same reason in every case: there is not the tiniest shred of 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 empirical, 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 any 𝐆𝐨𝐝 and the burden of proof rests with those who wish to believe. Even given no evidence for specific gods, we could make a case for some unspecified “intelligent designer” or “prime mover” or begetter of “something rather than nothing”? By far the most appealing version of this argument is the biological one - living things do present a powerful illusion of design. But that is the very version that Darwin destroyed. Any theist who appeals to “design” of living creatures simply betrays his ignorance of biology. Go away and read a book. And any theist who appeals to biblical “evidence” betrays ignorance of biblical scholarship. The burden of proof rests with those who wish to believe. Even given no evidence for specific gods, could ‘his ignorance of modern scholarship. Go away and read another book. As for the cosmological argument, whose God goes under names such as Prime Mover or First cause, again no evidence. Because physicists are closing in, with spell-binding results. Even if there remain unanswered questions - where do the fundamental laws and constants of physics come from? Obviously, that cannot help to postulate a designer whose existence poses bigger questions than he purports to solve. If science fails, our best hope is to build a better science. The answer will lie neither in theology nor - its exact equivalent - reading tea leaves. In any case, it is a fatuously illogical jump from deistic Unmoved Mover to Christian Trinity, with the Son being tortured and murdered because the Father, for all his omniscience and omnipotence, could not think of a better way to forgive “sin”. Equally unconvincing are those who believe because it comforts them (why should truth be consoling?) or because it “feels right”. The wife of a former UK prime minister may stand for the” feels right” brigade. She based her belief on “an understanding of something that her head cannot explain but my heart knows to be true.” She aspired to become a judge! My’lud, I cannot provide the evidence you require. My head cannot explain why, but my heart knows it to be true. Why is religion immune to the critical standards we apply not just in our courts of law, but in every other life?’ Richard Dawkins
Both sociopathic pieces of shit.
You mean people such as these?
“Brexit is a con, a trick, a swindle, a fraud, a deception that will hurt most of those people it promised to help, a dangerous fantasy which will make every problem it claims to solve worse . Friends on this side of the House tell me to appease Labour voters in industrial towns - the former miners, the factory workers, those who feel they’ve been left behind. I say we must not patronise them with cowardice, let’s tell them the truth - you were old a lie. Immigrants have not taken your jobs, our schools and colleges failed to give you the skills, hospitals are not crumbling because of health tourists but decades of austerity that ground them down to the bone, you cannot afford a house because both parties failed to build, not because of Mohammed down the road who moved in, and wealth was hoarded in London when it should have been shared across the country. Blame us, blame Westminster, do not blame Brussels for our own country’s mistakes and do not be angry at us for telling you the truth, be angry at the chancers who sold you a lie … Just as I speak plainly to the government this time around, let me also speak to the opposition about some home truths. There is no leftwing justification for Brexit. Ditching workers’ rights, social protections and ending environmental cooperation is not progressive. This is a project about neo-liberal deregulation, it’s Thatcherism on steroids pushed by her modern-day disciples. Leaving the EU will not free us from the injustices of global capitalism, it will make us subordinate to Trump’s US. Socialism confined to one country will not work, whether you like it or not, the world we live in is global, we can only fix the rigged system if we cooperate across border lines. The party of Keir Hardie has always been international. We must not let down our young supporters by failing to stand with them at the biggest issue of our lives."
The essential qualities of a good typeface balance visual beauty with practical function. This is just plain ugly and makes Comic sans look elegant. Using this crud is as acceptable as attending a funeral dressed as a clown.
Comic sans (originally designed for a comic dog character) is an awful typeface. It is constantly misused in serious settings such business contracts, medical notices, and legal documents. In the UK many schools use it. It is as appropriate as wearing a clown costume to a funeral.
Using it makes any professional design look childish, sloppy, or amateurish
There is very little peer-reviewed scientific evidence that Comic Sans inherently improves reading performance for students with dyslexia.
Britain does not need to fear a Russian invasion. It needs to wake up to the one that has already happened in our politics, our economy, and our national soul.
‘For years, British politicians warned that “the Russians are coming.” The phrase conjured images of spies, hackers, and shadowy figures manipulating Western democracies from afar. But the truth is starker: they are not coming they are already here. The influence of Putin’s Russia has seeped deep into British political life, reshaping the nation’s direction through propaganda, financial infiltration, and the nurturing of divisive political figures. The evidence is all around us in the rise of Nigel Farage, Reform, the toxicity of Brexit, and the slow, deliberate decline of Britain’s economic and democratic strength. The seeds were planted long before the referendum. When UKIP and later the Brexit Party now Reform UK surged to prominence, their rhetoric carried echoes of Russian disinformation: anti-EU, anti-immigrant, anti-establishment. Each slogan was designed to pit neighbour against neighbour, region against region, and Britain against its own interests. Russia’s playbook has always been about destabilisation, and few events have destabilised Britain more than Brexit. Nigel Farage, feted by Russian state media as a “man of the people” and given disproportionate airtime by RT (Russia Today), became the perfect vehicle. His populism masked a geopolitically convenient mission: to weaken the European Union and fracture Western unity. Nathan Gill, Farage’s close ally and UKIP MEP, echoed the same anti-Brussels line, parroting narratives that dovetailed neatly with Kremlin talking points. The push for Brexit was not simply a domestic rebellion it was a geopolitical victory for Moscow. By removing Britain from the EU, Putin achieved through propaganda what decades of espionage never could: a divided, isolated Britain, struggling to find its footing in a global economy that has moved on without it. The results are plain to see. The UK’s economy is shrinking relative to its peers. Public services are starved of funds. Inflation and interest rates squeeze households while infrastructure crumbles. Britain, once a pillar of European stability, is now plagued by instability of its own making. And who benefits? Russia watching gleefully as one of NATO’s key members turns inward, distracted by culture wars and internal strife. The links between Russian money and the British right are no longer mere conspiracy. Under Boris Johnson, the Tory Party accepted millions in donations from individuals with ties to the Russian elite even as intelligence agencies warned of growing Kremlin interference. Johnson himself shelved the long-delayed “Russia Report,” which detailed how deeply Moscow had infiltrated British political and financial systems. Instead of confronting the threat, he and his allies downplayed it while their media surrogates, The Daily Mail, branded anyone who raised concerns as “Remoaners” or “traitors.” Meanwhile, Nigel Farage continues to parrot lines that have been written in the Kremlin press office. His public sympathy for Putin’s “understandable” invasion of Ukraine, his criticism of NATO expansion, and his insistence that the West “provoked” Russia reveal the depth of his alignment with Moscow’s worldview. Farage and his Reform movement are the tools in a decades-long campaign through direct command, and through shared goals: dismantle trust in democracy, erode Western alliances, and replace reasoned politics with perpetual anger. Farage as a fascist knows his next move is to gain power through the ballot box. Following that, the dismantling of the democratic system and replacement with his authoritarian regime. The Russians are not coming. They have already won their quiet war not with tanks or troops, but with propaganda, money, and manipulation, and the active participation of Farage and his secret army of Fascists. Their victory is visible every time a politician like Farage blames Britain’s struggles on migrants instead of oligarchic corruption, every time the Daily Mail echoes disinformation, and every time the government prioritises division over unity.’
Reminds me of Trump.
Trump knowledge
During an October 2026 campaign rally in Ohio, he stated, “I know more about everything than anybody in this room, anybody anywhere in the world,” though he briefly considered that a local housewife might know more about business than him. The Military & ISIS: Claimed to know more about the military and ISIS than military generals. Taxes & The Tax Code: Claimed to understand the tax code and tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president. Lawsuits: Declared himself “the king” regarding lawsuits and legal matters. [ Infrastructure & Renewable Energy: Asserted he knows more about infrastructure and renewables than any human being on Earth Drones & Technology: Stated, “I know more about drones than anybody,” alongside claims about tech and safety systems Grass & Golf Courses: Claimed in 2025 that he knows “more about grass than any human being” due to owning golf courses globally Other Subjects: Additional topics have included Facebook, polls, the “other side” of politics, steelworkers, campaign finance/contributions, and the word “apprentice”.
You can watch a compilation of these statements via the ‘Nobody Knows More’ Than Trump About Anything: A Supercut on Youtube.
Trump may be the most knowing man on the planet. Trump knowledge. During an October 2026 campaign rally in Ohio, he stated, “I know more about everything than anybody in this room, anybody anywhere in the world,” though he briefly considered that a local housewife might know more about business than him. The Military & ISIS: Claimed to know more about the military and ISIS than military generals. Taxes & The Tax Code: Claimed to understand the tax code and tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president. Lawsuits: Declared himself “the king” regarding lawsuits and legal matters. [ Infrastructure & Renewable Energy: Asserted he knows more about infrastructure and renewables than any human being on Earth Drones & Technology: Stated, “I know more about drones than anybody,” alongside claims about tech and safety systems. Grass & Golf Courses: Claimed in 2025 that he knows “more about grass than any human being” due to owning golf courses globally. Other Subjects: Additional topics have included Facebook, polls, the “other side” of politics, steelworkers, campaign finance/contributions, and the word “apprentice”.
You can watch a compilation of these statements via the ‘Nobody Knows More’ Than Trump About Anything:
If it does have the best education system in the world, why do the population vote for one of the biggest buffoons as president? ‘The most uneducated buffoon in history stands at a podium, bloated with self-importance, lips pursed like a carnival barker ready to sell turd milk to the unsuspecting. He grins a grotesque smirk stretched across his face as he scrawls his name onto a hollow decree, a sham celebration of the dismantling of knowledge itself. The Department of Education falls, not with a bang, but with wheezing verbs, suffocated under the weight of his own staggering ignorance. Surrounding him are the usual suspects: cowards in expensive suits, servile sycophants clapping like trained seals, and racist opportunistic ghouls picking clean the bones of democracy. Liars, fools, and thieves all parasites fattening themselves on the hardships of the many. They stand in rigid formation, dead-eyed and soulless, their allegiance sworn not to country, not to principle, but to power, and the dark, festering rot that clings to it. And there he is the convicted wrong, the living embodiment of septic tank spew, his voice a noxious fog of grift and grievance. He lectures the world on right and wrong, irony clawing at the walls, desperate to escape the grotesque theatre of his moral void. The stomach turns, the air curdles, and for a moment, history itself recoils watching, in horror, as the great American experiment teeters on the precipice, led by a man who couldn’t spell “precipice” if his life depended on it.’