Atheist Evolution

Quote of the Week- Chael Sonnen

2012-01-23T07:24:00.000-08:00

Now only 99% full of shit

"You know, these guys want to talk about God. 'Oh, I want to thank God. I want to thank God.' Listen, I'm a God-fearing man, go to church every Sunday and have since I was a boy. But if I ever found out that God cared one way or another about a borderline illegal fist-fight on Saturday night, I would be so greatly disappointed that it would make rethink my entire belief system."

-Chael Sonnen

For a public figure who is a 4 out of 5 on the Mel Gibson crazy scale I can't disagree with him on this one. It is a pet peeve for me when sports figures arrogantly claim that the supposed creator of the universe actually cares about the outcome of a sporting event. To think that he cares SO much that he would cheat by lending a helping hand to one special team or even one special player that he favours over the others is outrageous.

You mean Jesus isn't a Broncos fan?

For them to think that their God loves them more than the other players, or that he loved them enough to give them this athletic prowress while leaving the rest of us lacking is not only arrogant, but it displays how much about a persons belief in god is self serving and self imposed.

God didn't help you win, your coaches did.

Your teammates did.

Your own hard work did.

To say anything else is ego-centric and ridiculous. (not to mention how much it actually demeans the concept of "God")

So even though you and I are usually on opposite sides of the "God Fence" Chael, we can agree on this one. Thanking your god for a win is arrogant, and narcissistic, and it paints a pretty ugly picture of your God.

Now you can go back to being crazy Chael.

Did I mention that I am crazy?

Atheist Haiku of the Month- New Years Edition

2012-01-23T07:05:00.000-08:00

Just stay quiet and we're all good

My resolution

Is "respect people" but their

Beliefs must work for it

Remembering Scooby Doo

2011-12-16T08:11:00.000-08:00

I was watching TV the other day and my son was watching old episodes of "Scooby Doo, Where are you!", and it occurred to me that it might have been the single greatest skeptic's cartoon in the history of children's television. What great lessons it taught us without us even acknowledging it.

Like how to sneak with all that sneaking music going on.

On the surface it seemed like a show all about ghosts and goblins, but the real lessons it taught were about the importance of investigation and evidence.

Also how to recognize stoners.

They were a great example for the rest of society in how to deal with supernatural and unbelievable claims.

Honest investigation

Observation

and letting the evidence lead you to the proper conclusion without the confirmation bias that affects so many of us.

You guys listening??

There were no monsters, no goblins, no ghosts, no aliens.

In the end the "Gang" would always reveal that it wasn't really supernatural happening by explaining the scheme of some old guy who was trying to pull a fast one

"and I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those pesky KIDS!"

As long as no one mentions the strange talking of a great dane, the show was a skeptics paradise!

Sadly I have also noticed that even the great skeptics contained in the Mystery Machine can fall victim to the lowest common denominator.
TV shows always have to go further and further in order to keep their audience interested (so they think), so eventually in the later spin-off series (and in the second movie) there really WERE ghosts and goblins.

The first live action movie actually went back to the original fantastic formula for skeptical success and all the hocus pocus was revealed in the end to be just a trick perpetrated by a small talking puppy.

ummm, well there has to be SOME suspension of disbelief...

ANYway, let's just look back fondly at this show as the example of rational thinking that it was.

I think that I have found my son's Christmas Present!

Peace

Quote of the Week- H.L. Menken

2011-12-13T10:15:00.000-08:00

H.L. Melkin was a scholar and a journalist. He was a fierce skeptic and is considered to have been one of the most infuential writers of the first half of the 20th century.

He was also very well known for his satirical coverage of the Snopes Trial, which he called the "Monkey Trial".

Mr Melkin was many things, but today, he is the author of one of my favourite quotes...

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken

Well said Henry!

Religion is NOT deserving of respect.

People are, and while we should strive not to purposefully hurt their feelings, we should never shy from critical thinking.

No matter WHAT we are criticizing.

Peace

Atheist Haiku of the Month-Christmas Edition

2011-12-06T21:26:00.000-08:00

Many people say

That "Jesus is the Reason"

But he's not. Thank GOD!

PS-Have a great Holiday Season everyone!

Top 5 Science FAILS in the Koran

2011-11-24T18:48:00.000-08:00

As long as they can't see where they are going, they can't prove me wrong!

Let's be clear. No one says that faulty science in a holy book disproves the existence of a God. It has no bearing on that claim at all. What it DOES have a bearing on is the claim that the science revealed in the Koran IS proof of God's existence.

Before we get to the list I would like to briefly address this. There is not a single scientific revelation in the Koran.

Not one

You sure? Are you saying this was a waste of time??

You can't claim that science was revealed in the Koran if people didn't understand it at the time. If it was not revealed by any means but in retrospect then it wasn't revealed at all. In order to "reveal" something, you must make it clear to the person, otherwise it is still hidden from us. Making claims to knowledge that wasn't exampled by men of that time because of a vague simularity in the text or a non-specific passage that may resemble modern scientific understanding is intellectually dishonest and rife with confirmation bias.

Get it?

If you think the Big Bang was revealed in the Koran because it talks about the expanses of heaven, but NOT ONE Muslim scientist ever actually spoke of that model for the universe in any way then your claim is a false one.

It wasn't revealed

There is something behind this curtain... what is it? You'll have to wait 400 years to know what I have revealed today!

Enough of that.

Let's look at the 5 best examples of bad science in the Koran;

Man didn't Evolve??

"O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bare you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you." -(4:1)

Men and women all came from a single pair? Not only is that pretty incestuous, but it is scientifically wrong. There was no first man and first woman and humans certainly weren't created in our current forms!

Ok, maybe HIS ancestors were.

Evolution explains this quite clearly. We evolved into our current forms from our biological ancestors and they evolved from theirs and so on. It is such a gradual process that you can't pin down one generation as the first humans any more than you can pinpoint the exact moment when an infant becomes a toddler or when boy becomes a man. Clearly the Muslim's who wrote this had no understanding of the biological history of the human race. Strangely evolution has been suggested by many cultures many years before this, so it wasn't even an unknown idea at the time!

FAIL Islam!

The Universe was made in 6 days?

"And We did certainly create the heavens and earth and what is between them in six days, and there touched Us no weariness"

-50:38

The Universe was created in 6 days??? Pretty sure that we all know that is not scientifically accurate. It took billions of years for the Earth develop after the Big Bang. Plus or minus a few million years. Do you know what number is really close to a few million??

Not sure but it is NOT 6!!

FAIL Islam!

Thunder is an Angel??

"And the thunder exalts [ Allah ] with praise of Him - and the angels [as well] from fear of Him - and He sends thunderbolts and strikes therewith whom He wills while they dispute about Allah ; and He is severe in assault" -13:13

Ummm, really? There have been SCIENTIFIC hypotheses on the nature of Thunder since Aristotle in the 3rd Century...

......BC!

Sounds like a shock wave in the air due to the sudden thermal expansion of the plasma in the lightning channel, but what do I know? It's probably an Angel.

So why is the Koran still depending on Angels and Demons to explain natural processes?

Islam FAIL!!

Sperm comes from behind the Ribs and the Spine??

"He was created from a fluid, ejected emerging from between the backbone and the ribs." -86:6-7

Many Muslims will steadfastly maintain the truth of this one, because some of the seminal fluid originates from that general area. But the damning part of the verse is that "he" was CREATED from this fluid. That part of the fluid is the sperm. That is the active ingredient of the seminal fluid and the only part needed to create life. The rest of the fluid is only a carrier and has no part in the actual fertilization process.

The crazy part of this one is that THIS too was a fact that was at least believed by very early man. Aristotle not only believed that the fertilizing agent came from the testicles but that each testicle was responsible for the birthing of one gender. So that tying the "male one" off (or cutting it off) would ensure the other one ruled sex selection and the woman would birth a girl. THIS was crazy, but at least they were on the right track.

You want me to do what?!?

Allah keeps the Birds aloft?!?

"Do they not see the birds controlled in the atmosphere of the sky? None holds them up except Allah . Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe" -16:79

Really? Is THAT what is keeping them in the magical skies? Not the nature of aerodynamics, lift or thrust, not any of those things?

How do I do it? Well, it's a combination of pixie dust, angel spit, and a healthy distaste for science.

Magic!

Seriously? Magic is the Islamic explaination for the power of flight in birds?

So this is a sign for unbelievers? Yea, the VERSE is a sign. A sign of the inaccuracy of the Koran, and one more reason to not believe anything it says.

What do YOU think?

Is this the word of middle age sheep herders or the word of a Supreme being?

My Wife the Activist....(on the Evils of Operation Christmas Child)

2011-11-22T13:33:00.000-08:00

Recently I caught wind of a charity that was being supported at my sons school, and thought that I should look into it as I always do. It is not that I care if a charity is religious or not, there are many religious charities that do great work out there just as there are secular ones. No, I don't care about the ideologies of the members of the organisations What I care about is .as long as the help and money is going to the people who need it most and it is charity being given freely without deception.

YOU LIED! I can't eat this, even WITH mayo!

So I looked into it to ensure that the money was going where it was supposed to go. This is an act that I encourage everyone to do when donating money to charity. Make sure your charity is above board. Even some of the big ones can be pretty shady.

Such is the case with Operation Christmas Child.

On the surface it seems nice enough but as soon as you start looking around warning signs start to pop up. Nothing too alarming, but enough to make you look into it if you are of a skeprical mind.

I googled the organization to see if there had been any complaints filed about how they conduct their business.

First thing that I learned is that they use this charity in traditionally non-christian countries to evangelize to the poor and needy as a way to trap them into listening and taking their literature. They admit this freely in their newsletters and in speeches.

They are just as clear in their fearmongering message.

You are a liar, you are a cheat, you are worthless......

Unless you are MY buddy!

You all know how I feel about telling children that they are bad people. Ray Comfort does it regularly to emphasize how badly they need his buddy.

If you do this, you are a predator.

But, I am starting to rant and this is not my rant to make.

ANGER! FRUSTRATION! YELLING!

This is my wife's rant.

GIRL ANGER! GIRL FRUSTRATION! GIRL YELLING!

So I will let her do it. She was a pit bull and within 5 minutes she had dug up TONS of terrible information on the organisation and it's leader Franklin Graham (the son of Billy).

I say "dug" but it was really all right here...with a sign saying "read me"...and a crossing guard directing me to it. )It really was that easy)

She decided that she would write to the Principle....

and the school board....

and the trustees.....

and the Director of Education!

She is awesome.

If no one says "Good Job" with a creepy happy face, she'll never know our appreciation!

ANYWAY, here is her letter. (Read it for the real scoop on Operation Christmas Child)

Re: Operation Christmas Child

As a parent of a third grade child at (blanked out) Public School, I am writing this letter to you to voice my concerns about Operation Christmas Child and to explain to you why a public school is not an appropriate venue to host such a program.

In the past, my family has provided support to Operation Christmas Child, however, with surprisingly little research; I felt I had received enough information to make an informed decision and change my mind about this program and it’s parent organization. I sincerely believe it is very likely that other parents would share in objection to this program if they were aware of its complete agenda as I now am.

At first glance, Operation Christmas Child seems to be a worthwhile exercise for our children; a hands-on activity which teaches them to give to others less fortunate by packing a shoebox of gifts for needy children in the third world. However, upon closer research, the organization behind Operation Christmas Child, called Samaritan’s Purse, (which is headed by evangelical minister Franklin Graham), has a very different goal: proselytizing with the purpose of converting children to fundamentalist Christians.

The shoeboxes, therefore, are not gifts in the true sense of the word. There are strings attached to these boxes that our children are putting together.

Mr. Graham himself admits the program

“…is not just about reaching children with a shoe box…this project focuses on sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ with them through Christian Literature distributed with the shoe boxes.”

Before receiving these shoebox gifts, children must attend a Christian rally. Essentially, these underprivileged children are being offered a gift in one hand, and a pamphlet in the other. It’s simply unethical.

Operation Christmas Child abuses the generosity of our students by using their shoebox gifts as a tool for Christian evangelism. The shoeboxes are distributed (along with proselytizing Christian literature) to children of diverse religious beliefs in other countries of the world in an attempt to convert them to Christianity.

In the November, 2002, Samaritan’s Purse Canada Newsletter, Mr. Graham says:

“I believe God has blessed this program because it is about more than Christmas presents. It is about introducing children and their families to God’s greatest gift—His Son, Jesus Christ. As long as evangelism is the focus, God will continue to bless it.”

The Newsletter also states:

“Shoe box gifts are distributed along with The Greatest Gift of All, an illustrated booklet that gives a clear presentation of the true meaning of Christmas—God’s love and salvation in Jesus Christ. The booklet has been printed in 65 languages. Local churches and ministry groups help us deliver the gifts and Gospel booklets…”

The 2002 Operation Christmas Child Special Report also quotes Mr. Graham as saying:

“Our outreach to these children and their families may begin with a shoe box gift but our ultimate goal is to open doors to share the Good News of Jesus Christ and to open hearts to receive Him as Lord and Saviour."

As you can see, some of Mr. Graham’s comments are truly disturbing given the multi-cultural make-up of the students in our schools. It is not appropriate for our schools to ask our students to help promote one religion over another. By allowing this program to be hosted by a public school, you are sending a message to parents and our children that the school (and public schools in general) are condoning the actions of Operation Christmas Child and that you support their efforts to convert others.

Further to this, Mr Graham makes his anti-Semitic, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu, and anti-tolerance message very clear in other statements that he has made at Samaritan’s Purse speeches, interviews, and in their newsletters. Mr. Graham's words and actions toward other world religions reveal a remarkable lack of respect for the dignity of people whose world views differ from his own:

On Islam, Graham says, “…it is a very evil and wicked religion.”

On Hinduism Graham says, “…we traveled to the subcontinent of India, with its hundreds of millions of people locked in the darkness of Hinduism… These people were bound by Satan’s power.”

On a local religion in Indonesia Graham says, “A witch doctor ruled that particular village, and I could sense an evil presence.”

The Samaritan’s Purse website contains an article entitled;

“Shoe Box Gifts Help Dispel Spiritual Darkness in Haiti”

this denigrates another local area, it's people and it's religion by claiming it is a false religion and that they are shrouded in "darkness".

The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance say that, “statements that categorize other religious groups as evil, degenerate, sub-human and/or hated by God are statements that promote religious intolerance.”
These statements made by Mr. Graham and Samaritan’s Purse promote religious intolerance. Do you think that it would be appropriate for our public schools (or any public facility or institution) to be used as a venue for an anti-Semitic organization? Or an anti-Islamic, or anti-Hindu? The principle is the same.

This is a travesty, and would NOT be tolerated in any other form. How can we, in all good conscience, support an organization that is just below the surface boiling with intolerant hatred of other religions? The students that make up your student bodies are of very diverse religious backgrounds and to have them unknowingly participate in an activity which represents such attitudes is unethical and intolerable.

As our public schools are made up of children of many diverse religious beliefs, you would also be sending them the message that you value Christianity over their beliefs. This is absolutely NOT appropriate for any publicly-funded institution, and certainly less appropriate for any public school.

It is not my intention to suggest that there has been any deliberate attempt at the school level to misinform. Rather, I believe that the Samaritan's Purse organization deliberately downplays this issue so that they can further their very real goal of bringing more people from their “evil” religions and over to Christianity by exploiting our desire to do kind things to help others.

For complete documentation of my comments regarding the use of the shoeboxes, and additional quotes from Operation Christmas Child, please refer here

I urge you to please take a few minutes to review this information as I did.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Yea, Hinduism might be harmless, but it's a gateway religion to more dangerous ones, like anything not Christian!

For the rest of you, take her advice and stay away from these people if you are actually interested in helping the children. Remember that children of Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish (among others) parents are participating in this effort only to have the recipients told that a nice "Christian child" sent these boxes. Are we all unwittingly to participate in this blatant attempt to manipulate our feelings of sorrow and obligation to help our fellow man in this way?
Before receiving these shoebox gifts, children must attend a Christian rally. Essentially, these underprivileged children are being offered a gift in one hand, and a pamphlet in the other which you can only take once you attend their church. It’s simply unethical to use people at their weakest for an effective membership drive.

The Spongebob brings em in the door, but it is the guilt and fear that makes em stay!

(Even the US Air Force has apologized for once condoning this organisation.)

All there is left for ME to say is WOW.

And well done baby!

My wife rocks, you should listen to her.

Rational Response- Why are There Still Monkeys?

2011-11-15T14:09:00.000-08:00

I have been inundated with ridiculous responses to my writings lately and decided that I needed to have my say about this "argument".

"If Evolution is true, then why are there still Monkeys?"

This is the second most common argument against Evolution (the first being a fundemental misunderstanding of the word "theory") and I can't sit idly by and listen to it any more.

ARGH!!!!

I just needed to get that out of my system. Now on to the article...

First let me comment on the logical fallacy in the very question.

This is a classic Argument from Ignorance (I will cover this in the next Logic-101 series) where someone doesn't know the answer to a question, or a claim doesn't make sense to him and they feel that is enough reason to dismiss the scientific model.

This is clearly untrue. It is not something based in a positive knowledge of how the model fails, but based on a persons inductive reasoning not being able to reconcile the model with his experience and knowledge.

This is not how we determine scientific knowledge.

Huh? It's how I do it!

We determine it by attempting to debunk it through real and contrary evidence, we test it, we observe the results, we ensure that those results are common by repeating the tests and ensuring the same results every time, and we ensure that those tests produce predictable results.

That is called the Scientific Method folks.

But on to the explaination.

The first thing that needs to be understood is that we didn't evolve from "apes", we evolved from what is called a common ancestor. This common ancestor would not be recognizable as a modern ape.

They might look more like this...

The next thing to understand is that evolution is a conditional process based on the variations in a population. That variation is predicated on what attributes of that being help it to survive long enough (in it's specific environment) to have offspring.

Different populations, and different environments will not have the same variations as both the gene pool and the requirements of the environment will be different (as will it's genetic drift).

Over large periods of time these populations go their seperate ways along the evolutionary path based on the reproductive success of the variations specific to their population. These variations only produce very minor changes that are practically impossible to see in short periods of time, but over very large periods of time they will produce a population that would no longer be similar enough to the other groups to be able to inter-breed.

BINGO- Humans and Chimps via Speciation!

TA DAH!!

This is a very short and very basic explanation, which is by no means comprehensive but I hope that you get the basic idea.

The common ancestor of my example doesn't even have to die out. It could have (but didn't) survive if one group was well adapted to its environment and another developed to be well suited to a different one. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

I don't want to get any further into it, as I will end up muddling the explanation.

But I hope that you have gained a very basic understanding of this very common quesion.

I'm still confused...

The Bible REALLY Says That? -Part 2

2011-11-15T13:35:00.000-08:00

"But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a woman during her menstrual impurity" then "he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God"
-Ezekiel 18:5 to 18:9

It sounds like God has some pretty bad attitudes towards women.

How can you "defile" someone by having sex with them? How can you stain what makes them a good person? Stated simply, you can't. Sex doesn't "stain" you, nor "defile" you, nor "ruin" you. It has no bearing on your morality or worth as a person. It can't make you less honest, less empathic, less loyal, less loving or even less intelligent.

It has no bearing on your value as a human being.

Unless...

You are property.

Unless you have attributes of sale and your value will be decreased by the amount of miles on your product, there is no reason to define a woman who has had sex as "defiled". Plus the language of it is as though it is something a man does TO a woman (implying her lack of choice) and not done WITH a woman. Why is HE not defiled by such an act? Remember, God is referring to a woman in the possessive as the "Neighbor's". he is not saying don't do this to women, but don't do this to HIS woman.

Maybe they mean don't rape your neighbor's wife. Is this any better? Not much, because he isn't saying;

"Don't get rapey with women, it's just not cool";

he is saying;

"Please, if you're getting rapey, don't do it to a woman who belongs to someone else, that isn't cool. Find your own."

Find my own?? DAMN YOU BRAD PITT!

That is really just a side issue to the real and most confusing point in this verse though.

Never come near a mentruating woman??

Why?

Pretty sure this isn't what happens

How is a natural body function able to make a man (to whom is isn't even happening) not lawful or right?? That is a complete non-sequitir. One has nothing to do with the other. To say that something to central to a woman is dirty, or stained is a completely immoral, disrespectful and disgusting statement.

We honour women for being able to bear children on one hand and then condemn them for the bodily functions that allow that on the other one?

Terrible.

To say that you are not a just or lawful man if you go near a woman on her period is equally ridiculous. She is not evil, nor possessed, nor given monthly superpowers that can affect your personal morality by her mere proximity.

PLUS, if we can't be near them, how will he ever garner "man points" that we so desperately need if we can't go to the store to buy her tampons?

We NEED those points for when we screw up. I can't afford to be a bad person for even talking to her during her most "sensitive" time!

Her WEDDING DRESS? Bad dog! I'm in so much trouble...

Does this sound more like the Wisdom of an omnipotent God, or the ignorant ramblings of an iron age sheep herder?

Read up, and you decide...

Quote of the Week-Georges Carlin

2011-11-05T18:05:00.000-07:00

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! .........But He loves you"

Georges Carlin was one of comedy's most outspoken atheists, if only people could see the dichotomy that he spoke of. "Do as I say and love me or I will torture you forever" I agree Georges, it doesn't sound like love to me.

Sad to see you gone.

Logic 101- Formal Fallacies

2011-11-05T15:34:00.000-07:00

In this edition of Logic 101, I felt that we should go back to the beginning (well, since "Logical Absolutes" is the absolute beginning, this is more like the semi beginning) and talk about the most common formal fallacies. It is important to get these out of the way before speaking about the informal ones, because with these you don't need to examine the content of the argument to recognize that it is false. It is the construction of the argument itself that is flawed.

All Formal fallacies are a form of non-sequitor (latin for "does not follow")

A Non Sequitir, in formal logic, is an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from its premise. This has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of that premise, it merely demonstrates that you can't reach that conclusion using the argument that is posited because there is a logical disconnect between them.

A common example is;

1. If I am a cat, then I am a mammal

2. I am a mammal

3. Therefor I am a cat.

This doesn't follow as it doesn't fully distribute the middle term in the categorical syllogism. Nowhere does it say that all mammals are cats, just that all cats are mammals.

See what I mean?

There are other forms of non-sequitirs such as affirming the consequent, or denying the anticedent. These are arguments where a connection is drawn between A and B, then being told that A is either true or false, and assuming the truth or fallacy of B as a result. It is a jump in logic, or "doesn't follow".

Enough of that.

Now we will move on to a few of the more common logical fallacies and detail them so that you can avoid this in any argument. The three most popular formal fallacies are that of appeals to Authority, Probability, and Popularity. Remember, that Authority, Probability, and Popularity can sometimes be used as EVIDENCE to sway your audience (or opponent) but are not logical grounds for reaching said conclusion so it is best to stay away from them.

Appeal to Authority- Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious. Pointing to an authority and claiming that makes it true is akin to saying "He was right about other stuff, so he must be right about this". It is an assumption, but this logical fallacy is usually only asserted when the "Authority" is not an expert in that area of knowledge, or if the information expressed from a recognized authority goes against the expert concensus.

Appeal to Probability- This is an argument that fails in its structure in that it assumes that since a probability is high, that an event will inevitably happen, or since the probability is low it will never happen. Creationists try to use this to disprove evolution by saying it is stastically unlikely, therefor impossible. That is a conclusion that does not follow from it's premise. Even statistically unlikely things happen all the time.

This cheque is too unlikely, so it can't be real. Am I having a stroke?

Appeal to Popularity- Appeals to Popularity are VERY common in debate. This fallacy usually takes the form of something like this; "90% of the people in the world believe in a god, in fact most people in the history of the world do. They can't all be wrong!".

I like to demonstrate the falseness of this argument with the following comical statement;

"One MIllion Lemmings can't be wrong....JUMP!"

Seems like a good idea but I'm not taking any chances

Just because a lot of people have bought into an idea does not give it any merit. At one time everyone thought the earth was flat, or that the sun was carried across the sky by an unseen hand. Popular opinion has been, time and time again, proven to be wrong in many arenas of knowledge.

So there you have it, three logical fallacies and the explanation of a Non-Sequitir. These are arguments that fail even before the content of your argument is examined, so if you want to be heard, avoid them at all costs.

Next time in Logic 101- The Argument from Ignorance

Apologies

2011-11-04T09:44:00.000-07:00

It has been over a month since I have written anything, and there has been a lot to write about that I have missed. I have been waylaid by life and my hearts insistence not to work as it should.

It's been a bad month for sickness as I have been in and out of the hospital all month with either Bronchitis or with heart issues.

Even still the mail keeps coming. I have had an influx of emails from angry Christians wanting to know why I don't target other religions like I do Christianity (which I feel I do) and angry Muslims trying to convince me through a skewed understanding of science that it agrees with the Korans "science" (I have always found "retrospecitve science apologetics" very strange) and still others just telling me that I am worthless and not "worth even a penny". (Which he recanted as an insult after I called him on it by saying that we are ALL "Unworthy and worthless without Jesus", which we both knew was not what he meant)

WE'RE UNWORTHY! (You think that's what he meant?)

This sort of hateful email only serves to enbolden my motivation to speak out and try to make this conversation normal. It is more important than ever to make EVERYTHING open to critique.

If an ideology is immune from criticism, then it is free to do as it wishes under the protective veil of "respecting their belief".

Can't we just get along?

This can't be allowed to continue. We have to be able to judge each and every idea by it's own merits openly, especially when it is something that affects our daily lives as religion does.

If we aren't open to point out moral and ideological flaws in ideas of any kind, then those ideas are left (as are the people who espouse them) open to some very bad and potentially very harmful information with no method by which to examine the morality of those ideas.

So keep talking, and keep writing.

*cough cough*

and I apologize for my absence. Here we go, picking up where we left off.....

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Remembrance Day Edition

2011-11-04T09:26:00.000-07:00

Remember the lost
both sides, and theist or not
Today we're the same

PS- "Boots" we miss you dearly. To everyone else that I have known and worked with who are lost to us now, to those who were unknown to me but whose families can never forget, and to those who gave their lives in conflicts long past.....We remember your sacrifice and the honourable difficulties of the life of a soldier.

Atheist Haiku of the Month- New School Year Edition

2011-09-05T09:55:00.000-07:00

Want prayer in Schools?

Sure, let Johnny make room for

Satanists and Wiccans

Quote of the Week

2011-08-14T18:34:00.000-07:00

Pictured- Very smart dude

"Live a good life.

If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.
If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.
If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

-Marcus Aurelius

Smart guy that Mr Aurelius. Now if we could just start getting out to theists that the measure of what is just and unjust is not found in their bible, or their koran, or their torah.

It is found in the hearts of men who wish to see equity and empathy for everyone.

Beyond Belief News -Toronto Police Enforce Sharia Law (or -"Shame on you Toronto PD!")

2011-08-04T12:44:00.000-07:00

Out of respect for Islam, all Muslims have been photoshopped out.

This is my second post in a row about religious nonsense in Canada.

This one is about a local writer, David Menzies, and his experience with the local ninjabi's and city photography.

How can the mixture of two such innocent topics make for a good article you ask?

PLEASE ask! (pretty sure the gun is a cigarette lighter..)

Mr Menzies was busily having a great afternoon with his son, eating pizza, drinking bubble tea, taking photographs of the downtown area, when he was surprised by an angry mob of Muslims led by two Ninjabis. (Can't call them that you say? Read on...)

What malfeasance mobilized this mob of miffed and maddened Muslims?

A woman speaking her mind? No, not this time.

They were offended because they had been caught in a random picture that he took of the downtown area.

Pictured- Free Muslim.

“We are Muslim! You do not take pictures of us!”

When he responded that he was free to take pictures of whomever he pleased in an open and free democracy, he was met with the only rational response left to a law abiding citizen.

POW!! Right in your rationality.

She punched him in the face.

Assault.

That was her answer to having her picture taken in public. He was hit so hard that he almost dropped his camera. It was at this point that he felt he and his son might be in danger as the mob closed in and the din of them yelling at him demanding to have his camera grew to untolerable levels.

This is where the situation goes beyond belief.

He saw a policeman.

SAFETY!

Once he broke through the mob to his law enforcing savior, he discovered how far "religious tolerance" actually takes us.

The policeman dismissed his complaint despite the fact that an arabic speaking couple offered their witness to the event as he told it.

Apparently assault means something different if it comes from a religious motivation. At least the Toronto Police think so.

Does Sharia law hold sway with our law enforcement?

Have our protectors decided that protecting a belief is now more important than protecting it's citizens?

The policeman on the scene said that it was his opinion that the woman was only trying to break his camera, and not trying to punch him.

HUH?

How is this any better?
It is still assault to lay your hands on another person with intent to destroy their personal property under Canadian law and now she has admitted attempted theft as a motivation for this assault!

What was the result?

No charges, no report filed, no protection from physical assault offered.

Why am I letting her punch you? Because Fuck You is why.

Do we now have Sharia masters who sit in the background ensuring that we all covertly adhere to our new god and religion?

Do we now find ourselves slaves to the beliefs of others as enforced by the belief police?

Or do we now have a police force who is too cowardly to get involved in a "situation" that will result in bad press by getting Muslims (or any religious folk) up in arms?

We can't protect you if you offend our true masters. (pssst, it's the News)

All I know is that for the second day in a row, I am shocked and dismayed by my own countrymen.

Shame on you Toronto Regional Police.

Shame on you.

In a city so full of diversity, it is even more important that you represent the law and not let one minority's needs hold sway over anyone else's rights.

No matter what they believe,
No matter what they want,
No matter how many hours they must spend praying to atone,

taking pictures is in a public area is NOT illegal. (just ask the Toronto Police, who have videocameras set up in that very area)

And assault is.

You are not there in uniform to make decisions based on your own moral compass or opinions about how to respect other religions wants and desires. We have no desire to have an official or unofficial observation of any blasphemy laws in our country.

Sharia law only applies to the countries that observe this immoral code, and those who decide to live by it.

And those people are Muslim men and their slaves, I mean loving wives.

We are free in Canada and expect to be treated as such.

You are there to enforce the law and to protect the citizens, not to avoid bad press.

This time, you failed on both counts.

And put forward a pretty ugly precedent in the process.

The Stupid, it Burns in Canada too!

2011-08-04T11:01:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week a friend messaged me with a story to tell about his trip to the Canadian Maritime provinces. He was dismayed by a sign that he saw posted on a church billboard outside a New Brunswick area church, and felt that he had to vent by writing about it.

I too, am now dismayed and feel that I have to write about it.

I won't leave you in suspense for too long, but this blogpost isn't really about what the board said. (nor is this board the actual board (it is merely the same message). I wasn't able to obtain a picture, but I will get the name and post it in an update)

If this sign came from stupid, why is there still stupid?

Seriously?

Science denial?

Here in Canada?

This is what bothers me more than the actual billboard.

I was pretty confident in my "Not here" pride about Canada's attitude towards skepticism and freedom from religious science denial, and now that confidence has been shaken. We live in a country that never raged over the "Teach the Controversy" nonsense, and although religion is allowed in our schools, it never really plays a significant part (even in science class). I am saddened to know that fellow Canadians have fallen to this depth of willful ignorance but am renewed in my dedication to speaking out about about these attitudes.

Why?

Because they are harmful to our children in the way that it steals opportunity for understanding the world around them. It degrades our critical thinking skills, and what is most important to me, it sets a very low standard for accountability for determining what is true.

You see, what is true is important to me, and to a lot of people that I know. Words hold an iron to them, and if we allow unsupported claims to be made publically we give silent consent to them being placed on equal status with evidence based opinions and claims.

Imagine someone at a dinner party saying;

"Gravity is not real, but just a construct of our conciousness, and you too could escape it's oppressive force if you only had an open mind."

Would you nod politely and validate his "theory" by not opposing him? Of course not! Any claim so ridiculously made would be met by ill concealed laughter.

And rightly so.

Isn't it?

What about someone who was convinced that Elvis lived next door to him, and that he was obsessed by exposing it?

Would you stay silent?

Unless that IS actually the King buying groceries. Hmmmmm

Here is the issue.

Bad ideas have their own societal filter. People react when they hear them, and usually not well, especially when they are demonstrably false or exceptionally silly.

That is all bad ideas and opinions except for religious ones. No one seems to question them. They get a level of forgiveness from this societal peer review.

They get a pass.

NO, sir, shhhh. The Pope is allowed to do that...

As a matter of fact, people get offended when their religious ideas are challenged.

But I digress into ranting.

The point is that I am disappointed in you Canada. I actually thought that I lived in a country that believed as I do.

That one mans ignorance does not hold equal standing with educated fact.

Let's not allow the terrible practice of allowing it to hold such a position take hold in our, or any, land.

On a side note....ARGH!!!!! (I am very frustrated by this)

My thanks to Craig White for frustrating me to such lengths. You have him to thank for my undirected and ill written rant.

Thanks Craig!

PS- I will deal with the claim made in the billboard in my next "Rational Response" post

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Science Edition

2011-08-04T10:28:00.000-07:00

Some people still ARE monkeys

Man came from monkeys?!?

Dumb question. Man didn't, but...

Neither did monkeys.

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Canada Day/Independance Day 241 Edition

2011-07-04T12:07:00.000-07:00

God keep our land? No!

It’s CANADIANS who keep

It strong and free, eh?

Nation under god?

That’s news to the Muslims and

And founding fathers

Shout out to Stupid- David Tyree

2011-07-04T11:24:00.000-07:00

This months "Shout out" goes out to former New York Giants wide receiver David Tyree on the eve of the ruling on gay marriage in New York. He has entered thrown his hat into the human rights arena without thought to the consequences....

or logic....

or common sense....

But now thanks to the bible, I can look stupid with the best of em!

He released a statement in a short video earlier this month where he stated that legalizing gay marriage will inevitably lead to anarchy for the proud United States.

(They are just cleaning each other up after eating babies)

He hopes that his message will lead other Christians to defend what he and other Christians believe is a holy institution.

There are so many things wrong with his position, but this portion of his statement is what bothers me the most;

"Marriage is one of those things that is the backbone of society, so if you redefine it, it changes the way we educate our children; it changes the perception of what is good, what is right, what is just."

Wait a minute... "redefine it"?

Let's hear what people from the past thought about redefining marriage;

"These types of marriages are abominable. If allowed they would pollute America."

"Such unions are not only unnatural, but always productive of deplorable results, such as increased effeminate behavior in the population."

"They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good in accordance with the God of nature."

What are the sources for these very quotes which are so startlingly similar to Mr Tyree's?

1960's America (Virginia and Georgia law) during the civil rights fight for the right for people to marry people of a different race.

The fight was spearheaded by Loving vs Virginia in 1967 and it was redefined to accommodate civil rights.

It was redefined earlier in the 19th century when slavery was abolished too.

Anomymous Politician

"Slaves cannot marry without the consent of their masters, and their marriages do not produce any of the civil effects which result from such contract."

I use these two particular examples because they apply directly to Mr Tyree. There are many inane arguments that a person can use (all of them unsubstantiated) to withhold someone's civil rights, but for a black man to state that marriage shouldn't be redefined is outrageous and should lead to an outcry of black people everywhere.

So David is right. Redefining it DID change the way that we teach our children right from wrong. It also taught us not to be self righteous pricks who deny others their civil rights merely because we don't like them or are unfamiliar.

Um.. David, I worked hard for these rights, stop getting up in my shit

What makes David Tyree's civil rights and those of his pretty recent ancestors more important than people of today?

Why was it ok to redefine marriage for the sake of HIS minority's equal rights but not for anyone else's?

Whoa! I AM a civil rights activist, I just don't like gays...

Think before you speak David.

Just because you believe that something is "holy" doesn't give you the right to stomp on the civil rights of others for the sole purpose of shoving your religion down other people's throats.
And even if you DO believe that it is wrong, at least take a stance that doesn't betray all the civil rights hero's who came before you and gave you the very rights that you enjoy today.

Um, can you please not mention David's name with mine?

Think about it.

1967!

It wasn't that long ago that this same battle was being fought for you. Before you speak you should make sure that your words aren't spitting in the faces of those people who risked everything so that you could live the life you do.

Our quest for equality for all didn't end with just your interests, and it won't stop with theirs.

On a side note...

“You can't teach something that you don't have. Two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman."

Neither can one man teach you how to be a woman. Look out world; he may be coming for single parents too!

IT'S TRUE! All Dad teaches us is to burp and not follow directions!

Beyond Belief News- Tennessee Law Prohibits Offensive Pictures.

2011-06-12T19:53:00.000-07:00

Gov. Bill Haslam signed an amendment to an existing law last week so that internet images that cause anyone emotional distress would be a thing of the past.

Let's think about that for a second.

If the court judges that you had no legitimate purpose in posting these "offensive" pics, then you can spend up to a year in jail.

Who are the people who are protected against being offended?

ANYONE!

This doesn't have to be the person depicted in the image.

It doesn't even have to refer to the person who claims offense.

It just has to be someone who sees it, and doesn't like it.

This includes pictures of Muhammad, religious jokes, honest pictoral critique of a religious practice, or even a political cartoon speaking about religion.

So funny it is illegal in 3 states!

Don't think that your twitter account or facebook accounts are safe either.

This new law applies to anywhere on the internet that you post pictures.

The language of the law certainly doesn't refer to religion, but it has all the beginnings of a blasphemy law.

Do we really want this sort of stifling of expression in North America?

Let's be clear.

No one has the right to not be offended.

I am offended by a lot of things:
Young men wearing their pants around their thighs;
Swearing around other peoples children;
Spitting in public; and
Being stared at for no reason (don't ask).

But should these things be outlawed merely because they offend me?

NO!

Ok, maybe just this one.

As much as I hate these things, I would never suggest that they should.
Personal offense is related to personal values and priorities, how can I vet my behavior based on another persons values?

If I don't like something, it is my decision to speak up and ask for the person to stop or to just walk away.

It is far too onerous to let your actions be guided by what may or may not offend someone else's sensibilities. What about MY sensibilities?

Why are my opinions so much less important than everyone else's?

What a law like this amounts to, is protecting peoples beliefs from unwanted critique or insult.

Are we seriously making criticizing or even insulting people illegal?

I hope not. Do we really want to give people's beliefs a protected status beyond the power of public critique or questioning? What a slippery slope that will become.

I am severely offended by this new law and what it will do to the face of free speech and open dialogue. Does this mean that it is the first law in history to actually violate itself?

In the immortal words of Red Foxx;

"If I have offended anyone here tonight, I want you to know, that sincerely from the bottom of my heart, I really don't give a shit."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Free Will isn't Free...

2011-06-12T18:13:00.000-07:00

Come with me of your own free will or I'll kill you. I'll just point this at you while you decide...

At least not if it is the "free will" that the Abrahamic religions offer.

It is often said that god's first gift to us was free will, but how can we choose freely when the consequence is eternal torture?

Any choice that we make under duress is not really a free choice is it?

Read my blog, or the cat gets it!

Now I admit that society limits our free will as well, in the form of laws. Organized society gives us rights, but at the expense of giving us rules to guide our behavior. There is even a justice system that deals with those who disobey, but nothing that even approaches the scale or scope of heavenly punishment.

The eternal torture for finite crimes is not a punishment, it is more akin to revenge.

Punishment is finite.

It fits the crime and ends when a person has paid for the crimes that he has commited.

Revenge is emotionally motivated and is an expression of anger that can be cruel and far beyond the severity of the actual crime that it was enacted in response to.

Infinite torture for finite crimes?

That seems overly punitive.

But all I did was read the "God Delusion"!

It surprises me when people act surprised when I tell them that I am offended by the concept of a loving god sending his creations to hell. No one would argue that our prisons should physically and emotionally torture their wards for the rest of their lives for even the smallest crimes (unless they said they were sorry first).

INHUMANE

That would be the cry from the masses, and they would be right to cry thusly. It would be a grisly and immoral system of crime and punishment, not to mention completely ineffective at creating a society that could live together in harmony. It would be an evil dictatorship that is hated by the masses.

Once you put the parameters for that punishment into the mix, we enter the realm of the completely freaking crazy.

And there is really only one rule...

"LOVE ME OR BE TORTURED FOREVER!"

That remind you of anyone?

Love and obey me, cause I'm as nutty as squirrel poop!

It is an fantastic indicator that the only completely unforgivable sin is not loving god enough. And it is a terrible and immature reaction to have hell as the punishment for it. Does it even make sense to threaten someone to make them love you? Would that love ever even be genuine?

Free will? Not with the hell-gun to our heads it isn't.

So let's get this concept of religious free will out of our heads. Neither the bible, the Torah, nor the Koran have set up a system of morality that is anything but terrifying.

Don't think...OBEY

Don't choose...FOLLOW

Don't love him....then you will be coerced to do so under pain of being sent to the eternal torture room in the sky.

That sound like a loving and moral system of codifying behavior?

Not to me.

Your Move Jesus...

2011-06-11T11:47:00.001-07:00

The Bible is the "word"? Pretty sure that everybody knows that the BIRD is the word, your move Jesus....

Rational Response- Vicarious Redemption

2011-06-08T20:01:00.000-07:00

This month's "Rational Response" is a rejoinder to the morality claim of Christ supposedly dying for our sins (if there really is such a thing).

It is an oft heard appeal for us to obey God becuase he gave up his only begotten son, or because Jesus sacrificed so much for us.

But is this a moral teaching?

Is this really a good reason to bow down to a being (real or not)?

And finally does this story display God's (and therefor Jesus') good and loving nature?
These are only a few of the questions that we have to ask ourselves when thinking about this.

For me, I have always had a hard time listening to this story (even while I was a Christian) for a few reasons;

1. What did he actually "sacrifice"? He is an aspect of god, and as such the mythology tells us that he can't die. The only thing that "died" was his mortal skin that he adorned in order to appear human. Sure he was in pain, but was it a sacrifice? His suffering was over in a mere 3 days (not all that long in the grand scheme of an infinite life) and he rose to be the ruler of the universe. Sounds more like a hazing ritual for a promotion than a sacrifice.

2. Did he die for US? He died because the other part of himself (we won't get into that bit of irrational nonsense here) decided that he needed blood entertainment in order to forgive his creations. Not just any blood would sate his wrath, but the blood and torture of his son. There was no choice. He wasn't told that we would suffer unless he took our place, nor did he plead for us not to be tortured in such a way. He just went along with God's decision to kill him. He chose that method of forgiveness. He could have chosen
anything, but he chose torture and blood. So he was just participating in a play of his own writing. There was no outside agency that was going to harm us if he didn't act. It was his choice, so there really is no component of heroism here.

3. Is it a moral teaching? NO! It is exactly the opposite for many reasons. It espouses the idea of vicarious redemption and that is about as lazy and immoral an idea as they come. You are no longer called to be responsible for your own crimes, because someone else will pay for them in your stead. Where is the
concept of responsibility, the very concept upon which morality is based?

4. Does this show God's mercy and goodness? This is the crux of the argument for me. As I said before, there is no outside agency coming to hurt those whom Jesus loves. So there is nothing requiring him to stand before us to save us from the pain of whatever punishment we have coming. There is only him, and he makes the rules. He decided that we were immoral, he decided that the only way that he wanted to forgive us was to torture and kill someone, and he decided that someone would be his son. That is like getting robbed, and then in order to forgive the thief, stabbing your own mother in the face saying "that feels better, I can forgive you for robbing me now. Want to come back to my place for beers?".

(Don't worry my mother is tough, she'll only spend 3 days in the hospital).

I can't imagine the robber extolling your moral fiber to his robber buddies. He wouldn't be saying "His mother got stabbed so that I could be fogiven, what a great gal!". He would be saying "What a crazy bastard! He did give me beers though, and never stabbed me even once, so I guess all's well that ends well.... But let's not cross this crazy guy again, OK?"

I find the teaching of vicarious redemption and the cross to be morally represensible and intellectually impossible. Can we actually pass on our own responsibility for wrong-doings? The very concept of moral absolution degrades our morality as it deprives us of the opportunity to discover ethical values, and relieves
us of the intellectual and societal responsibility to do so. Thomas Paine once said that we can take on another man's debt, or even his place in prison, but we can never take on their crimes as though they were our own. That is an impossible action that would rob him of individual responsibility for his actions and his responsibility to others and thus of his morality as well.

So do we really think that you can take on another person's crimes as though they were your own?

Would we even want to live in a society where you could?

Stand Up Islam- Part Deux!

2011-06-06T19:41:00.000-07:00

Sharon Horgan, host of a BBC show "Have I Got News For You" is catching
a lot of flak from islamic officials for a (possibly) tasteless joke
that she told on her show.

"The Independent described the Dostoevsky metro station... as the Mecca
for suicides. Not to be confused with the Mecca of suicide bombers -
which is Mecca."

First off, that IS funny!

Not because I paint all Muslims as suicide bombers, but because it is a clever play on words and the unpalatable fact that the suicide bombers in the news are Muslim. Clearly no one with a modicum of sense believes that all Muslims are suicide bombers, but Mecca IS the direction that the newsworthy suicide bombers pray towards.

Second, there is irony in the protests, because those who are offended by this are threatening HER. If this doesn't represent the stereotype more than her joke did, then I'll eat a cat. (and I like cats a lot)

Third, (and most important!) if Muslims across the world are more upset by this joke than those Muslims dragging Islam's rep through the mud by being suicide bombers for Allah, then their priorities are pretty mixed up. Use this sort of comment as fuel to publically attack those organizations and show the world that Islam will not stand for violence in it's name. Why must we only hear of Islam's offense when there is a cartoon drawn, a joke made, a movie released, women defended, or bikini's worn?

Stop implying we are violent...OR I'LL KILL YOU!

Stand up Islam!

Stand up and tell the Muslim world that your leaders will no longer put up with such vile acts. (if you can get them off the news talking about vile things that is)

Stand up against Sharia laws that subjugate women and call for the death penalty for the simplest of crimes. Stand up and disavow Islam with violent protests and call the protesters offensive.

Stand up and show the world how little you appreciate your own members acting in such a way.

THIS would be the way for Islam to clean up it's world image. By staying relatively silent on these crimes that should be far more eggregious than simple jokes and cartoons, they give silent permission to those who ACTUALLY damage the way that the world perceives them.

If they are offended, they should direct their ire in the right direction.

Shouldn't their voices be the loudest each time a bomb sounds killing innocents in their name, or at every protest where "Kill the Infidel" signs are displayed by Muslims, or at the very mention of beating or
stoning women? If they were really concerned about being seen as a peaceful religion, shouldnt' they be first in line fighting Sharia law in many of it's forms?

I am pretty sure that no one would answer "No" to that.

Aren't there acid scarred women, stoned reporters, bomb victims, that need those voices supporting their cause?

If they are so concerned about their reputations, shouldn't they have better things to rail against?

So why I am only hearing them ring in the media in response to a harmless comedian?

You decide...

Headline Cartoon found here

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Vicarious Redemption

2011-06-03T11:02:00.000-07:00

If my son volunteers to let you punch him in the face, I'll forgive you.

He died to save us?

Who made that immoral rule?

God did it to us.

God is Immoral- Part 1

2011-05-28T09:44:00.000-07:00

Next we'll go for beers and watch people drown in Africa

So many theists give apology to a god who would CHOOSE not to protect his "flock" that I felt compelled to write something about it. It bothers me when people praise his good and loving nature for things like saving a child from a flood.

Why not save them all?

Or even prevent the flood from ever happening?

I can't reconcile a loving and merciful god with a god who would pick only one child from a natural disaster to save as his demonstration of that love. That child has lost his parents, his home, all of his friends and everything that ever mattered to him/her so what has god achieved by picking that one individual out while ignoring the prayers and lives of all of the other victims?

Is it a message? What an immoral message.

How about the millions of abortions that he performs each week?

How about disease epidemics?

How about the animals created ONLY to live off the suffering of others?

How about the lack of a real easily distinguishable moral code?

Why do apologists find miracles and faith in the few that he allows to survive the deaths that he designed for so many others?

I find it disgusting to think of being supplicant to a being who would play such nefarious and immoral games with our very lives.

And finally, I find it reprehensible that theists support the idea of Hell.

God made hell for people who don't like him because fuck you is why.

By doing so you are agreeing with a policy of torture and infinite pain for the crime of simply not loving your god enough.
What a terrible, immoral, evil and despicable thing to support.

What I will say is this;

If God is real, he is the biggest and most evil bastard that the world has ever known and even has another evil player (the devil) working for him to try and tempt us to find out how vast his fury really is.

If one day I found out that this christian God actually exists, I STILL wouldn't bend a knee to him. This concept of a God is immoral and his "creations" are vastly morally superior to their supposed creator.

Shame on you theists for siding with such a creature.

(Good thing he isn't real, for all our sakes!)

THANK GOD!

Peace

-Spoiler Alert found here (along with other Godless Gifts)

Women are to be Seen and Not Heard.

2011-05-19T20:13:00.000-07:00

"Christian women", are you as faithful and dutiful as you think?

If you are an intelligent and discerning woman with a modicum of self respect and have still found some way to maintain a Christian perspective then you are not.

Shame on you!

At least this is what the Bible teaches.

Shame in copuous doses.

Christian women listen up;

There are simply some things that are better left to men.
You are created to be man's companion, his helper, and his servant.
If you don't understand something, you are permitted to ask your husband, who will explain it to you.
You are made beautiful, only so that you can hide that beauty from all who look at you, and yet you are made to be seen and not heard.
You are not made for any truth or promise but those your father or husband allows.
You are made for one man to choose to take ownership and responsibility for you and to care for you in all things.
You are to serve him as he serves his lord.
This is all done with the humble understanding that sin began with a woman tempting a man and that because of that you are the reason for death in the world.
Be grateful for man's love and care for you and accept it in all graciousness. Give your man his sexual pleasure when he asks for it with no amount of regard for your own selfish wants and needs and always be mindful of your "dirty time" so that you don't sully the man in the eyes of god.
If you are raped or sexually assaulted by a man who is not your fiance, ensure that you yell loud enough for all to hear and that your fiance receives due recompense for the rapists crime against his property, and then beg for his forgiveness for your own immorality. (Oh and say goodbye to him as well since you will now be marrying your rapist instead. Kind of a "You broke it, you bought it approach to sexual assault)

This and a little faith is all that it takes to be a dutiful Christian woman.

If you are a Christian woman, and you are not living your life by these simple tenets then you are doing your ideology a disservice and only playing at being a Christian. If you are a Christian and also a modern, independant and powerful woman, you had better give your religion another thought because the bible says that Christianity is not for you.

Ironic Creationist Quotes

2011-05-14T11:37:00.000-07:00

Please don't apply my words to MY opinions

"The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results"

-Micheal Behe 2003 (Intelligent Design "scientist")

Wasilla High School Principal Bans Rock Legend's Song at Grad

2011-05-14T11:26:00.000-07:00

WHS Principal Dwight Probasco has revealed himself publically this week as a homophobe and a bigot. Earlier this week he heard from a parent that Queen lead singer Freddy Mercury was gay, and decided that was enough reason to ban their song "Bohemian Rhapsody".

Just figured that out now??

Seriously??

It contains no reference to homosexuality and is certainly not a cry for LGBT rights or even a criticism of the religion that so hates the idea of human rights for all.

It is simply a classic rock song.

An iconic song, and one that the students decided that they wanted to represent them at graduation by having their choir sing it. Mr Probosco, however, doesn't care about the content of the song, only about the sexuality of the person singing it. Why would he even care about the sexuality of the person singing the song if it doesn't have an LGBT message? Does he think that the writer's sexuality might somehow rub off on the students through his words like osmosis? Or does he just want to ignore everything that homosexuals do even outside their bedroom activities?

Ban songs written by them?

Keep them from living in his neighborhood?

Is he attempting to wipe them from his personal experience of the world?

Maybe he would rather they play something staunchly heterosexual like Fat Bottomed Girls.

Who knows how THIS would affect them though...

Let's be clear.

This has nothing to do with his view on Freddy Mercury's sexuality. The song is completely unconnected to that issue.

It has to do with hate.

He hates gays and doesn't want even a simple reminder that they exist near him.

To be fair, his students were not hurt by his bigotted actions as they stepped up and informed the ACLU and contacted a human rights lawyer. When the hateful principal learned of the steps his students were taking to defy him, he backed off his hate pretty quickly.

Although not completely.

He still wants the line "Mama, I just killed a man" left out of their performance.

We can only assume that he figures that will keep them from becoming serial killers.

-Article headline art found here

Atheist Haiku of the Month-

2011-05-02T10:52:00.000-07:00

Will the 21st

Be the end of everything?

Ask me the next day.

Top 10 Biblical Prophecy FAILS.

2011-05-02T10:32:00.000-07:00

If the bible is to be accepted as divine, then it is reasonable to assume that it's prophecies will be unfailing. Divine and omniscient power can't save the bible from being horribly transparent when it comes to the man made origins of it's "prophecies".

Not even modern apologetics can explain some of these horrible prognostications.

Christians love to point to prophecy in the bible as evidence for it's divinity, but their prophecies usually lie in one of two categories. The first is a prophecy that is vague enough and common enough to apply to something modern day if you look hard enough (and they usually can be applied to many different incidents across history if interpreted with bible coloured glasses long enough).
A great example of this would be Isaiah 13:13;

"Therefore I will make the heavens tremble; and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD Almighty, in the day of his burning anger."

A Christian might claim that the earthquake in Japan was the fulfillment of that prophecy and take this as evidence of coming end times. However this could just as easily applied to ANY major earthquake in the earth's history. It is a vague enough example of a common occurrence that it is easily claimed as a fulfilled "prophecy" when it is really just confirmation biased interpretation.

The second is a prophecy that is a "no brainer". This is a prophecy whose fulfillment is inevitable. Take, for example, any prophecy that Christians cite as predicting the unrest in the Middle East. Is this common claim a difficult one to make "prophecy" about? Isn't it pretty obvious that there will be numerous wars in that historically war torn geographical area? Couldn't any of us make nonsense predictions like this and then claim godly inspiration after the virtually inescapable has happened? This kind of "prophecy" is a no brainer that doesn't require a "touch of the divine" to reveal it's likelihood, and is not the sort that we will deal with today.

We will look at prophecies that are specific in their subject and pointed in their prophecy. Only one is needed to rule out divine authorship but I will give you 10 just to be sure.

10 different sorts of FAILURE.

Here are 10 of the best failed prophecies from the bible. These are prophecies that are specific enough to be verified or debunked at a simple glance.

Have fun reading!

Top 10 Bible Prophecy FAILS

1.Isaiah 17:1

"An oracle concerning Damascus: See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins."

FAIL: Damascus is generally considered the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world and it is still inhabited today with almost two million people. Never in it's history was never a time where it ceased to be a city. How did the "Lord Almighty" miss that one? Two million people is not exactly a "Where's Waldo".

2.Isaiah 19:4-5

"I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master, and a fierce king will rule over them, declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty. The waters of the river will dry up, and the riverbed will be parched and dry."

FAIL: The river mentioned here is the Nile which has never dried up in since historians began to keep records of such things (nor even in the oral record of times before). How does an omniscient being miss one of the largest rivers in the world? Once he realized it wasn't going to dry up, couldn't he just have willed it to happen just to keep his rep intact? Guess me must have forgotten about this one.

3. Isaiah 52:1

"Awake, awake, O Zion, clothe yourself with strength. Put on your garments of splendor, O Jerusalem, the holy city. The uncircumcised and defiled will not enter you again."

FAIL: Um, there is currently no restriction on uncircumcised men entering the city. How would you even pass such a law, let alone enforce it? It is hard enough getting people to accept the airport scanners without telling them they have to whip it out for an official "ant-eater" hunt too.

4. Ezekiel 30:10-11

"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his army - the most ruthless of nations - will be brought in to destroy the land. They will draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain."

FAIL: Ezekiel predicts that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon will conquer Egypt filling it's borders with the slain. In 568 BCE Nebuchadnezzar attempted to conquer Egypt without success. Egypt's king ruled for another generation and outlived Nebuchadnezzar thereby escaping the fulfillment of this prophecy. The Egyptians were not scattered or dispersed or slain in droves across the lands.

5. Ezekiel 29:10-11

"therefore I am against you and against your streams,and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years."

FAIL: Egypt has NEVER been uninhabited, let alone for forty years, in it's history (since it's inception). It is currently inhabited by almost 80 million people.

6 .Matthew 16:28, Matthew 23:36, Matthew 24:34

16:28

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

23:36

"I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation."

24:34

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

FAIL: Jesus says very clearly that the things that would demarcate the end of the world would be fulfilled before that era's current generation passed away. He said that it would happen before the people that were standing in front of him "tasted death". That was 2000 years ago. Either he is a terrible prognosticator, or he is habitually late. SO late in fact that people die and a hundred generations can pass before he remembers his promises. I think that being 2000 years late qualifies this one as FAILED.

7. Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold,a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

FAIL: It is Christian tradition to accept that Jesus was born to a virgin. This is a translation error but it merits being mentioned. The "virgin" in this verse is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah", which means "young woman". A young woman is not necessarily a virgin. "Bethulah" would have been the correct word to use if the author meant virgin. Now on to the prophecy... nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus referred to as Immanuel. Can't the writers even fulfill prophecy that was in earlier chapters of their own book?? So either Jesus wasn't that son, or he has a brother that hasn't come yet whose name is Immanuel, or this one is total nonsense. Either way, the prophecy is left unfulfilled. I can't get over how the bible's editors let this one slip by. JK Rowling would never stand for this.

8. Matthew 2:23

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

FAIL: Nowhere in the Old Testament is such a prophecy found, so how could such a one be fulfilled? Why talk about a divine prophecy that isn't even found in the "inerrant" word of that divinity?

9. Genesis 4:12

"When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth."

FAIL: As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Seems like a pretty light punishment for murder but looks like God can't even hold this "prophecy" true. In a mere four verses later (4:16-17) Cain settles down, marries, has a son, and is the founder of his very own city. This is a pretty sweet deal for a fugitive and a vagabond. I am pretty sure that there is not criminal on the face of the earth who wouldn't accept THAT as punishment for their crime. I can see it now. "Oh yea God, you done me good! I learned my lesson. I wish that I could live in my own filth on the run from the law like all my other vagabond/fugitive friends instead of living with my family and having my own city. This is BS! I truly regret my crimes *wink wink*"

10. 2 Samuel 7:16

"Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.”

FAIL: God says that David's kingdom will last forever. By forever he must have meant 400 years. I mean, what would David know then? He would be dead. So he allowed it to be destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt. So does forever=400 years?

If your answer is no (and grade 1 math reveals that "no" IS the answer) then we can see the inerrant bible revealed for what it is....

.....The writings of men, and completely fallible.

I just want to point out that I am not interested in debating other prophecies at this point. If the bible is divine, it shouldn't be this easy to pick 10 and debunk them almost effortlessly.

If this isn't evidence against the divinity of the terrible book called the bible, I don't know what is.

Peace

Sources-www.truthsaves.com
Www.sab.com
Www.biblegateway.com

Your Move Jesus...

2011-04-15T21:11:00.000-07:00

Walking on water?

I've been walking on sunshine since the summer of '83, your move Jesus...

Pic from here

No More Slut-Shame!

2011-04-01T20:12:00.000-07:00

For sex there has always been a double standard for women. That is, we tend to impose harsh judgement on women who have it.

At all.
In any circumstance.

Even if it is against her will.

Take the case of 14 year old Hena Akhter from Bangladesh.

She was found by a woman whose husband was in the act of raping her.
What did she do?
She took her and beat her for the crime of having relations with her husband.

This is a man who was punished before for harrassing her, but when she was taken and brutally raped by this man with a previous predatorial history his punishment was only a few lashes (the punishment was 201, but they stopped after only a few).

And how did SHE fair in this ordeal as the victim of such a savage act? How did the law, her neighbors and her church protect her?

101 lashes for "adultery" as imposed by the fatwa of the local Imam.

She died from her wounds.

She would have been better off not screaming for help and just simply giving in to his evil impulses. Such is the savagery of her vagina being a matter of public interest.

Why did he get off with only a few lashes and she was whipped to, what would later be, her death?

Because she is a woman, and her sexuality is not open to comprimise. Her vagina is owned by those who would judge her, and her sexuality is not left to her discrecion as to how it is best enacted, or even protected.

She is a thing to be owned and, as property, she is expected to maintain her "purity" as those in power see fit without regard for motivation or circumstance.

We can't write it off as simply "their culture" when people are being subjugated like this.

Think that this just happens in extremist countries?

Think again.

Let's move on now to the recent article in the New York Times by James C. McKinley.

This one tells of an 11 year old girl who was gang raped on video in East Texas by a group of 18 young men.

She is the victim of a brutal, terrifying and life altering attack, and in this mainstream news source (The New York Times) she is portrayed as a young harlot with an uncaring and irresponsible mother, who dresses, and acts in such a way as to "draw"her attackers into this act of violence. This newspaper was more concerned with the fate of the boys than the condition of the victim.

There is no sympathy in the article, or even in the statements of the community members, for this young girl. Only for the attackers, and for the effect it has had on their community.

These are not all upstanding young men. There are among their numbers, thieves, drug dealers, and killers. But yet, the concern still lies in what a terrible thing it is for these boys to "have to live with it for the rest of their lives".

Seriously??

What about HER having to live with it? How about asking how SHE got drawn into such a situation? How about forgetting the effect on your poor community and focusing on the effect that it has had on her family??

The assault didn't even end there. The video of her humiliation was shared amongst students at her local school.

But STILL when asked, THIS is the background information that the writer felt was important.

"Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said."

-Ny Times

So she deserved it?

Perhaps she dressed inappropriately, but our response is to focus on that instead of the horrible crime?

Perhaps she wasn't smart in placing herself in such company, or by being alone in such a place, or even by dressing in a way that garners the wrong attention for an 11 year old.

But to say that makes her somehow responsible for her victimization is absolutely unconscionable.
To even pretend that right after such an attack is the time to give her a lesson on how she COULD have better protected herself from these animals is ridiculous, unfeeling and immoral in the highest degree.
It implies that she should shoulder part of the blame, and that she somehow drew those boys to a crime that they otherwise wouldn't have committed.

I dont' care if she was marching down the middle of the street at midnight wearing nothing but brightly coloured sneakers and nipple tassels, if she gets brutalized it is NOT her fault.

It is the fault of the people who performed the actions.

PERIOD

People are responsible for their own actions.

But because she is a woman, her vagina is public property and places her in the untenable position of being judged for such things.

There is no other crime in the world that asks for the motivation of the victim.

Car stolen? If it was red and sexy, then it is your own fault.

House vandalized? If you yelled at your mailman and the neighborhood boys, then they can't be blamed.

Stabbed and robbed? If you were dressed nicely like you had money, then it is YOU who should be held accountable.

There is no situation where sex had against a womans will is excusable. None.

Ever.

And to point fingers at HER after the act, is inhuman.

Even here in Toronto, (and even more surprisingly, during a Campus safety information session at York University) Toronto Police officer Const. Michael Sanguinetti, gave the advice to women to stop dressing like "sluts" if they didn't want to be victimized. I understand the cautionary, (who doesn't want to know how to fall under the radar of predators) but to include the distasteful label with it implies personal responsibility for the violence and that is unacceptable.

(The constable issued an apology nearly a month later)

ENOUGH of the slut shaming!! Just enough.

Toronto has had enough. Sonya JF Barnett has had enough.

She has courageously taken it upon herself to do something about it. Look it up under the Slutwalk. She is taking to the streets, and leading a crowd behind her. Dress like a "slut"? GOOD she says. Own the term and take it back.

Sexual assault isn't about what you wear, it isn't about how you act, and it isn't about how you tempt. It is about violence and it is NOT a woman's fault when it is inflicted upon her.

Slut shaming (thanks to Ms Barnett for that term) isn't just about sexual assault. It is about judging a womans character based soley upon her private decisions in her own bedroom.

Shame on you Toronto.

Shame on you New York Times.

Shame on you Bangladesh.

And shame on every one of you who feels that it is your place to judge a woman's character based on what she does with her body or how she acts in the privacy of her own bedroom, or who gives even the slightest understanding or forgiveness to the evil men who betray each womans right to consent by forcing the choice on her.

This is the result of an attitude that is far more prevalent that you might think.

How many of you would lose respect for a woman who had been with 20 men?

30?

40?

What about a man?
Would they be held to the same standard?
Why not?

Boys will be boys. We are expected to pursue and allowed to own our own genetalia and the privacy that comes with sexual matters.
Women can do so only under the veil of secrecy for fear of being branded immoral, and labeled a slut who is responsible for whatever befalls her.

Even if it is done against her will.

Shouldn't they have the same freedoms that we do?
The same ability to like sex within or outside a relationship without being judged for it?
And shouldn't they be allowed the same freedom of choice to NOT have sex forced upon her without facing that same judgement?

To be made twice a victim? Once for the violence her attacker inflicted on her, and twice by US for judging her somehow responsible.

It is already a crime that goes unreported. Let's not make it worse.

Give women the same ownership of their sexuality, their genetalia and their consent as we have.

Think about it.

Pic came from here

Atheist Haiku of the Month- April Fool's Edition

2011-04-01T19:43:00.000-07:00

Evidence for God

Is all around us and the

Bible's never wrong

Shout Out to Stupid- Newt Gingrich

2011-04-01T19:38:00.000-07:00

This month’s “Shout Out to Stupid” goes to republican candidate Newt Gingrich, for his latest straw-man/ad hominem, fear mongering attack on the Democratic "Anti religious bias".

Earlier this month, he stood in front of thousands of evangelical Christians to warn them about the loss of the christian identity of America. An identity that he asserts is one of the founding principles of his country (we'll touch on that later).

"I have two grandchildren - Maggie is 11, Robert is 9, 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."

Where does the stupid even start?
Is this really a man that is potentially a presidential candidate?

ugh...

Let's start by saying this;

There is no struggle over the nature of America. A struggle is defined by two sides opposing. Each attempting to impose its own vision of victory over the other.

There is no opposition. Only Christians attempting to redefine America to fit their ideology as a "Christian Nation". America was founded by secular humanists and deists (for the most part) who believed strongly in separating the religious from the political.

And rightly so.

They also stated very clearly that the US was not founded on Christian values or any theistic ideology at all. This is clarified many times by different men amongst the founding fathers. It is simply not a matter in question by any but those who are not well read on the subject.

So it is clear that there is no struggle amongst opposing sides in this "redefinition" of America. Only Christians trying to reshape a secular country to fit their own narrow held beliefs to the exclusion of all others. So in referencing this "struggle", Gingrich is only attempting to incite the emotions of the religious right, and attempting to START such a struggle so that his America can better fit his personal beliefs.

But I digress. His stupid (or most of it) is not found in that statement.

It is found in the slippery slope argument that he passes off as fact.

"...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"

THIS is where his stupid lies (at least the stupid that we are talking about today. I won't mention when he supported impeaching the president for sexual misconduct while engaged in his own extra-marital affairs.)

Mr. Gingrich has engaged in a culinary/literary practice known as creating "word salad". This is where you throw a bunch of words or ideas together that will incite emotion, but have no real connection to each other or logic itself.

Secular.

Atheist.

Islamists.

Loss of American identity.

These words and ideas are emotionally charged and capable of raising the ire of a large portion of the population....

....if they suspend critical thinking (at its most basic) altogether.

The terms just don't relate!

A secular country is not the same as an atheistic country.

An atheistic country can't be dominated by religious extremists.

An Islamic country can't be secular OR atheistic.

And the “loss of identity” can't be had from any of these things.

National identity is a living thing. It changes from generation to generation and is never wrong per-se. We could say that the rise of the religious right has changed what it was to be "American" but, although it is true that America has changed, it is not a valuable thing to say that we should wish our identity to remain stagnant. America was once a secular country. Is the someone trying to change that?

YES.

The religious right.

They have been doing this for years, starting with the Pledge of Allegiance (adding "Under God"), to the country’s motto (from "E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) to "In God We Trust"), to the inclusion of God on US money.

But again, I digress. There is just so much wrong with what he is saying, it is hard NOT to go off on a tangent!
He is clearly trying to incite fear and hatred.
It is just as clear that he doesn't have any clear understanding of the terms that he uses.

His response to being called out on the conflated issues in his speech?

He forgot an "or" in his statement.

REALLY???

How would the inclusion of an "OR" make it any better?

They are not parallel paths. They are all diamtrically opposed paths.
Any path that we are on that might result in a more secular country, will NOT result in an islamic state, nor will it result in the abolishment of all religion to make it an "atheistic" country.

Secular is, by definition, unconcerned with god. Am atheistic country would be one that is, by and large, VERY considered in it's approach to religion. It is hard to be an atheist if you haven't considered religion at all.

Secular could be the rest of an atheistic country of course, but to say that a secular govt could result in an atheistic country is akin to saying that a republican govt will result in a conservative country.

Which considering the swing back and forth between political parties in power, I would say is a stretch to say the least.

How would a secular govt would lead to it's constituents abandoning all religious faith?

How does Islam play a part in this secular country? How does Islam end up as a result of any singular path that might also lead us to secular govts, or the abandoning of religion by its constituents?

How does the abandoning of all religion by its constituents lead to an Islamic extremist state? Further how does any path that might result in its constituents abandoning all religion have an alternate ending that it extremist islam?

The answer?

It doesn't.

It is just throwing buzz words out there. Ones that frightens uneducated voters.

But one that he equates to "enemy" more than all others.

"MUSLIM"

He is trying to intimate that Muslims (and by extension, with his logic, atheists and proponents of a secular govt) are attacking America and trying to ruin the fabric of what makes it great in their eyes.

After 9/11 it is an easy thing to say and elicit the desired response with such a statement. But it is not a true (or even logical) statement to make. There is nothing inherently evil about Muslims. Their book, the Koran, sure it's full of awful things. It's terrible and immoral and filled with hateful and evil things, but then so is another book which Gingrich would place as a very important one to North Americans.

The Bible.

We can't mention ones evils without at least referencing the others and we can't judge the character of the entire group based on it either. Just as we don't do that for Christians.

So how does the abandoning of all religion by its constituents lead to an Islamic extremist state? Further how does any path that might result in its constituents abandoning all religion have an alternate ending that is extremist Islam?

It makes absolutely no sense in any logical context.

The only way that we can make sense of it is to understand that it is a statement borne of ambition. An ambition that is best served by a country in fear.

With him as its knowing saviour.

The only result of his statement is a collective lowering of IQ of anyone who lends his words credence, and to the collective heightening of the level of paranoia and hatred towards the completely unconnected groups that he unjustly vilifies.

Those groups are those who support a secular govt (which includes many religious groups), atheists, and of course Muslims. He is trying to paint them as the destroyers of America, instead of as partners in it's future. In short he is manipulating a country that still quakes from the attacks of 9/11 and using that fear to his own ends to garner cheap political favour.

He is trying to instill not just fear, but fear and hatred.

He is trying to forget that he shares his country with those people, and that by forgetting them, he betrays a large portion of his constituency.

Does he forget that those people make up a large percentage of his voters? Maybe not a loud percentage, but certainly a large one.

Maybe it is HE, who should be careful.

For if America puts on its thinking cap to assess foolish and destructive statements like these ones, his stupidity might be exposed for all to see.

I have gone on too long on this, suffice to say that he is my "shout out" this month for his fear mongering, hatred and irrational comparisons between unrelated groups merely for his own selfish gain.

Well done Newt. Another in a long line of foolish statements and acts.

One has to wonder, how much longer will even the "new" Republicans put up with you?

Quote of the Day -Gene Roddenberry

2011-03-21T09:57:00.000-07:00

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."

– Gene Roddenberry

Truer words were never said Gene...

Atheist Haiku Of the Month- Spring Break Edition

2011-03-21T09:49:00.000-07:00

Sex? Don't feel guilty

If your actions harm no one

It's your choice, not God's

(what do you want from me? March is a slow month!)

The Bible REALLY Says That - Part 1

2011-03-21T09:35:00.000-07:00

Let's set this one up before exposing it, just to give it context. David had killed a man and taken his wife for his own.

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you (David) out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan,

"I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."

-2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB

So the punishment for David killing a man and taking his wife? To have his innocent wives raped, and to kill his innocent child.

How is this a moral story, and how is any book that contains it supposed to be informative of our (or our children's) morality?

It was clearly a book written by iron age sheep herders based on their own skewed "morality".

It's time to recognize this book for what it is.

What is it?

Read up, and YOU decide.

The pic is from "Nothing is Sacred"

Your Move Jesus- Part 1

2011-02-28T20:31:00.000-08:00

"Water into wine? I once turned an entire student loan into beer! Your move Jesus...."

-(anon facebook status)

Quote of the Day-Douglas Adams

2011-02-28T20:18:00.000-08:00

"A man didn’t understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box, manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren’t there?"

-- Douglas Adams, paraphrase of a parable spoofing modern creationism that Adams often told, as retold by Richard Dawkins in "Lament for Douglas" (14 May 2001)

Bizarre Bible Lessons Part 5- How to Answer Criticism

2011-02-28T20:10:00.000-08:00

(Poo on his hands? Don't tell him until after lunch. It's funnier that way)

In this month's Bizarre Bible Lessons we find another little gem that shows us, once again, that all of the answers to life's problems can be found in the bible.

How should we answer criticism? Jesus gives us a great example of how to do it, AND make the people doing it feel stupid at the same time!

Let's see how he does it.

It all starts when the Pharoehs and some of Jerusalem's teachers come across Jesus and his disciples eating with "defiled" (that is unwashed) hands. (Mark 1-20)

Was Jesus a dirty bird?
The Pharisees thought so.
They once (according to the bible) asked him, in no uncertain terms, why he didn't wash his hands before a meal according to the tradition of the elders.

His answer?

"Why didn't I wash my hands? You are all over most good stuff, like killin' sassy kids, judging people based on their sexual habits, and even trying to regulate thought crimes, but you don't help your parents as much as you could when it is inconvenient! So don't bother me with "dirty hands", they aren't gonna hurt me. Sort yourselves out!"

The Pharisees had been put in their place, or at the very least they had been confused into silence by his strange little rant.

After they left and Jesus was alone with his disciples, even THEY wondered why Jesus didn't want to wash his hands.

What was his answer to them?

"OMG, are you guys really this stupid? This is not a hard concept people! We aren't "defiled" by anything that goes into our bodies, we are only defiled by our actions. COME ON!"

His buddies accepted this (of course).

"Now let's move on to new business. We need to help a lady who has been defiled by an impure spirit that has gotten into her body. But we need to be careful, her mother is a complete bitch, so I'm gonna mock her a bit before we help. It'll be fun. Ok? Let's roll!"

(Umm, didn't you just say that nothing could defile us but what came from within ...?)

I don't want to get off track. His point was that our actions are what define us and what will or won't "defile" us. In other words, it's not what we take in, but what we put out.

Hard to argue with the spirit of what he is saying but in all this we forgot that the pharisees were just asking why Jesus wouldn't wash his hands.

He completely avoided the question and went on to say how we should kill sassy kids, advocated the policy of thought crime (envy), equated sexual immorality with murder (still not sure what sex has to do with morality) and defensively pointed fingers at anyone who noticed his dirty hands.

With all of the nonsense that Jesus had given everyone to think about, they forgot all about Jesus' annoying belief that unwashed hands weren't harmful.

WELL DONE!!

And this is where we get to the moral of the story;

If someone notices your faults, baffle them with bullshit and deflect, deflect, deflect! Then move on to something else fun. Like insulting someone in need of help. Everyone likes that...
AND

there is another lesson to be learned from this story ...

Jesus believed that bacteria on unwashed hands wasn't harmful. It doesn't matter if his belief was wrong, or silly, or misinformed, or even a confusing conflict between science and a supposedly omniscient mind (who should already know the harms of not being clean), all that matters is that he stood up for what he believed in. (and made them feel stupid enough that they likely won't question him again for a long time.)

WELL DONE Jesus! You have given us a lot to think about: how to defend our beliefs, insight into the veracity of well known scientific facts, and even more about leadership.

(but could you please just wash your hands?)

Logic 101- The Straw Man

2011-02-27T19:42:00.000-08:00

In this month's edition of "Logic 101" we will deal with the "Straw Man"
fallacy. It is a surprisingly common argument, and is very often based
on ignorance or willful misrepresentation of the original position.

A Straw Man is when a superficially similar (yet not properly
representative) proposition is substituted for the original and then
subsequently refuted. This creates the illusion of having refuted the
position without ever actually having addressed the original posit.
This sort of argument is endemic in political and religious debates as
they are often attempting to "preach to the converted" or to an audience
that is expected to have a pre-existing sense of confirmation bias
toward the subject matter. They are particularly effective to the casual
observer because the Straw Man very closely resembles the original
argument on the surface and any sense of this confirmation bias towards
the Straw Man's position will make it a very convincing argument indeed.

Let me give you an example:

Some anti-evolutionists argue that "Darwinists" (otherwise known to the
scientific community as "Biologists") claim that the evolution of
things, such as the eye, happened by chance. They then refute this with
a simple argument from incredulity by saying that nothing so complex as
a human eye could possibly have evolved through mere chance.
The problem with this is that no scientist has ever claimed that evolution happens
by chance. It happens through a series of random mutations and the
process of natural selection (in very simplified terms).

Another example would be to say that Abortionists "want to kill babies"
and then go on to talk about the immorality of killing the children of
the future. This is not a true representation of the Abortionists'
position. It is deliberately inflammitory for the purpose of a
dishonest smear campaign against those who disagree with Pro-life
proponents.

It is easy to see how "chance" and "random mutation" get conflated or
how a "killing babies" comment could raise the hackles of those who
listen and to see how those who are looking for a reason to dismiss
evolutionary theory and/or pro-choice arguments might rush to quickly
accept these arguments.

But you would be wrong to do so. No one has posited these positions.
So any such argument that refutes that position merely distracts from
the actual facts of the matter. They either willfully or ignorantly
misrepresent positions so as to bolster their own position and gain
additional support from those whom they can convince with such dishonest
tactics.

The only truths that a discovered Straw Man argument will reveal are
both the level of integrity and the level of ignorance of which the
person constructing the Straw Man possesses.

In short, make sure that you have a full understanding of the opposing
position before you attempt to refute it.

To do otherwise is to court failure.
For if you don't understand the subject, you clearly can't summon the
information nor the skeptical perspective that you will require to
refute it.

If you are constructing a Straw Man out of a sense of dishonest
manipulation, then don't do a thing ...

... you will be discovered soon enough.

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Valentines Edition

2011-02-09T18:36:00.000-08:00

Love is not Gods gift

It's a gift between great people

Don't waste it on myths

(I love you Carla)

Rational Response- Governor Bentley

2011-01-19T20:03:00.000-08:00

Separation of church and state.

Let that sentiment sink in for a minute…

Separation of church and state.

What does this term mean to you? It can bring forward some pretty intense feelings on both sides of the argument but, just to be clear, let’s outline what it means.

It means to have a secular government that is concerned with the rights and concerns of all individuals and groups regardless of their creed or culture, while not espousing the beliefs and concerns of only one thereby setting that belief on a higher level of importance.

It means to have a government that does not endorse one religion over another as its official religion or as the core of its value system.

It means to have a government that doesn’t “de facto” exclude a portion of its population by supporting as official doctrine a religion that is contrary to many of the segments of its populous.

NOT separating religion and politics violates freedom OF religion because it inevitably supports one over another and relegates other religions to second class citizen status.
Leaving your religion at home in politics is MOST important because it protects everyone.

It PROTECTS religion and everyone’s right to observe their own beliefs within the confines of the law of the land.

The point is that for a government official to purposefully exclude or single out one (or a few) segments of his constituency as unworthy by his religious standards is not only unethical since it was (at least partially) those same people who got him elected, but it is a violation of the principles that many modern nations were founded upon.

Enter Alabama Governor Robert Bentley

I represent you all equally, even more equally if you love Jesus!

In his inaugural speech he said all the right things and displayed all the traits that got him elected in the first place.

He said very clearly that he wanted to be a leader who represented every single one of his constituents as fully as any other.

"(I am) Governor of all of Alabama; Democrat, Republican and Independent, young and old, black and white, rich and poor."

Sounds great! It has been far too long in political discourse that a politician has come along who wants to forget the partisan divide and represent everyone equally.

So where is the problem?

The problem began only a few hours later when he was reported by the Birmingham News to have said-

“If you're a Christian and you're saved, it makes you and me brother and sister," and "Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters, So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

And now we have entered into the realm of the politically unethical. Gov Bentley has raised some eyebrows with these remarks and rightly so.

Certainly the religious organisations were outraged by his singular display of kinship with only one portion of the population and his dismissal of all others. He tries to maintain the high road by expressing how much he desires those who are not his “brothers” to become so.

How can they do so? He is very clear that the only way that he will accept all others as his “brothers and sisters” is if they betray all of their deeply held beliefs and join his, one true religion.

TERRIBLE!!

How can a politician, in all good conscience, betray a large portion of the people who trust him to represent their interests fairly by telling them, in one breath, that he will treat ALL Alabamans equally and then in the next that he feels a special kinship with only a certain portion?

How can he reject all Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Sikhs, Pagans, and everyone else by telling them that he will only fully accept them if they agree with HIS ideology?

The answer is because he doesn’t care about those groups. He has fallen prey to that failure in moral imagination that allows him to forget how people will be offended by being told that they are not good enough.

Now I will say this;

He may actually be able to fairly represent those that he feels are not his “brothers and sisters” but, after being so summarily dismissed, how can anyone who is NOT of this family ever trust that he even wants to?

Are you SURE that I am welcome here?

A message to the Governor-

Sir, you are the representative of a large body of people whose beliefs are varied and far reaching. You have also taken on the responsibility to be guardian to them ALL equally. Not just to represent their interests equally but to always carry the appearance of recognizing their equality.

You violate these principles by publicly identifying your favourites.

You violate the principles of your office by bringing religion into the public forum, and you display for everyone how little you understand the concept of the separation of church and state.

Freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion.

If you can’t understand how this best protects everyone, atheists and theists alike, or even why it is important to appear to have everyone’s interest at heart equally and to keep your religion to yourself, then I am afraid that you have taken on an office that you don’t deserve.

This should concern everyone, most of all you.

You owe the people of Alabama an apology and you owe your own office and position far more respect than you have shown it thus far in your very early gubernatorial life.

Peace

Edit- He has since apologized for his remarks. Is this a case of too little too late or has he already revealed himself?

Shout Out to Stupid- Bill O'Reilly

2011-01-17T13:21:00.000-08:00

I just don't know what to say. I have taken a week or so to think about this one because of the sheer stupidity that is involved.

To let everyone absorb it.

It was so stupid that even his guest (David Silverman, president of "American Atheists") had to have a double take.

In an argument about whether or not "religion is a scam", O'Reilly took it upon himself to defend his God's existence.
How did he do this?
By way of a wonderful "No Spin Zone" analogy.

"Ill tell you why religion is not a scam, in my opinion, tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication."

Never?

"Tide goes in tide goes out??"

That was Mr Silverman's response to what 'ol Bill said. He gathered himself with a shake of the head and carried on, but it was a comical moment.

But what made me pause, FOR A WEEK, to consider this monumnetal misstep was the statement that immediately followed.

"YOU can't explain that"

Um ... are you serious?

Bill?

Tides are pretty easily explained.

By anyone.

Well, anyone over the age of 10 anyway.

note to Mr O'Reilly- Do NOT go on this show

When Jeff Foxworthy leapfrogs over you in terms of intellectual standing at Fox

....you might be a redneck.

The fact that he kept arguing that point, as though it held water was shocking to me. Even though he has made a career out of being more than a bit of an ass, and saying some crazy things, THIS was over and above anything that I have ever heard in a public forum.

Hey Sarah, you two have so much in common!

Just in case you ever read this Bill, I will try to explain it to you with the expurgated version of "Tides-101".

The moon is a REALLY big thing....

did I just lose you Bill? Ugh, I am afraid that I just can't get into this without thinking that he will come back with "Gravity is just a theory".

On second thought, I will leave it to the intelligent people at Fox News to explain it to you.

Now I am not saying that I even agree with Mr Silverman's argument, nor his approach in saying that religion is a scam. (A scam has to be a concious thing, not just the product of irrational thinking) I actually think that he was being a bit of an ass himself and only trying to ruffle feathers and get some national attention and I think that Bill O'Rielly was right to say that he (Mr Silverman) was insulting people and he wondered what he sought to gain by it.

But O'Reilly's response let him off the hook with the sheer stupidity of its content. He took all the attention off the actual topic of discussion and moved it into the realm of absolute incredulity over the magnitude of idiocy it took to utter that statement.

The clown took the stage and stole the night.

To your credit Bill, you jumped at the chance to defend your beliefs, you displayed a take no prisoners attitude and certainly thought you were helping when you joined the fray against something you found pretty offensive.

And believe it or not, I thought, for once, you had a salient point.

But sadly, in order to defend your beliefs, you had to open your mouth, and now I am pretty sure that even God wishes that you had stayed out of it.

Seriously Bill, can you downplay our relationship a bit?

For those of you who would like to watch the infamous stupidity, here is the link (if you wish to skip the interview and get right to the stupid, go directly to 1:55 in the video)

Peace

Atheist Evolution- Hate Mail

2011-01-04T11:15:00.000-08:00

I thought it would be entertaining to post some hate mail that I have received over the last year, and to look forward to more great examples of theistic love in the year to come.

What surprises me about my hate mail, is just how vitriolic is gets at times. I try to be very respectful, rational and reasonable in my posts and never use profanity or insults in responding to people who write to me in response to articles that I have written. So when I get some of the more hateful letters and realize that they are not responding to my articles at all, but merely attacking me as a person, I get confused (and to be honest, more than a bit entertained).

Let's move on to story time;

(* I have corrected for spelling and grammar for the most part, for the sake of readability)

This one is by a fellow called "Darwinisatwink";

"anyone who says one word of disrespect to God should be put to death. People like you are PWNED by Satan. Which means watch out for that gang of home brothers from the hood. They carry big knives. Justice is often carried out by criminals unknowingly working for Satan."

He is actually saying that he hopes that I will be attacked and killed by gangbangers working for Satan (who is clearly defending God.) Doesn't that mean that God lets Satan do his dirty work and that the gang is by extension, working for God?

Nice!

Here is another one by "solariis888";

"You stupid fuck, how dare you call the bible immoral. You are the immoral sack of shit and your blasphomy will be punished in hell. Simple as that fool."

Well, he's certainly convinced me. Apparently it's as simple as that!

This one was a poster who just wouldn't stop with his hatred. I received more than a dozen from this little gem named "Saynotodarwin";

"You are no better than Charles Manson and are probably worse if the truth be known. You have disrespected the godly. I sentence you to hell. You will die this year, before January 1. God will judge you and put you right in hell. You are a detriments to your grade school, for you are a fifth grader, nothing more.' "

Apparently he is the jury for God almighty! He has sentenced me to death and hell. I had to include this one because it is now January 4rth. His sentence is a bit late in taking effect. Ugh, Jesus is late AGAIN!

There are others still that go on and on with scripture and preaching and then end with;

"I HOPE YOU DIE, AND YOUR FAMILY BURNS!!"

Thank you "DarwinsBSdog" for that one.

Others are just nonsense from the start (Darwinisadink);

"idiots like you will fail. You shall die of AIDSm all nuts are homer sect shules."

Huh?

There are others which are far more common, but to me, the most entertaining (holisticgod);

"If you want to live your life judging things solely by what is REAL, and accepting only facts as truth, then you will miss out on everything that is good in this universe. Then you will burn and die in hell for not loving it in the first place. Hope you are ok with that"

This was one of my favourites. She is actually deriding me for judging things based on them being REAL and TRUE. Hilarious!

I get a LOT of these ones (Repentorburnbaby)

"True men who fight for their country are always the Christians. We saved the world for you, you butt nuts. USA all the way. We are the ones with a great Christian country that saved the world. There are no atheists in the military, you are not a soldier, you are too cowardly for that and I hope that you get captured and tortured by the Taliban. Who will you scream for then? No one will hear you scum!"

Um, didn't he just get finished telling me that I wasn't a soldier?

There are many more, but I just wanted to share a small portion of them, and share the joy and ironic smiles that I had in reading such irrational and nonsensical letters.

Not sure what the point was in writing them, but I am pretty sure that they didn't acheive it.

Message to the haters;

Do you realize that you convince me and those like me, with each hateful word, that I have made the right decision?

Do you realize that you are giving a perfect example of "Christian Love"or how "peaceful" islam is, each time you write?

Please respond to the criticisms specifically or know that you are only adding to the mountain of hateful theists that give credence to the sterotype of "hateful theists" that abounds in our circles.

If you don't care about that, then keep 'em comin', we all need a good laugh.

Peace

Atheist Haiku Of the Month- New Years Edition

2011-01-02T08:26:00.000-08:00

New Resolutions?

Don't rely on gods for help,

Have faith in yourself.

Logic 101-Logical Absolutes

2010-12-27T12:18:00.000-08:00

"Logic 101" is a new series that will attempt to illustrate some of the logical fallacies that many arguments, especially those regarding religion, fall prey to during a debate.

I feel that it is important when having a debate to have a solid grasp of logical principles. While some arguments may seem iuntuitively convincing, we need to understand the fallacies that are leading you from the path of reasonable claims to the field of irrational conclusions.

So many discussions get mired in stagnancy because people unknowingly violate logical principles. Those conversations can, therefore, never bear rational fruit because of that fundemental misunderstanding. Further, I felt it was unfair to deride those claims as irrational unless I made an effort to demonstrate how to avoid those pitfalls beforehand.

Before I get into the discussion myriad of fallacies and how to avoid them, it is important to set the tone by mentioning the oft referenced but rarely understood "logical absolutes".

The first thing that we need to get out of the way is that these rules (especially the third one) applies only to formal logic where definitions in question have been clearly defined.

I can not emphasise this enough.
DEFINITIONS ARE IMPORTANT!
Without clearly defined terms it becomes impossible to make any logical debate work within the cloud of logical uncertainty that misunderstood terminology will create.
Once these definitions are established, then these are the three tenets by which every argument MUST abide or else they will suffer from being self evidently wrong.

ALL claims must adhere to these three rules called the "Logical Absolutes":

1. The Law of Identity - Something is what it is, and is not what it is not. Aside from the equivocation fallacy (which would be covered by clear definitions at the start) this is absolute. Things simply are what they are, and are not what they are not. They have a clear set of properties and a very specific nature. Something can't defy its own nature. That is a logical absolute.

i.e.- A rock is a rock, and not a fish. Pretty easy to accept.

2. The Law of Non Contradiction - Something can't be both true, and not true.

i.e.- A chair can't be entirely made out of wood, and yet made out of entirely NOT wood. Again, this is pretty easy.

3. The Law of Excluded Middle - A statement is either true, or false with no middle ground. It is often cited that paradoxical statements need to be excluded from this rule, but that is false. Statements like "This statement is false" violate logical (LED) principles and are, therefore, NOT valid and logical statements. Any proposition which asserts its own negation is not logically consistent. This kind of statement is called the Liars Paradox. We will exclude these arguments for the informal reader.

Very dry stuff but very necessary for any logical discussion.

So to summarize, every claim must:

Clearly define terms;
Ensure that we don't posit claims which violate the pre-defined nature or assert properties which are contrary to previously asserted properties of that claim;
Don't make contradictory statements; and
Don't ride a middle ground between true and not true. Any statement that is a logical statement is either true or false.

There is our argument box. Clearly (and easily) defined.

Let's try to stay within it.

Next in Logic 101: The Strawman!

Rational Response- "Freedom From Religion"

2010-12-25T22:04:00.000-08:00

In my last article I wrote that referred to a public freedom from religion, in order to enable a true freedom OF religion with respect to the term "Merry Christmas".

I received a lot of critical and sometimes hateful comments about how I was trying to deny people their beliefs, and how it was intolerant to take people's religion away from them or how it was the "PC movement taken too far".

This is a clear misunderstanding of the term "Freedom From Religion"

So this month's "Rational Response" will deal with this term, what it means for everyone, and how it is the only way to allow the most freedom for everyone to practice their own religion without interference.

In its most simple terms, no one has a true freedom OF religion if they are required to adhere to the dictates, terms, and/or practices of another religion or even if they are required to "respect" them.

In removing all religious influences from official public discourse we allow people to practice their religious beliefs unfettered (except sometimes where those practices break pre-existing laws) and to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not.

Let me give you a couple of examples:

Let's say that you want prayer in schools. If the government allows this for one religion, then it must allow it for all religions.

You might be OK with the Jewish child (I will forget, for the moment, about the immorality of labelling a child with the religion of its parents) praying beside your child. That is most likely because it is the same God, very similar beliefs and a related religion to your own, but what happens when the child is from satanic parents?

Are you still OK with that child praying out loud beside your own?

Likely not, because it violates the precepts of your own beliefs.

What about handing out religious pamphlets to children at Hallowe'en?

It's ok, as long as they are from religions that agree or are congruous with your own, but what happens when a Wiccan starts handing out pamphlets detailing moon rituals?

Still OK?

Likely not, because that goes against your Christian morality.

How about the Muslim who wants to bless the town hall meeting for everyone with a prayer facing Mecca?

Still OK?

Likely not, because you would feel your religious freedom was infringed upon by being made to pray in a manner that is diametrically opposed to your beliefs.

What about public funding of Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Druidic, and Satanic school boards?

That OK?

Most people would say no because some of those religions stand in direct opposition to their own.

What if a law was passed allowing nudity in public on solstice days?

Starting to see the big picture?

This is the issue. The only way to truly have freedom OF religion is to have a public freedom FROM religion.

Remove it from public policy altogether and make it a private issue.

It is only this separation of church and state that can allow the unopposed practice of an individual's religion without encountering the influence of other opposing religions. In order to be free to act as our concience urges us to, we must be free of laws sanctioning and condoning the adherence to ANY religious dogma.

We like to file this thinking under "Political Correctness" but that is because the majority likes to think that it has the monopoly on the "one true religion" and respecting other religions is merely a matter of an uneasy tolerance of their existence as long as it doesn't interfere with their own.

People of one religion voluntarily accept the doctrines or standards of their own religion and they don’t expect to experience conflicts with government edicts or endorsement.

This is a failure of moral imagination:

These people are unable to imagine themselves in the shoes of those in religious minorities who DON'T voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through governmental endorsement of religious concepts.

The fact of the matter is that even the majority can't be free to practice as they choose as long as religion is a matter of public concern. It will always run into conflict with the beliefs of others through the problem of government sponsorship.

If you want to have full freedom to practice your religion, then keep it at home.

Others will do the same, and then the chances of having your religious "rights" infringed upon by another religion are minimized.

No one is pushing for a total removal of religion within the confines of "Freedom From Religion", only for a removal of it in public discourse, lawmaking, and governmental policy.

No one is calling for churches to be torn down, nor for well wishes (like "Merry Christmas") to be eliminated, or even for bumper stickers to be outlawed, just a public separation from the official endorsement of, and adherence to religious dictates.

This way everyone can believe whatever foolishness they want, and not have to complain about how someone else's foolishness got in the way of your own.

Religion is like genitalia:

It's OK to have it,
Its even OK to be proud of it,
Just keep it to yourself, and out of the faces of our children.

No one says you can't HAVE genitals, just that you can't expect public approval when you pop it out and ask others to "respect" it.

You have to remember, that other people may not share your views on genitals and they wouldn't appreciate any law that would allow you to let it hang wherever you please!

Make sense?

It's the same with religion.

Separation is the only way to stand for the rights of everyone and to get the freedom that we all want, and that we all deserve.

I will leave you with this thought about standing up for EVERYONE'S religious rights.

They came first for the communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me (a Christian pastor)
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

- Martin Niemoller

*Picture is of Bono and it is called "Coexist"

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays??

2010-12-13T14:26:00.000-08:00

It is once again the time of year for those who are used to feeling entitled and accommodated in their religious beliefs to come out in vitriolic response to the "Happy Holiday" sentiment.

They cry;

"It's Merry CHRISTMAS, not Happy Holidays" and that calling it anything different is simply going too far with the PC movement.";

"That X-Mas is forgetting that Christ is the reason for the season.";

"Its tradition that we call it Christmas";

And what I will mostly talk about in this post;

that "Office Christmas parties are going against tradition to be called anything but "Christmas Parties"." (Like Holiday Parties, or Festive Functions)

My response to this might be unexpected to some.

I am about to speak out in defense of the Muslims, the Jews, the Pagans, the Scientologists (ugh) and the atheists all in the same breath.

It is NOT the Office Christmas Party, unless you are working at a Christian institution.

It just ISN'T.

To say that it is, is to disrespect every person of alternate faith that works there. It is to force them to once again accommodate the Christian majority as the only religion with merit in the company's eyes.

At my wife's work there are even people who refuse to attend this "Festive Function" because it is not being called "Christmas".

Good!

Those are not the sort of people you want at an office function anyway.

They are the bigots who are used to having their beliefs accomodated in public forum and are not amenable to now having to accomodate the feelings and beliefs of others in return. They are those with the sense of entitlement that brings difficulty to any issue. They have had their beliefs pandered to for too long, and it is time that we respect each person from each religion with the same level of effort.

Imagine your work was holding an election night "liberal party" function to which everyone was invited and then having them say it was simply being too PC to call it anything else just to accomodate the conservatives and non political people in the company (unless you are working for a soley liberal institution of course). Each conservative would feel less like he belonged to that company because the official political view was liberal.

Or if to celebrate Fathers Day your workplace held a "Bring your Children to Work Day" and called it "Birth Fathers Day".

Imagine how out of place all of the adoptive fathers would feel. They would feel like their perspective just wasn't as valued at the company and by his peers.

It is the same thing.

Freedom OF religion also means Freedom FROM religion.
And in any society it must be so.

We can't give deference to one religion by excluding all others and then make them the outsiders in doing so, while at once complaining about the PC movement for its disingenuous safety from offense. In asking that your religion be respected to the exclusion of all others, you fall prey to the same problem. You ask that YOUR offense be guarded against at all cost. This is the very definition of disingenuous "respect" for religion and belief.

Why would we do this to our co-workers, our friends, and our relatives?

There is no reason for it. And asking for your religion to be given special exception is simply asking your company or government to place your beliefs on a higher scale than those of other employees or constituents.

There is no "PC" here at all.

Just respect during a respectful time of year (and yes I know....ALL times of year should be equally respectful, but you get the point). To give deference to one, gives a lower place in the institution for all others, so by not deferring to any of them, we give them all equal placement.

If you wish me "Merry Christmas", I will say

"Thanks! And you too",

the same as I would for a "Happy Hannukah" or a "Happy Eide", or even a " Joyful Solstice". But for the company for whom I work for to hold a function in the name of one of these occasions over the others is not only a complete lack of effort to represent all those who represent them on a daily basis but it is an active effort to have their beliefs raised above those of their peers thereby exluding all those who don't believe as they do.

It is the difference between observing our individual beliefs, and of the institution inserting one belief system over another as the accepted one to the exclusion of all others.

It just isn't representative of everyone in that company, or constituency.

This is a special time of year for all of us, for one reason or another.

For me it is about celebrating and visiting my family and friends, for others it is about their religion, for still others it is about the bounty of nature.

And although I may disagree with their ideologies, I DO agree that they have a right to celebrate it and not be made to feel as an outsider in their own workplace.

So lets accept the "Happy Holiday" terminology without complaint in the workplace and in government.

No one is stopping you from celebrating Christmas, or even wishing us a merry one.

Just don't force others to celebrate your holiday in their own office space, and they won't force you in return.

This time of year contains a lot of celebrations from a lot of different backgrounds. Let's try to remember that.

Freedom from religion.

It allows us all to live as we see fit without others forcing their views on us.

Fair enough?

I am also going to take this time to tell my wife, that I respect her for the flack that she took for standing up for the religious rights of the people at her company who would be excluded by this. The people who argued with her had no idea that her aruments protect their religious beliefs too.

They should be thankful for someone like you, who will even stand up for the rights of those whom she doesn't agree.

Well done baby!

To everyone else?

Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Eide but most of all I wish you...

Peace

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Holiday Edition

2010-12-02T18:15:00.000-08:00

Its "War on Christmas"?
No, its war on foolishness
celebrate reason

ps- have a great holiday season everyone (no matter your faith or creed!)

Top 5 Wierdest Things in the Bible

2010-11-22T19:32:00.000-08:00

There are many bizarre and nonsensical stories in the bible, but these ones take the cake! For a book loved and read by so many, it remains as crazy as Mel Gibson on a Sunday afternoon.

In the interest of fairness Atheist Evolution contacted God for an interview to give HIS take on each of these seemingly nonsensical passages in order that he might shed some light on them.

Lets take a look at the craziest stories that theists love to forget;

Number 5- Onan's fatal twist of conscience (Genesis 38:7-10)

Crazy Level- 1 Mel Gibson.

God kills Onan's brother, then his father commands him to have sex with his brother's widow so that the brother can have an heir (?!?), and while in the act, Onan feels guilt and pulls out before he "finishes" spilling his seed on the ground. Onan has no issue having sex with his recently murdered brother's wife (nor with the logic that says the act will actually produce his brother's heir) but only that he might impregnate her and then be a "baby daddy". God doesn't seem to have issue with murdering people, nor with adultery or incest, but SPILLING SEED?? That is too much, so God gets all killy on him too.

Not only does God not seem to understand how "lineage" works, (and that Onan's priorities seem a bit ... off) but you would think that if God were writing his own biography that he might leave out the parts that make him look bad.

God's official interview response;

"I don't mind putting down some killin' on wicked people, and I certainly don't mind not killing incestuous siblings getting some sweet sweet widow, but for Onan to ruin the money shot like that? Unforgivable!!! We can all agree that he had to die right?"

Is he on drugs?

Number 4- Ehud and his fatty felony (Judges 3:12-30)

Crazy level- 2 Mel Gibson's

The Israelites call out to God for him to free them from the tyranny of their King of 18 years, and he sent them Ehud, apparently a master ninja (Jewjitsu?). What was his ninja skill? Being left handed. He would sneak his assassin sword in the palace because apparently no one would think to look on his RIGHT thigh, because that was pretty rare for a person to be left handed. The problem? His left thigh is, like, 8 inches away from his right. HOW CAN THEY MISS THAT?

But I digress....

He is sent to kill the king, so kill him he does. When he thrusts his well hidden (right thigh? Really?!?) sword into the fat king's belly, the story makes more about all the gravy that spills out and how deep the sword went into his belly. (it disappears completely) Apparently the deeper it goes, the more evil the victim.
The REALLY strange part? His attendants don't check on him because they think that he is relieving himself. They think he is relieving himself with his guest in the room with him???

They don't notice his blade because it is on his right side, and then think that their king is having a poo while his guest is giving him a gift?

They are not very clever assistants are they?

God's Interview response;

"Wow, he really was a fatty wasn't he? I had a great time setting this one up. I mean, clearly they had the forces to take the city without killing their king (as they did it shortly thereafter anyway) but I had made a bet with Jesus about whether the fat would just close up over the sword or not. Clearly I won. Omniscience, hello!"

Just a strange inclusion that goes on long enough about how fat the king was that it gets awkward.

Number 3- Elisha and Gods Righteous Wrath! (2 Kings 23-25)

Crazy Level- 3 Mel Gibson's

Elisha was an ancient superhero and generally was pretty full of awesome. He was also bald, and from this passage we get that he was pretty sensitive about it. In his travels we find this intrepid hero victim to a group of rowdy children's insults. They call to him "Baldy!" and "Go on up, Baldy!" and "Go up that hill Baldy!"...you get the idea. Mostly they called him Baldy with some other words thrown in for nonsensical measure.
They weren't very clever, but it DID get under his skin. He called to God to smite them.

Smiting? Really? Smiting children for being, well, children??

But God didn't really do it right? NO, HE TOTALLY DID!

He sent 2 she bears to kill all 42 children. Mauled them to death.

And then Elisha carried on his mighty way.

What could possibly be the message here?!?

God's Interview Response;

"Yea, it might SEEM like a disproportionate response, but remember it was a different time. A time when people were used to getting mauled by bears for the most innocent of slights. It was also a culture that really didn't appreciate being called "baldy". That was the worst insult of the time, and since words are power, I knew that only MY magic could counteract the powerful words that those children had thrown at my prophet. I mean how is he supposed to continue being so badass if he is always worried about how people see his bald head? This guy killed GIANTS for me's sake! Clearly I needed him. Those kids got in the way. Mans got to protect his homies!"

Silly yet bloodthirsty, Christians love to defend and explain away such bizarre oversensitivity and brutal response.

Number 2-Noah's Perverted Son (Genesis 9:20-27)

Crazy Level- 4 Mel Gibson's

Having been out all day long working, Noah decided that drinking was the best way to end a hard day. (I have to agree!) He passed out as very drinky people are wont to do. Noah was obviously a strange little dude as his drunken binge was of the naked variety and when he passed out, he passed out in clear view of anyone who would enter his tent.

Completely uncovered.

This sound like penthouse forum yet? Well here's where we change track....
He was discovered by his son.

Did his son cover up dear ol dad to save him embarrassment? Nope, he went to tell his brothers so that they could see their wacky daddy in all his glory.

Not TOO strange yet, but Noah's reaction suggests that he did something else too. What did he do? Did he just stare? Did he enjoy his "company"? Did he rub cheese on his genitals? Who knows, but it was serious enough that he sentenced his brother's son to slavery!

That's it.

The whole story.

God's interview response;

"I promised Noah that I would never tell. What happens in a man's vineyard tent stays in a man's vineyard tent."

I can't even THINK of anything that this could be trying to teach. It is just pure 200 proof nonsensihol.

How can the Bible top all this crazy? There is one more, read on.....

Number 1- Wives Forbidden from Brushing against the genitals of ... Her Husbands Attacker! (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Crazy Level- 5 whole Mel Gibson's!

If a man fights with his countryman, and his wife comes to pull her husband out of the fray to save him from getting pummeled, but she accidentally grabs his junk, the punishment mandated by God is that he show no mercy......TO HER!!! He is to cut her hand off.

Seriously!

The price that she pays for defending her husband is having the hand that does it CUT OFF!!!

There is no rhyme or reason for this passage, it is just mere quakery!

Seriously this is nuttier than squirrel poo, and there seems to be no connection to anything else. Just a random toked up passage from genital hating ancients (or woman hating, depending on how you see it)

God's Interview response;

"Oh, seriously? Are you bringing THIS one up? Ugh, I wrote that one very early on and was just answering the prayer of a man who was embarrassed by his wife grabbing his neighbours(very small) package during a perfectly reasonable fist fight. I never thought it would come up again. She was left handed anyway, what's the big deal? Ah, who are we kidding? I am just trying to keep the apologists guessing. It's fun to see how they try to make THIS one make sense!"

I have no answer to this one. It is just too weird!

Bible? Come on now! Can't you just PRETEND to make some sense, at least SOME of the time??

Questions Asked- "Are Atheists the Arrogant Ones??"

2010-11-15T21:10:00.000-08:00

Here is a question to all the Abrahamic religions today-

Just for a better concept of scale let me set the stage for it....

The universe is 14 billion years old.
There are 400 billion stars in this galaxy alone and over 100 billion other galaxies containing an equal amount.

That is a pretty big place!

How small are we? How self important are the Abrahamic religions to think that we are the most important things in it?

How ridiculous is it for theists to continue to call we skeptics closed minded and arrogant for asking for evidence?

Well......

Only 22% is not covered by water on our planet and of that only 15% is actually habitable. So the entire universe is created for one species of creature among billions living on only 15% of one small planet in one small solar system in one small galaxy? Egocentric?

You claim that all that time and all that space with all those hundreds of thousands of billions of stars was created for one mammalian species among millions on one small planet in one small solar system (just because you belong to that species) yet I'M the arrogant one for thinking the universe might be grander than that?

You claim to know the will and personality (let alone the name) of the being that created all that time and space yet I'M the arrogant one for asking for evidence?

You claim to be made in this perfect beings image yet I'M the arrogant one. You claim to be able to telepathically communicate with this being yet I'M the arrogant one for wondering?

You claim that you were born into the one religion or belief among millions of religions and that yours just happens to be the right one, and I'M the arrogant one?

You claim that the creator of the entire universe alters reality, controls minds, and pushes events to change merely because you think to yourself that it would be nice, and promise to love him (prayer) and I'M the arrogant one?

While you are thinking about that....

Here is my last thought.

According to all the Abrahamic religions God created a universe of billions of billions of stars with many planets each, and that he is actually concerned about the sexual habits of one specific mammalian species on only 15% of one specific planet in one specific solar system in one specific galaxy and sometimes about the cloth (Hijab, yammukah, or headscarf) that they wear on their craniums?

Really??

Pretty self important claims, yet I am the arrogant one?

I think that you might have some thinking to do.

Better get to it!

Targeting Children Makes you a Predator!......You listening Ray?

2010-11-08T10:09:00.000-08:00

Don't these kids look like lying cheating little buggers?

A few days ago I heard a knock at my door, when I answered it I was met by a friend of mine with a glean of anger in his eye, and a story to tell.

I had no idea what I was in for.

He handed me 3 small business card like items and asked me to read them.
They were, at first glance, an example of the clever IQ tests that we have all seen at one time or another. (Read the number of "f"s in the sentence, followed by the scientific explanation as to why most people can't correctly count them. IE- here) They can be fun to read, but these were different. Not only did they NOT contain the explanation as to why you got the answer wrong (removing the interesting part of these exercises completely), but what they DID contain was a message of preaching and hell.

They spoke of how we are all liars, cheats, and adulterers, and how if we got the justice that was coming to us that we would all be rightfully going to hell.

I rolled my eyes and said "Ugh, I have seen this sort of thing before"

He replied "Keep reading"

These ones were particularly insidious. They really pushed the idea of how we are all bad people, undeserving of love or "salvation", and how what we REALLY deserved was hell and torture for eternity.

How we are all liars if we have ever told even ONE lie, or cheaters if we have EVER cheated at anything, or adulterers if we have even THOUGHT about another woman with lust in our eyes.
They really couldn't say it too much that all we really deserved was to burn in torturous pain for eternity, and that although we didn't deserve it, Jesus would save us if we loved him enough.

It was an attempt to devalue good and decent people so that their perceived need for a "savior" would be increased.

Completely immoral, but nothing new.

It was the next statement that hit me in my heart.

"Guess where I found these?"

I had no idea

"My daughters Halloween bag"

I was instantly angry. For someone to target children with this terrible message was unthinkable to me.

He continued to tell me about how she brought these mini pamphlets to him with fear in her eyes and a question on her lips.

"Am I a bad person Daddy? Am I going to hell?"

This is a question that no child should be faced with, because it is a question of fear and self loathing. (and a question that puts a lump in the throat of any daddy that would hear their child ask)

This is a concept that no child should be faced with, because it is a concept meant to terrorize people into blindly being "good".

Halloween is supposed to be about fun, costumes and candy, so it was beyond me to even consider that anyone would use it as a sneaky opportunity to target OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN for their self loathing message of terror.

If you target children in order to terrorize them for ANY purpose, then you are a predator.

That is right. You are a child predator. Someone who preys on children with a message of fear, and threats of torture if they refuse to believe as you do.

There are not many things that are lower than that.

It makes me sad to think of my friends daughter scared on Halloween night for all the wrong reasons.
I just don't understand how anyone can feel it is OK to tell a child how terrible a person he or she is and feel good about doing it. It escapes me how anyone could think of a child who is too young to babysit and then think that it is OK to threaten them with hellfire and torture.

I will say it again, people who use other peoples children to perpetuate their beliefs are predators. It is made even worse if their goal is to make them feel like bad people at tender childhood ages. As adults we are supposed to enable their sense of self worth, and to assist them in formulating the tools to be able to think for themselves. It goes completely against everything that makes US good people to target children with messages of hate.

SHAME on whomever put this in that little girls bag, and in every bag they had held up in trust for candy that night. SHAME on those people for taking advantage of a fun night to twist it to your own purposes.
SHAME on everyone who feels that it is up to them to teach other peoples kids their own version of reality and a DOUBLE dose of shame for those who feel that it is their right to tell ANY children how bad they are to the core.

Understand that if you are one of these people, then you have some serious introspection to do about how you attempt to get your "message" out.
Understand that if you are one of these people who prey on trusting children to tell them how horrible they are then I have something to tell you again;

You are a predator.

But wait, there's lots of blame to go around....

There was a web address at the bottom of the card

http://www.livingwaters.com/

AH! Now it makes sense!

"The Banana man" Ray Comfort is the man behind it all.

I DO NOT want to deflect any blame from the people who actually pervert the Halloween night of fun (or any day for that matter) in order to preach this message of hell-terror and self loathing to children, but it is important to note that there are other people involved.

Ray Comfort and his ministry are the ones who recruit and condone these actions, and who actually provide these awful cards to pass out to people. He also provides an example as to WHO should be targeted.

His is a ministry which sets up booths at county fairs where children are asked to take a test to see whether or not they are going to hell. The answer is always "yes".
His is a ministry that targets the sick and elderly to tell them that their time is growing short to avoid going to hell.

How immoral is that?!?

He makes a practice of targeting the weak, the ignorant, and the vulnerable.

Ray, here is my message to you;

Until now I have seen you as a bit of a sideshow.

I have seen you as an ignorant preacher talking about science that you have no idea what you are talking about, as a ridiculous debater (I know that was Kirk Cameron. He is Ray's sidekick, and Ray was complicit in the design of that graphic and in making that ridiculous point) but up until now I have never seen you as a harmful influence.

Really Ray???

Now I see you for who you are.

A predator.

Not only do you target children with your hurtful and disabling message, but you target the terminally ill and the elderly with your message of fear and terror.

You are a machiavellian predator who feels that the ends justifies the means when it comes to spreading your version of reality.

You have every right to yell to the sky all the outrageous and ridiculous things that you want, but to be sneaky and to target other peoples children for the purpose of ideological subterfuge is immoral and when you consider the emotionally disabling nature of those messages it becomes hateful as well.

Come on now Ray.......

Making little girls cry?

Targeting the elderly and sometimes dying people to threaten them with hell so that they will "get their affairs in order"?

I am sorry to be the one to tell you.....

You are a predator, and should be watched very carefully.

If you disagree, then lets see your next blog be about NOT targeting children with messages that they can't possibly understand. I challenge you to write about how we should teach our children to possess all the intellectual tools that they need to succeed, and leave the ideologies until they are old enough to understand them.

Lets hear you say publicly how you won't target the vulnerable, the elderly, the sick, and the young with your self deprecating messages any longer.

Ray, step up, lets see you promise to keep the discussion (and threats) where it belongs, and not target people who are too young to know better, or too infirmed to be ethically involved by you.

Because if you don't, or if you can't, then we will all be able to see you for what you are........

Do I need to say it again?

Lead pic taken from here (oh the irony)

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Remembrance Day Edition.

2010-11-01T15:56:00.000-07:00

Atheist or not
Soldiers fight for our future
Remember them all

Dedicated to my friend "Boots" and his family.
We miss you.

Shout out to Stupid-Clint McCance

2010-10-28T22:20:00.000-07:00

This month’s "Shout Out" goes out to Arkansas School Board member Clint McCance and his public Facebook rant about homosexuals on Spirit day.

For those of you who don't know about Spirit Day, it was a day set aside for support of homosexuals who are victim to the bullying that leads to depression and suicide. The support came in the form of wearing purple for the day, leading some of us to call it "Purple Day".

Here is his original post on his Facebook status;

"Seriously, they want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We aer {sic} honoring the fact that they sinned and killed themselves because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE."

This was his response to people showing empathy for the victims of hatred.

This was his response to the plights of people who had fallen to the depths of despair because of the hatred they face each day that they end their lives..

This was his response to seeing people wear purple.

My mother used to say to me "When someone shows you who they are. Believe them"

Don’t make excuses, don’t apologize, don’t let their “I’m sorry’s” make you forget who they really are.

He couldn't just stay silent in his hatred of people who are different; he felt it necessary to show us all who he was.

This is a person who represents the interests of our children (some of whom may belong to the group about whom he expresses such vile intent). A public official who feels that an entire segment of our population should kill themselves because they don't deny who they are so that they can conform to his beliefs can't possibly feel that he is sentinel to the interests of all his constituents.

He just can't.

Not only does he proclaim to all who will listen (his settings are private, but like many of us his "friends" list is larger than just a cozy few) that he would actually celebrate if all the "queers" would kill themselves,

"The only way im wearin it (purple) for them is if they ALL commit suicide"

but he actually BLAMES them for their own plight and pain.

"They sinned and killed themselves because of their sin"

Remember, this is the attitude of a public and elected official. Instead of sounding like the intelligent elected official he comes off sounding like every time he speaks there should be the banjo from the movie “Deliverance” playing in the background.

Certainly not the empathic and understanding feelings of anyone I want having any effect on my child’s education or emotional development.

Think that he can't get any more stupid?

Any more hateful?

Any more ridiculous?

I hope not, because you would think wrong.

"I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off"

So much for unconditional love!

His hatred knows no bounds and his concern about how people have sex and who they have sex with is more important to him than even his children are!

His love for his children has limits, and they come in the form of who they want to love. The very thing that most parents wish for their children is what he puts limits on. I wish that my son would grow up to find the love of his life, and be happy basking in a healthy relationship.

That is my fondest wish.

If it happens to be a man, then I am ok with that.

Let me rephrase, I don’t have a right to be “Ok” with it or not, just to be happy for him.

But THIS man doesn’t care about that. He will throw his concern for his own children out the window the very moment that he hears that they love someone of whom he doesn’t approve.

If he will throw his OWN children away so easily, how easily will he dump on the rights of children that he DIDN’T bear?

I know that I want the people whom I trust with my son's future to have HIS interests and rights in mind, and not with conditions that ride on THEIR beliefs but on the statutes of law and the wishes of the parents.

This man has shouted out his stupidity to all of us, and told us everything we need to know about him….

…now it’s our job to believe him.

Atheist Evolution

Quote of the Week- Chael Sonnen

Atheist Haiku of the Month- New Years Edition

Remembering Scooby Doo

Quote of the Week- H.L. Menken

Atheist Haiku of the Month-Christmas Edition

Top 5 Science FAILS in the Koran

My Wife the Activist....(on the Evils of Operation Christmas Child)

Rational Response- Why are There Still Monkeys?

The Bible REALLY Says That? -Part 2

Quote of the Week-Georges Carlin

Logic 101- Formal Fallacies

Apologies

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Remembrance Day Edition

Atheist Haiku of the Month- New School Year Edition

Quote of the Week

Beyond Belief News -Toronto Police Enforce Sharia Law (or -"Shame on you Toronto PD!")

The Stupid, it Burns in Canada too!

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Science Edition

Top 5 WWJD Answers

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Canada Day/Independance Day 241 Edition

Shout out to Stupid- David Tyree

Beyond Belief News- Tennessee Law Prohibits Offensive Pictures.

Free Will isn't Free...

Your Move Jesus...

Rational Response- Vicarious Redemption

Stand Up Islam- Part Deux!

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Vicarious Redemption

God is Immoral- Part 1

Women are to be Seen and Not Heard.

Ironic Creationist Quotes

Wasilla High School Principal Bans Rock Legend's Song at Grad

Atheist Haiku of the Month-

Top 10 Biblical Prophecy FAILS.

Your Move Jesus...

No More Slut-Shame!

Atheist Haiku of the Month- April Fool's Edition

Shout Out to Stupid- Newt Gingrich

Quote of the Day -Gene Roddenberry

Atheist Haiku Of the Month- Spring Break Edition

The Bible REALLY Says That - Part 1

Your Move Jesus- Part 1

Quote of the Day-Douglas Adams

Bizarre Bible Lessons Part 5- How to Answer Criticism

Logic 101- The Straw Man

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Valentines Edition

Rational Response- Governor Bentley

Shout Out to Stupid- Bill O'Reilly

Atheist Evolution- Hate Mail

Atheist Haiku Of the Month- New Years Edition

Logic 101-Logical Absolutes

Rational Response- "Freedom From Religion"

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays??

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Holiday Edition

Top 5 Wierdest Things in the Bible

Questions Asked- "Are Atheists the Arrogant Ones??"

Targeting Children Makes you a Predator!......You listening Ray?

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Remembrance Day Edition.

Shout out to Stupid-Clint McCance