I have a few questions for you religious folks...
Believing in your deity is the most important thing in the world, right? A belief in the correct god will gain you entrance into the kingdom of heaven, right? At the same time, god will take care of those who never had the opportunity to know him, right?
Then why in the world would you risk your own offspring rejecting god by allowing him or her to learn there is a large contingent of people who believe he created the universe and that the salvation of everyone depends on such belief?
Why not lock them in a religion-proof room? Or, you could start a religious-free cult where deity related questions are asked as infrequently as Glenn Beck tearlessly talks through the totality of his television show.
I say keep your children ignorant.
As an atheist, I would encourage my child to make his or her own decision after absorbing as much information as they possibly could, but, then again, I am of the belief that the same fate will befall them regardless.
You, on the other hand, believe their decision is the difference between perfection and horror.
Whatever you do; don't risk horror!
Block all television programs that reference religion, including, but not limited to, Seventh Heaven, Amen, and the Brady Bunch episode in which Carol's laryngitis miraculously heals in time for her to sing at the church Christmas service. Home school them. Most importantly, don't ever allow them to fraternize with similarly-aged children who've ever heard of religion! In your household, Deuteronomy should be a four-letter word!
You know what, forget all of the above and instead completely forgo teaching your child how to read or write. If he or she can only communicate through a series of primordial grunts, there is no way your god can expect comprehension of his existence.
Whew, that was a close one. You almost bore a child that had a few good years on earth and then spent gazillions of eons in complete and total misery.
Of course I'm using absurdity to illustrate how ludicrous it is to suggest that someone born into a world in which your religion is never mentioned is somehow saved, while your moral offspring, taken to church early and often, yet thoughtfully decides he or she is not a believer, will eternally be separated from god.
In the Year 4000...
Remember when Cabbage Patch Kids were extraordinarily popular? Every child in America had to have their own vinyl-headed tyke. Of course that was before children loved tickling Elmo so much that some mommies and daddies literally punched other mommies and daddies in the face in order to obtain the furry pals.
Currently I see no "Out of Stock" message for either doll on Amazon.com.
For the past several decades, the majority of Americans have been of the Christian faith. It would take some kind of marketing genius to turn the tide.
We know grandiose transformations don't happen overnight, but with the right approach this country can be 80% Mormon in 2000 short years!
They've got the financing, they've got Glenn Beck, and they've got an entire state in their corner. No other religion has an entire state! The Amish have pieces of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana but it's difficult to match the marketing power of the Mormon Church when you can't use phones.
The Mormon Church actually gained about 3,000,000 members during the previous decade. That means, in the year 4000, if my math is accurate, there will be twice as many American Mormons as there are Americans!
I may be overestimating just a tad, but are you aware of how many kids these people have!? I'm not disparaging Mormons or childbearing, I'm just pointing out that many Mormon couples could field a football team with their offspring.
Is Mormonism growing because people are reading details about the religion and independently coming to the conclusion that the words they're taking in are undeniably factual? Or are people being persuaded by a vast marketing machine?
It's quite amazing to think that less than 200 years ago a man decided to start a religion that could very possibly take over America.
It seems to me that faith, an inherent knowledge your un-provable beliefs are accurate, has a lot to do with whichever church has the most gifted Don Draper type deciding which and how many commercials they'll run on Fox News.
Again, I'm not picking on Mormons. Actually, since they've proven success can happen rather quickly, a religion still in research and development could conceivably rule the U.S.A.
Some guy in Sarasota could right this second be falling into a deep sleep during which he'll dream a deity appears to him and then reveals the truth. If the sleepy Sarasotan hires the right PR firm, many of your ancestors could one day worship that deity.
If people would simply follow logic, instead of being sucked in by clever marketing gurus, the world would be full of atheists, agnostics and deists. With us as the majority, laws would finally make sense because most people in these groups only judge based on right and wrong. Therefore no one would be looked down upon for actions that harm nary a fly.
Currently I see no "Out of Stock" message for either doll on Amazon.com.
For the past several decades, the majority of Americans have been of the Christian faith. It would take some kind of marketing genius to turn the tide.
We know grandiose transformations don't happen overnight, but with the right approach this country can be 80% Mormon in 2000 short years!
They've got the financing, they've got Glenn Beck, and they've got an entire state in their corner. No other religion has an entire state! The Amish have pieces of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana but it's difficult to match the marketing power of the Mormon Church when you can't use phones.
The Mormon Church actually gained about 3,000,000 members during the previous decade. That means, in the year 4000, if my math is accurate, there will be twice as many American Mormons as there are Americans!
I may be overestimating just a tad, but are you aware of how many kids these people have!? I'm not disparaging Mormons or childbearing, I'm just pointing out that many Mormon couples could field a football team with their offspring.
Is Mormonism growing because people are reading details about the religion and independently coming to the conclusion that the words they're taking in are undeniably factual? Or are people being persuaded by a vast marketing machine?
It's quite amazing to think that less than 200 years ago a man decided to start a religion that could very possibly take over America.
It seems to me that faith, an inherent knowledge your un-provable beliefs are accurate, has a lot to do with whichever church has the most gifted Don Draper type deciding which and how many commercials they'll run on Fox News.
Again, I'm not picking on Mormons. Actually, since they've proven success can happen rather quickly, a religion still in research and development could conceivably rule the U.S.A.
Some guy in Sarasota could right this second be falling into a deep sleep during which he'll dream a deity appears to him and then reveals the truth. If the sleepy Sarasotan hires the right PR firm, many of your ancestors could one day worship that deity.
If people would simply follow logic, instead of being sucked in by clever marketing gurus, the world would be full of atheists, agnostics and deists. With us as the majority, laws would finally make sense because most people in these groups only judge based on right and wrong. Therefore no one would be looked down upon for actions that harm nary a fly.
I Damn Thee Due to a Difference of Opinion!
The difference between decent atheists and decent Christians is minimal. Other than condemning homosexuals for their failure to needlessly suppress an inherent and harmless attraction, decent Christians typically don't harshly judge. Instead of protesting the selling of sin-juice outside their local liquor store, you will find them entering the establishment in hopes they'll discover their favorite brand of Hefeweizen has been drastically marked down.
Decent Christians attend church on Sunday morning, dine at a buffet on Sunday afternoon, come home, kick off their shoes, and then happily celebrate the fact that, as Lisa Simpson put it, "This is the longest period between now and the next time we have to go (to church) again!"
By their own admission, Christians commit sin after sin after sin. Nothing can stop them, actually. Because impure thoughts will inevitably arise, locking themselves in a vice-proof room and tightly closing their eyes won't even do the trick. Unlike atheists, however, Christians routinely beg for forgiveness after committing transgressions other decent people are far from sorry about.
But are Christians truly sorry? Are most pulling out their hair, strand by strand, because the guilt from tying one on the previous night consumes them? Of course not. As evidenced by the fact that their first action, after asking for forgiveness, is checking out next week's drink specials at their local watering hole, they're also not likely to limit their future libation intake to one per evening.
There are some sins for which Christians are truly sorry, just like we atheists often feel remorse for behaving badly (Contrary to the popular belief that we all have a, "damn the consequences: if it feels good, do it," attitude).
So, other than the fact that Christians often express regret for harmless sins they plan on committing in the future, decent atheists and decent Christians are a lot alike.
The reason I bring this up is because I find it humorous that the only thing keeping atheists from being admitted into heaven, according to Christians, is a simple difference of opinion.
Both groups read religious works, yet arrive at different conclusions. Our conclusion leads to an eternity of misery; yours leads to perfection.
I hope incorrectly interpreting words from the feathered pen of the Bard also doesn't lead to eternal damnation. I have real trouble with the poems of Christopher Marlowe, should I prepare for the worst!?
My point is that the one thing separating decent atheists from decent Christians has absolutely nothing to do with good vs. evil. Yet, if Christians are correct, we atheists are in for an afterworld of hurt.
If you divided atheists and Christians into two groups, no one could accurately contend, "Every member of the Christian group has acted nobly throughout their entire life. They've given the majority of their income to charity, have never harmed a fellow human being, and each risked their life in order to save at least one puppy that somehow grew even more adorable after being scratched behind the floppy ear by a Christian. Had no member of the atheist group been born: the murder rate would be zero, antivirus software would be completely unnecessary and, unable to find an audience perverse enough to enjoy her films, Jenna Jameson would have recently obtained her PhD in Clinical Psychology."
Decent Christians attend church on Sunday morning, dine at a buffet on Sunday afternoon, come home, kick off their shoes, and then happily celebrate the fact that, as Lisa Simpson put it, "This is the longest period between now and the next time we have to go (to church) again!"
By their own admission, Christians commit sin after sin after sin. Nothing can stop them, actually. Because impure thoughts will inevitably arise, locking themselves in a vice-proof room and tightly closing their eyes won't even do the trick. Unlike atheists, however, Christians routinely beg for forgiveness after committing transgressions other decent people are far from sorry about.
But are Christians truly sorry? Are most pulling out their hair, strand by strand, because the guilt from tying one on the previous night consumes them? Of course not. As evidenced by the fact that their first action, after asking for forgiveness, is checking out next week's drink specials at their local watering hole, they're also not likely to limit their future libation intake to one per evening.
There are some sins for which Christians are truly sorry, just like we atheists often feel remorse for behaving badly (Contrary to the popular belief that we all have a, "damn the consequences: if it feels good, do it," attitude).
So, other than the fact that Christians often express regret for harmless sins they plan on committing in the future, decent atheists and decent Christians are a lot alike.
The reason I bring this up is because I find it humorous that the only thing keeping atheists from being admitted into heaven, according to Christians, is a simple difference of opinion.
Both groups read religious works, yet arrive at different conclusions. Our conclusion leads to an eternity of misery; yours leads to perfection.
I hope incorrectly interpreting words from the feathered pen of the Bard also doesn't lead to eternal damnation. I have real trouble with the poems of Christopher Marlowe, should I prepare for the worst!?
My point is that the one thing separating decent atheists from decent Christians has absolutely nothing to do with good vs. evil. Yet, if Christians are correct, we atheists are in for an afterworld of hurt.
If you divided atheists and Christians into two groups, no one could accurately contend, "Every member of the Christian group has acted nobly throughout their entire life. They've given the majority of their income to charity, have never harmed a fellow human being, and each risked their life in order to save at least one puppy that somehow grew even more adorable after being scratched behind the floppy ear by a Christian. Had no member of the atheist group been born: the murder rate would be zero, antivirus software would be completely unnecessary and, unable to find an audience perverse enough to enjoy her films, Jenna Jameson would have recently obtained her PhD in Clinical Psychology."
Glenn Beck: Fighting for Your Right to Follow His Religion
I enjoy debating others about religion and the existence of god. At a pub, just place an ice-cold beer in front of me, an open-minded Christian on the bar stool beside me and watch the light-hearted sparks fly! At the end of the evening, two things will be certain: I'll have made a new friend and will be in desperate need of a taxi-cab!
Since he's not open-minded, I suppose it goes without saying, but, were Glenn Beck the Christian on the bar stool beside me, at the end of the evening two things will be certain: I'll have a new enemy and will be in desperate need of an adroit defense attorney!
Of course I'm kidding about the lawyer.
I've never said to anyone, "You're not an atheist!? You actually believe in a deity!? Well then, your mind is obviously warped and I harshly judge you." Because the Bible instructs everyone to discriminate against the sinless, if I were speaking to a Christian, such judgment would be largely justified.
But the only people I harshly judge are ones that harshly judge others!
Does that make me a hypocrite? Since I don't judge until I gauge whether or not someone else is judging, I don't think so, because to me "gauging" is different than "judging". But, since Encarta's Thesaurus disagrees, please let me expand before you come to a definitive conclusion...
According to Mr. Beck, if you don't follow the rules of his religion, you are immoral. If you open a bottle of wine (or two) with your spouse and become intoxicated while watching a steamy movie on Cinemax with the express purpose of adding a little spice to your marriage, you are a horrific sinner. You're not harming anyone, you're not putting anyone in danger, yet, in his eyes, you're a doer of evil.
With much vigor, Mr. Beck can verbally attack Barack Obama, Van Jones, Nancy Pelosi and Valerie Jarrett all he wants over decisions they've made as officials of the United States government. As an atheist, I encourage the questioning of authority figures; even if you're questioning authority figures with whom I oft agree.
Harshly judging people who have harmed nary a soul, simply because you have been forbidden from partaking in their activity of choice by your church elders, however, is a completely different story.
Mr. Beck constantly berates individuals intent on stifling his freedom to eat specific foods for which he has a hankering, yet himself wishes to stifle freedom of people who wish to take in a late night cabaret show, sit down with an erotic movie made by consenting adults, smoke a bit of reefer, marry the person of their choice, or find solace in the company of a streetwalker.
Eating fatty foods, Glenn Beck's religion deems sinless. Consuming adult beverages and watching movies clearly labeled for those eighteen and over, his faith deems sinful. Even though the Pilgrims boarded America-bound ships hoping to escape religious persecution, everyone must follow the faith of Glenn Beck.
Yet, if you instruct Glenn Beck to follow the teachings of a religion with regulations differing from his own, he will use the above Pilgrim argument to justify his demand that he be allowed to worship freely. "Gazillions of Pilgrims died so I'd have the freedom to spend four hours each day convincing you that my religion is your only chance at salvation!" he'll cry.
Mr. Beck, if you want to tell everybody to fight for freedom, tell everybody to fight for freedom. If you want to tell everybody to fight for freedom to live by the teachings of your religion, please excuse the violent imagery, but stick a sock in it.
Since he's not open-minded, I suppose it goes without saying, but, were Glenn Beck the Christian on the bar stool beside me, at the end of the evening two things will be certain: I'll have a new enemy and will be in desperate need of an adroit defense attorney!
Of course I'm kidding about the lawyer.
I've never said to anyone, "You're not an atheist!? You actually believe in a deity!? Well then, your mind is obviously warped and I harshly judge you." Because the Bible instructs everyone to discriminate against the sinless, if I were speaking to a Christian, such judgment would be largely justified.
But the only people I harshly judge are ones that harshly judge others!
Does that make me a hypocrite? Since I don't judge until I gauge whether or not someone else is judging, I don't think so, because to me "gauging" is different than "judging". But, since Encarta's Thesaurus disagrees, please let me expand before you come to a definitive conclusion...
According to Mr. Beck, if you don't follow the rules of his religion, you are immoral. If you open a bottle of wine (or two) with your spouse and become intoxicated while watching a steamy movie on Cinemax with the express purpose of adding a little spice to your marriage, you are a horrific sinner. You're not harming anyone, you're not putting anyone in danger, yet, in his eyes, you're a doer of evil.
With much vigor, Mr. Beck can verbally attack Barack Obama, Van Jones, Nancy Pelosi and Valerie Jarrett all he wants over decisions they've made as officials of the United States government. As an atheist, I encourage the questioning of authority figures; even if you're questioning authority figures with whom I oft agree.
Harshly judging people who have harmed nary a soul, simply because you have been forbidden from partaking in their activity of choice by your church elders, however, is a completely different story.
Mr. Beck constantly berates individuals intent on stifling his freedom to eat specific foods for which he has a hankering, yet himself wishes to stifle freedom of people who wish to take in a late night cabaret show, sit down with an erotic movie made by consenting adults, smoke a bit of reefer, marry the person of their choice, or find solace in the company of a streetwalker.
Eating fatty foods, Glenn Beck's religion deems sinless. Consuming adult beverages and watching movies clearly labeled for those eighteen and over, his faith deems sinful. Even though the Pilgrims boarded America-bound ships hoping to escape religious persecution, everyone must follow the faith of Glenn Beck.
Yet, if you instruct Glenn Beck to follow the teachings of a religion with regulations differing from his own, he will use the above Pilgrim argument to justify his demand that he be allowed to worship freely. "Gazillions of Pilgrims died so I'd have the freedom to spend four hours each day convincing you that my religion is your only chance at salvation!" he'll cry.
Mr. Beck, if you want to tell everybody to fight for freedom, tell everybody to fight for freedom. If you want to tell everybody to fight for freedom to live by the teachings of your religion, please excuse the violent imagery, but stick a sock in it.
Oldies but Goodies
Recently a Catholic Priest responded, after being confronted with the argument that, because god demanded so many brutal punishments be carried out against innocent individuals, the Bible is difficult to believe, "That's the oldest argument in the book!"
Really?
Well founded arguments have a statute of limitations?
Is this phenomenon limited to arguments, or does it apply to warnings as well?
"Don't stick your hand in the fire."
"Seriously! That's got to be the oldest warning in the book! The so-called 'experts' have been telling people to keep a safe distance since fire was first discovered! Now if you'll excuse me, my marshmallow fell off its stick and retrieval is required before it melts completely and I’m left with an incomplete S'more."
I don't understand why people of all religions continue to argue. Just stick your hands in the air and admit, "My beliefs are strictly based on faith. I can line my bookshelf with writings that attempt to prove the truthiness of my specific religion, but the simple fact is that, without merit, I believe in its accuracy as Jerry Jones believes he's an exceptional football General Manager. (A guy friend convinced me the preceding joke would go over well with NFL fans.)
But many religious people continue making the same ridiculous arguments in an attempt to convince the world that their beliefs are accurate. Or, as the above example points out, continue responding to rational arguments with nonsense.
Argument: If there is no god, how can anyone discern right from wrong?
Response: On our own, we all understand it's wrong to harm living creatures. If everyone abided by the previous sentence, the world would be free of war. Due to inconsistencies in your holy books, as well as differing beliefs held by Biblical scholars, no two religious people have the same list of sins. Like snowflakes, you each have your own view of right and wrong which you truly believe matches up with the will of your god. Give weapons to the folks who insist their deity says a failure to follow the teachings of Muhammad should be punished with a cruel death and the world is all of a sudden at war. Follow my simple, "Don't harm living creatures," rule and no violent skirmishes exist.
Yet, during every argument between atheist and believer, the believer claims god is the only way we know assaulting senior citizens is evil. That also means god is the reason we are certain the discrimination of homosexuals is morally sound. While non-believers are totally and completely onboard with the "no harming the elderly," rule, we tend to promote equality for all.
If he's the reason we instinctively know it's a sin to assault our elders, why doesn't everyone instinctively feel an overwhelming desire to discriminate against gays?
I have a strong feeling many individuals, whose past includes the selfish mistreatment of elder citizens; have expressed great remorse, because, in their gut, they knew they were committing horrific atrocities. I also have a feeling no individual has ever expressed regret for failing to discriminate against homosexuals.
A variation of the following sentence has likely been uttered: "I feel horrible for knocking down that retiree and then snatching his wallet, but I was so strung out I couldn't stop myself! In my nightmares, I vividly see his face hitting the pavement. The awful sound of him screaming in pain still thunders in my ears! The guilt is too much to bear!"
However I doubt anyone has said anything remotely close to: "I don't know how I could have been so cruel. I was standing over my ballot and all of a sudden I filled in the circle that calls for the legalization of homosexual marriage. In my nightmares, I still see pain in the faces of individuals that make up the anti-gay-marriage lobby as their noble dream of an everlasting heterosexual-marriage only society comes crumbling to the ground! The guilt consumes me!"
Really?
Well founded arguments have a statute of limitations?
Is this phenomenon limited to arguments, or does it apply to warnings as well?
"Don't stick your hand in the fire."
"Seriously! That's got to be the oldest warning in the book! The so-called 'experts' have been telling people to keep a safe distance since fire was first discovered! Now if you'll excuse me, my marshmallow fell off its stick and retrieval is required before it melts completely and I’m left with an incomplete S'more."
I don't understand why people of all religions continue to argue. Just stick your hands in the air and admit, "My beliefs are strictly based on faith. I can line my bookshelf with writings that attempt to prove the truthiness of my specific religion, but the simple fact is that, without merit, I believe in its accuracy as Jerry Jones believes he's an exceptional football General Manager. (A guy friend convinced me the preceding joke would go over well with NFL fans.)
But many religious people continue making the same ridiculous arguments in an attempt to convince the world that their beliefs are accurate. Or, as the above example points out, continue responding to rational arguments with nonsense.
Argument: If there is no god, how can anyone discern right from wrong?
Response: On our own, we all understand it's wrong to harm living creatures. If everyone abided by the previous sentence, the world would be free of war. Due to inconsistencies in your holy books, as well as differing beliefs held by Biblical scholars, no two religious people have the same list of sins. Like snowflakes, you each have your own view of right and wrong which you truly believe matches up with the will of your god. Give weapons to the folks who insist their deity says a failure to follow the teachings of Muhammad should be punished with a cruel death and the world is all of a sudden at war. Follow my simple, "Don't harm living creatures," rule and no violent skirmishes exist.
Yet, during every argument between atheist and believer, the believer claims god is the only way we know assaulting senior citizens is evil. That also means god is the reason we are certain the discrimination of homosexuals is morally sound. While non-believers are totally and completely onboard with the "no harming the elderly," rule, we tend to promote equality for all.
If he's the reason we instinctively know it's a sin to assault our elders, why doesn't everyone instinctively feel an overwhelming desire to discriminate against gays?
I have a strong feeling many individuals, whose past includes the selfish mistreatment of elder citizens; have expressed great remorse, because, in their gut, they knew they were committing horrific atrocities. I also have a feeling no individual has ever expressed regret for failing to discriminate against homosexuals.
A variation of the following sentence has likely been uttered: "I feel horrible for knocking down that retiree and then snatching his wallet, but I was so strung out I couldn't stop myself! In my nightmares, I vividly see his face hitting the pavement. The awful sound of him screaming in pain still thunders in my ears! The guilt is too much to bear!"
However I doubt anyone has said anything remotely close to: "I don't know how I could have been so cruel. I was standing over my ballot and all of a sudden I filled in the circle that calls for the legalization of homosexual marriage. In my nightmares, I still see pain in the faces of individuals that make up the anti-gay-marriage lobby as their noble dream of an everlasting heterosexual-marriage only society comes crumbling to the ground! The guilt consumes me!"
Why We Target Christians
One of the many criticisms people have of American atheists is that we single out Christianity when objecting to religious bullying.
The fact that most citizens of the United States are Christian, and they therefore set policy, is probably the main reason they're a big target. If the guards at your prison are abusing inmates, you're not going to draft a terse letter to the governor because you heard a prison three counties over is far worse.
Also, Christians enjoy playing their own version of, "it's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission." They erect symbols supporting their specific religion on public property and then say, "Are you seriously going to try and make us take all this down when it brings pleasure to 80% of people who drive by!? Seriously, that's going to make you look like a total and complete ass. And by the time you're standing in front of a judge the decorations you see before you will be back up in our attic. But give it your best shot."
Christians sneakily enforce their will. They say, "Sure, the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state; but America was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy, which overrides said separation of church and state. It's complicated, but trust us when we tell you that each oversized tablet displaying a different Commandment, which you see before you on the steps of the courthouse, has been deemed 'good to go' by the Constitution of the United States of America."
At least theocratic leaders are honest!
The main reason Christians remain our number one target, however, is that little convincing is required to make rational people understand that many countries throughout the world are governed by brutal laws which result in unimaginable suffering.
There are over 60 people on death row in Pakistan because they are alleged to have committed the crime of blasphemy. One gets convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan for saying things like, "I think Muhammad is a tad overrated."
So I don't get slammed by Christians, I will now critique the execution of individuals for saying, "I think Muhammad is a tad overrated."
Drum roll please...
Without further ado...
I am against it.
That felt good.
I bet I win multiple awards for my bold take on a complex subject.
One thing on which Democrats and Republicans can agree... On which American atheists and American Christians can agree... On which the Hatfield's and the McCoy's can agree... Is that many aspects of Sharia Law are downright evil.
I can write a whole bunch of words on how Christians, desperate to end a contentious debate of which they're on the losing end, enjoy implementing the "Look over there" tactic while pointing in the direction of a far away land.
Except for, "That's horrific! If they have a shred of decency those monsters will let her live," I don't have much to say about the stoning of a woman falsely accused of adultery. Were I to expand, it would sound like I'm writing to a child...
"The death penalty is one of the worst sentences in the world, because, once completed, it cannot be reversed. And no individual should be convicted of a crime unless he or she has received a fair trial. In cases where a government deems it necessary to execute its citizens, the condemned should not suffer immense pain. Now that I got that off my chest, it's naptime! Who gets to snuggle with Elmo today!?"
What is understood need not be discussed...
The fact that most citizens of the United States are Christian, and they therefore set policy, is probably the main reason they're a big target. If the guards at your prison are abusing inmates, you're not going to draft a terse letter to the governor because you heard a prison three counties over is far worse.
Also, Christians enjoy playing their own version of, "it's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission." They erect symbols supporting their specific religion on public property and then say, "Are you seriously going to try and make us take all this down when it brings pleasure to 80% of people who drive by!? Seriously, that's going to make you look like a total and complete ass. And by the time you're standing in front of a judge the decorations you see before you will be back up in our attic. But give it your best shot."
Christians sneakily enforce their will. They say, "Sure, the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state; but America was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy, which overrides said separation of church and state. It's complicated, but trust us when we tell you that each oversized tablet displaying a different Commandment, which you see before you on the steps of the courthouse, has been deemed 'good to go' by the Constitution of the United States of America."
At least theocratic leaders are honest!
The main reason Christians remain our number one target, however, is that little convincing is required to make rational people understand that many countries throughout the world are governed by brutal laws which result in unimaginable suffering.
There are over 60 people on death row in Pakistan because they are alleged to have committed the crime of blasphemy. One gets convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan for saying things like, "I think Muhammad is a tad overrated."
So I don't get slammed by Christians, I will now critique the execution of individuals for saying, "I think Muhammad is a tad overrated."
Drum roll please...
Without further ado...
I am against it.
That felt good.
I bet I win multiple awards for my bold take on a complex subject.
One thing on which Democrats and Republicans can agree... On which American atheists and American Christians can agree... On which the Hatfield's and the McCoy's can agree... Is that many aspects of Sharia Law are downright evil.
I can write a whole bunch of words on how Christians, desperate to end a contentious debate of which they're on the losing end, enjoy implementing the "Look over there" tactic while pointing in the direction of a far away land.
Except for, "That's horrific! If they have a shred of decency those monsters will let her live," I don't have much to say about the stoning of a woman falsely accused of adultery. Were I to expand, it would sound like I'm writing to a child...
"The death penalty is one of the worst sentences in the world, because, once completed, it cannot be reversed. And no individual should be convicted of a crime unless he or she has received a fair trial. In cases where a government deems it necessary to execute its citizens, the condemned should not suffer immense pain. Now that I got that off my chest, it's naptime! Who gets to snuggle with Elmo today!?"
What is understood need not be discussed...
Atheism and Freedom: The Only Winning Combination
Recently an Iranian woman was executed for murdering the wife of the soccer star with whom she was having a torrid affair. The condemned woman admitted the crime, but some believe the confession was achieved as a result of waterboarding type tactics. As the soccer star looked on, the son of the murder victim pulled the chair from beneath the strung-up woman, directly causing her death.
Of course human rights groups are outraged; which got me thinking: if not for religion and oppressive regimes, human rights groups would have loads of downtime.
Religion was designed to control people. Oppressive leaders who suppress freedom, regardless of faith, must use force to remain at the helm.
Atheists have no one telling us, "If people believe in a specific deity, put them to death and then celebrate your accomplishment." There is no one telling us, without solid reasoning, that two adults shouldn't engage in mutually agreed upon boudoir activities.
Throughout history, many freedom-loathing non-faithful tyrants have committed horrific atrocities with the express purpose of holding onto power, and there's no doubt these individuals continue wreaking havoc. In such cases, the oppressors are substituting themselves for a deity.
"You mustn't follow god, but speak against me and you'll be shipped to the gulag," they say.
Forcing anyone to blindly follow a person or deity is basically the same thing, and history tells us that those who force others to blindly follow are responsible for millions of murders.
The problem, of course, is that few lack the desire to control.
Except freedom-loving atheists.
The reason we fight Christian symbols on public property, and laws formulated based on scripture, is because the religion is hindering our ability to live freely.
American Christians cover the country with their symbols during the holidays. Atheists attempting to put up simple signage suggesting people look outside religion for fulfillment are slammed.
Yet, if American Christians acquiesced, or atheists became the overwhelming majority, do you think we would ever try and blanket the United States with pro-atheist paraphernalia!? Would we demand Congress implement official holidays honoring atheism, or put atheist propaganda on American currency so everyone would be reminded there is no god while paying ungodly amounts for venti Caramel Macchiatos?
Religious folks are adamant you follow rules imposed by their god. Dictators force you to follow their strict set of rules. Every murder is the result of a desire to control. Freedom loving atheists have no such desire; our only wish is for everyone to live and let live.
Of course human rights groups are outraged; which got me thinking: if not for religion and oppressive regimes, human rights groups would have loads of downtime.
Religion was designed to control people. Oppressive leaders who suppress freedom, regardless of faith, must use force to remain at the helm.
Atheists have no one telling us, "If people believe in a specific deity, put them to death and then celebrate your accomplishment." There is no one telling us, without solid reasoning, that two adults shouldn't engage in mutually agreed upon boudoir activities.
Throughout history, many freedom-loathing non-faithful tyrants have committed horrific atrocities with the express purpose of holding onto power, and there's no doubt these individuals continue wreaking havoc. In such cases, the oppressors are substituting themselves for a deity.
"You mustn't follow god, but speak against me and you'll be shipped to the gulag," they say.
Forcing anyone to blindly follow a person or deity is basically the same thing, and history tells us that those who force others to blindly follow are responsible for millions of murders.
The problem, of course, is that few lack the desire to control.
Except freedom-loving atheists.
The reason we fight Christian symbols on public property, and laws formulated based on scripture, is because the religion is hindering our ability to live freely.
American Christians cover the country with their symbols during the holidays. Atheists attempting to put up simple signage suggesting people look outside religion for fulfillment are slammed.
Yet, if American Christians acquiesced, or atheists became the overwhelming majority, do you think we would ever try and blanket the United States with pro-atheist paraphernalia!? Would we demand Congress implement official holidays honoring atheism, or put atheist propaganda on American currency so everyone would be reminded there is no god while paying ungodly amounts for venti Caramel Macchiatos?
Religious folks are adamant you follow rules imposed by their god. Dictators force you to follow their strict set of rules. Every murder is the result of a desire to control. Freedom loving atheists have no such desire; our only wish is for everyone to live and let live.
For One Month, Please Forget I Exist
I recently read about a southern transit authority rejecting pro-atheist ads from a local group of non-believers that, if accepted, would have been placed on the sides of city buses just in time for the holidays.
Of course the atheist group in question didn't remember that the holidays are that extra special time of year during which we're supposed to politely disappear because persons of religion don't want to be reminded of the fact that differing viewpoints exist. They'll enjoy a fiftieth rendition of O Holy Night much more if they're able to convince themselves the lyrics are factual.
Religious folks want us to look the other way while they violate the separation of church and state by erecting nativity scenes on governmental property and they also want us to look the other way while they violate the separation of church and state by not allowing atheist advertisements on governmental buses strictly because such advertisements aren't in-line with the religion they passionately insist is not the official religion of the United States of America!?
"Is Christianity the official religion of the U.S.A? What a ridiculous assertion! Now please help me unload the second 350-pound wise man from my pickup truck and respectfully get it up the courthouse steps without ever letting it touch the ground. Ads supporting atheism on public buses... Ah, no, we will not accept those because of a longstanding policy that prohibits any religious based advertising. Where is that policy transcribed? Well, it's only one sentence and we keep the piece of paper on which it's handwritten in the back. If I could just borrow a pen I'll run get it for you."
It's okay to erect religious symbols on governmental property. It's not okay to PAY for anti-religious ads to be placed on governmental property. Yet there IS a separation of church and state!?
If radical Muslims ever achieve their goal of flying the flag of Islam over the White House, the only change in America would be the official religion, not the fact that our country has an official religion. It'd actually be a relief because at least people would stop comically denying an official religion was in place.
"Are you going to tell me America still separates church and state?" someone will ask the leader of our new theocracy.
"No, as a matter of fact the combining of church and state is exactly what led to your incarceration, because, before we took over, having coffee in public with a facially uncovered woman to whom you're not married was perfectly legal."
But for now I suppose you religious folks are content doing everything in your power to make certain we get out of your hair while you celebrate the holidays without a single annoying distraction. Or, to phrase it in a way you'll easily understand; we'll eat at the kiddy table so you can enjoy your Christmas season while partaking in adult conversation.
In your eyes, you're simply shutting up those who moronically don't believe in god. In our eyes, you're doing the equivalent of locking every science and history teacher in a closet, then entering their classrooms and erasing every word in every textbook, filling in the blanks you created with words in which you've dedicated your life to believing regardless of factual evidence.
See you all next year!
And to my atheist friends, happy hibernating!
Of course the atheist group in question didn't remember that the holidays are that extra special time of year during which we're supposed to politely disappear because persons of religion don't want to be reminded of the fact that differing viewpoints exist. They'll enjoy a fiftieth rendition of O Holy Night much more if they're able to convince themselves the lyrics are factual.
Religious folks want us to look the other way while they violate the separation of church and state by erecting nativity scenes on governmental property and they also want us to look the other way while they violate the separation of church and state by not allowing atheist advertisements on governmental buses strictly because such advertisements aren't in-line with the religion they passionately insist is not the official religion of the United States of America!?
"Is Christianity the official religion of the U.S.A? What a ridiculous assertion! Now please help me unload the second 350-pound wise man from my pickup truck and respectfully get it up the courthouse steps without ever letting it touch the ground. Ads supporting atheism on public buses... Ah, no, we will not accept those because of a longstanding policy that prohibits any religious based advertising. Where is that policy transcribed? Well, it's only one sentence and we keep the piece of paper on which it's handwritten in the back. If I could just borrow a pen I'll run get it for you."
It's okay to erect religious symbols on governmental property. It's not okay to PAY for anti-religious ads to be placed on governmental property. Yet there IS a separation of church and state!?
If radical Muslims ever achieve their goal of flying the flag of Islam over the White House, the only change in America would be the official religion, not the fact that our country has an official religion. It'd actually be a relief because at least people would stop comically denying an official religion was in place.
"Are you going to tell me America still separates church and state?" someone will ask the leader of our new theocracy.
"No, as a matter of fact the combining of church and state is exactly what led to your incarceration, because, before we took over, having coffee in public with a facially uncovered woman to whom you're not married was perfectly legal."
But for now I suppose you religious folks are content doing everything in your power to make certain we get out of your hair while you celebrate the holidays without a single annoying distraction. Or, to phrase it in a way you'll easily understand; we'll eat at the kiddy table so you can enjoy your Christmas season while partaking in adult conversation.
In your eyes, you're simply shutting up those who moronically don't believe in god. In our eyes, you're doing the equivalent of locking every science and history teacher in a closet, then entering their classrooms and erasing every word in every textbook, filling in the blanks you created with words in which you've dedicated your life to believing regardless of factual evidence.
See you all next year!
And to my atheist friends, happy hibernating!
I Demand Credit for Stuff You Doubt I Did
I'm sure there are people who've gained your trust over the years through their noble actions. If one of them approached you and said, "Credit me for inventing Snickers," how would you respond?
"Really, you invented Snickers? Snickers have been around since I was a lad and you weren't even born then, so I'm a little skeptical. Do you have proof you were the first to combine chocolate, nougat, caramel and roasted peanuts in bar form and bestow upon your delicious creation the name, 'Snickers?'"
"I have not one shred of evidence, but you should trust me because I've never lied to you in the past."
I understand it may be somewhat difficult dismissing a far-fetched claim made by a friend you've grown to trust over the years, but dismissing a claim made by authors of an outlandish book written thousands of years ago sounds reasonably easy.
Yet drafters of holy books claim god demands you believe in him without a single doubt.
Not only does the "creator of the universe" offer no proof he or she exists; he or she makes it difficult to believe in intelligent design.
Not only must we believe in things not provable, we must accept scenarios that are scientifically improbable? And if we choose rationality, we're horrible people who face an eternity of unspeakable horror?
I don't understand how religious people define "faith" as "blind acceptance of the irrational."
If a stranger approached you and said, "Have faith I am the entity responsible for the sun which shines above you"; how would you respond?
Hopefully you'd continue on your way, careful to refrain from eye contact.
If someone you trusted without question made the same assertion, instead of simply dismissing their claim, you'd suggest they immediately seek help. Perhaps you'd even Google a few local psychiatrists hoping to find a qualified doctor receiving five stars from area mental patients.
Why do you view ancient authors of your holy book differently than you would strangers of today? Is their story more believable because they didn't approach you on the sidewalk; choosing instead to jot their story down during a time in which writing something down wasn't an easy task because it was thousands of years before Italian-born Frenchman Marcel Bich founded the Societe Bic?
So if a crazy man approaches me on the street and claims to have filled all the oceans with salty water, I should advise him to detail his feat in a leather-bound book to ensure persons of future generations will believe with all their hearts?
"Really, you invented Snickers? Snickers have been around since I was a lad and you weren't even born then, so I'm a little skeptical. Do you have proof you were the first to combine chocolate, nougat, caramel and roasted peanuts in bar form and bestow upon your delicious creation the name, 'Snickers?'"
"I have not one shred of evidence, but you should trust me because I've never lied to you in the past."
I understand it may be somewhat difficult dismissing a far-fetched claim made by a friend you've grown to trust over the years, but dismissing a claim made by authors of an outlandish book written thousands of years ago sounds reasonably easy.
Yet drafters of holy books claim god demands you believe in him without a single doubt.
Not only does the "creator of the universe" offer no proof he or she exists; he or she makes it difficult to believe in intelligent design.
Not only must we believe in things not provable, we must accept scenarios that are scientifically improbable? And if we choose rationality, we're horrible people who face an eternity of unspeakable horror?
I don't understand how religious people define "faith" as "blind acceptance of the irrational."
If a stranger approached you and said, "Have faith I am the entity responsible for the sun which shines above you"; how would you respond?
Hopefully you'd continue on your way, careful to refrain from eye contact.
If someone you trusted without question made the same assertion, instead of simply dismissing their claim, you'd suggest they immediately seek help. Perhaps you'd even Google a few local psychiatrists hoping to find a qualified doctor receiving five stars from area mental patients.
Why do you view ancient authors of your holy book differently than you would strangers of today? Is their story more believable because they didn't approach you on the sidewalk; choosing instead to jot their story down during a time in which writing something down wasn't an easy task because it was thousands of years before Italian-born Frenchman Marcel Bich founded the Societe Bic?
So if a crazy man approaches me on the street and claims to have filled all the oceans with salty water, I should advise him to detail his feat in a leather-bound book to ensure persons of future generations will believe with all their hearts?
Should We Raise Our Child Anabaptist or Prairie Saint?
I'm constantly amused at the thought of parents deciding to which church they'll drag their child. It's just funny hearing people debate what another human being will eventually believe.
Parents should have a checklist they discuss in great detail.
Q: Will our child be a proponent of gay marriage?
A: No, but he or she will fully support domestic partnerships. While adamant the definition of marriage remain, "a union between members of the opposite sex," our offspring will fight for the right of same-sex couples to receive equal benefits.
Q: Will our child believe government should provide entitlements to the downtrodden?
A: To a certain extent, yes. He or she will believe government should provide limited benefits to the underprivileged, but will worry perennial handouts stifle self reliance.
Because they have a burning desire to make belief-related decisions for their children, I suggest religious couples save a couple hundred-thousand dollars and simply purchase a used copy of The Sims! Or, if they're adamant they raise an actual child, why not visit an orphanage and say, "One Christian, please."
And why do parents stop at taking their children to church? I understand the preacher will convince the ankle-biters that homosexuality is a horrific sin, but there are many issues upon which Christians don't always agree. Therefore parents should force their children to receive tutoring from professors who share their opinion on other topics.
"What'd you learn in Sunday school today, Junior?" should be expanded to, "What'd you learn in 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns' school?" "What'd you learn in 'Desperate Housewives jumped the shark after they pretended five years magically elapsed even though every character looked exactly the same,' school?"
Discussing future beliefs held by children as if you're telling a computer salesman exactly what programs you'd like preloaded on your new desktop isn't the least bit creepy?
At least religious parents aren't asking geneticists to study the possibility of producing babies that will believe without question.
Or are they?
I can see it now... "Dr. Smith, we'd like our money back; we ordered a Methodist but instead received a neo-confusionist who enjoys dabbling in Balinese mythology!"
Parents should have a checklist they discuss in great detail.
Q: Will our child be a proponent of gay marriage?
A: No, but he or she will fully support domestic partnerships. While adamant the definition of marriage remain, "a union between members of the opposite sex," our offspring will fight for the right of same-sex couples to receive equal benefits.
Q: Will our child believe government should provide entitlements to the downtrodden?
A: To a certain extent, yes. He or she will believe government should provide limited benefits to the underprivileged, but will worry perennial handouts stifle self reliance.
Because they have a burning desire to make belief-related decisions for their children, I suggest religious couples save a couple hundred-thousand dollars and simply purchase a used copy of The Sims! Or, if they're adamant they raise an actual child, why not visit an orphanage and say, "One Christian, please."
And why do parents stop at taking their children to church? I understand the preacher will convince the ankle-biters that homosexuality is a horrific sin, but there are many issues upon which Christians don't always agree. Therefore parents should force their children to receive tutoring from professors who share their opinion on other topics.
"What'd you learn in Sunday school today, Junior?" should be expanded to, "What'd you learn in 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns' school?" "What'd you learn in 'Desperate Housewives jumped the shark after they pretended five years magically elapsed even though every character looked exactly the same,' school?"
Discussing future beliefs held by children as if you're telling a computer salesman exactly what programs you'd like preloaded on your new desktop isn't the least bit creepy?
At least religious parents aren't asking geneticists to study the possibility of producing babies that will believe without question.
Or are they?
I can see it now... "Dr. Smith, we'd like our money back; we ordered a Methodist but instead received a neo-confusionist who enjoys dabbling in Balinese mythology!"
Why Don't You Think of God as Normal?
Were someone attempting to convince me a specific holy book was truthful, the best thing he or she could do would be hold up the book and say, "Quentin Tarantino couldn't make this stuff up!?"
Because there are so many holy books on the market, drafted by ancient individuals with very creative imaginations, one undeniable reality is that all can't be accurate.
This reality begs the question: Why hasn’t anyone portrayed God as normal?
Regardless of your specific faith, if you were told to get into character as your god and explain the reasoning behind the drafting of your strict set of rules, there is absolutely no way a trip to the insane asylum could be avoided.
"People must respect their parents, so despite circumstances behind the feud, I think it's important to punish the cursing of a mother or father with death... Though they had nothing to do with the criminal act and are often too young to even grasp the concept of right and wrong, if a man or woman acts wickedly, it's often best to go ahead and murder their child... Though I offer no proof, every person who doesn't believe without a doubt that I created the world should be killed. Celebrate these killings by dancing in the streets."
Why isn't there at least one holy book that argues god calls for common sense regulations with which normal people can get on board? Why doesn't at least one claim, "And God said, 'Respect your parents when respect is deserved. Don't nitpick their every error, but if they're good people overall, watch your language when addressing your mother and father for they likely sacrificed a great deal of personal luxuries to raise you in comfort.'"
The following sounds reasonable: "And God said, 'Laying a finger on a child in response to a sin committed by his or her father or mother is morally reprehensible because they are obviously blameless. Come to think of it, never punish anyone for the vile action of another!'"
Doesn't this sound better than an eternity of damnation for decent nonbelievers born to parents of the "wrong" religion: "Everyone enjoys credit, so it would be extremely nice if a plethora of humans acknowledged my work and even built places of worship in my honor, but, because I offer no proof of my existence for the express purpose of encouraging debate, I will only judge individuals based on the content of their character."
Of course religious folks are going to respond by saying that god works in mysterious ways and that by believing his teachings and Biblical actions are justified, you have great faith.
If god was testing your faith, however, why would he do it with words and actions that will and did (according to your books) lead to the brutal termination of innocent children!? Why not test your faith by demanding you hand out harmless justice your instincts warn against? "If your husband breaks any of my commandments, make your firstborn go to bed without dessert."
No one in their right mind would agree with any retribution, but if you insist god would demand a medieval approach to punishing children whose parents have sinned, why not at least stop short of the death penalty! Why didn't the authors write something along the lines of, "After a parent sins, make their children bleed, but only as much as their gums bleed while flossing their teeth after it's been forever since the last time they flossed."
I find it strange so many people believe in books that call for acts so disturbing no one should be required to receive instruction restraint is needed. In other words, it's so obvious children shouldn't be punished for the transgressions of their parents that mentioning it isn't necessary. After all, if the topic was left out of the Bible, would you wonder, after seeing a man sin, "Should we seek out his children and make them pay dearly?"?
Perhaps the ease of unauthorized reproduction is the reason no one has claimed god came to them with instructions to publish a book with one chapter and one verse, which stated unequivocally: "What is understood need not be discussed."
Because there are so many holy books on the market, drafted by ancient individuals with very creative imaginations, one undeniable reality is that all can't be accurate.
This reality begs the question: Why hasn’t anyone portrayed God as normal?
Regardless of your specific faith, if you were told to get into character as your god and explain the reasoning behind the drafting of your strict set of rules, there is absolutely no way a trip to the insane asylum could be avoided.
"People must respect their parents, so despite circumstances behind the feud, I think it's important to punish the cursing of a mother or father with death... Though they had nothing to do with the criminal act and are often too young to even grasp the concept of right and wrong, if a man or woman acts wickedly, it's often best to go ahead and murder their child... Though I offer no proof, every person who doesn't believe without a doubt that I created the world should be killed. Celebrate these killings by dancing in the streets."
Why isn't there at least one holy book that argues god calls for common sense regulations with which normal people can get on board? Why doesn't at least one claim, "And God said, 'Respect your parents when respect is deserved. Don't nitpick their every error, but if they're good people overall, watch your language when addressing your mother and father for they likely sacrificed a great deal of personal luxuries to raise you in comfort.'"
The following sounds reasonable: "And God said, 'Laying a finger on a child in response to a sin committed by his or her father or mother is morally reprehensible because they are obviously blameless. Come to think of it, never punish anyone for the vile action of another!'"
Doesn't this sound better than an eternity of damnation for decent nonbelievers born to parents of the "wrong" religion: "Everyone enjoys credit, so it would be extremely nice if a plethora of humans acknowledged my work and even built places of worship in my honor, but, because I offer no proof of my existence for the express purpose of encouraging debate, I will only judge individuals based on the content of their character."
Of course religious folks are going to respond by saying that god works in mysterious ways and that by believing his teachings and Biblical actions are justified, you have great faith.
If god was testing your faith, however, why would he do it with words and actions that will and did (according to your books) lead to the brutal termination of innocent children!? Why not test your faith by demanding you hand out harmless justice your instincts warn against? "If your husband breaks any of my commandments, make your firstborn go to bed without dessert."
No one in their right mind would agree with any retribution, but if you insist god would demand a medieval approach to punishing children whose parents have sinned, why not at least stop short of the death penalty! Why didn't the authors write something along the lines of, "After a parent sins, make their children bleed, but only as much as their gums bleed while flossing their teeth after it's been forever since the last time they flossed."
I find it strange so many people believe in books that call for acts so disturbing no one should be required to receive instruction restraint is needed. In other words, it's so obvious children shouldn't be punished for the transgressions of their parents that mentioning it isn't necessary. After all, if the topic was left out of the Bible, would you wonder, after seeing a man sin, "Should we seek out his children and make them pay dearly?"?
Perhaps the ease of unauthorized reproduction is the reason no one has claimed god came to them with instructions to publish a book with one chapter and one verse, which stated unequivocally: "What is understood need not be discussed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)