Atheist Alley

From the Inside

2011-06-23T06:11:00.000-07:00

A judge informing Michael Vick that slaughtering dogs is a reprehensible crime didn't cause tears of regret to flow down the quarterback's cheeks. For whatever reason, Mr. Vick considers murdering cuddly pooches completely harmless. Through our judicial system, we can hopefully convince him to stay all future canine executions, but we cannot force the football superstar, or anybody else, to feel bad about an act he deems innocent.

Of course sane people would inherently feel sad about harming innocent creatures. Deep down, however, nothing else causes true regret. In other words, religion is strictly used to reverse instincts.

Just like Mr. Vick can't be made to feel empathy for the dogs, few religious people feel a bit of regret over "sins" that harm no one.

I bet there are thousands of gay Christians who don't beat themselves up for sharing a bed with a member of the same sex. Afterward, Sasha and Samantha look up at the ceiling and say, "That was bad for nobody, and extremely good for two!"

If sprinkling pepper was considered a horrific sin, and you hate pepper, you'd have no trouble condemning those needing a little spice. If blandness is not your thing, you'd secretly top your mashed potatoes with black specs. Afterward, your hot mouth wouldn't be a constant source of guilt for the simple reason that only happiness resulted. Regret doesn't stem from someone repeating in your ear, "You did a bad thing."

Religion is about illusion and denial. "Despite the fact that our guts say otherwise, we'll pretend certain actions are sins. Then we'll go to church and act as if we don't regularly, and without regret, perform these deeds. There, the preacher will speak against these 'crimes' as we nod our heads in agreement." You half-heartedly ask for forgiveness, trying your mightiest to pretend it's genuinely needed.

The person that formed the first organized religion probably sounded a lot like Homer Simpson...

"Most people don't daily do things they afterward regret, so we'll claim acts that hurt no one really hurt everyone. Then they'll feel guilty and give us money because only through us can they make amends for doing something perfectly fine that we've convinced them is reprehensible. Now, we just need a large structure in which to gather them all together to repeatedly remind them exactly how many crimes they've committed... Oh, and a bunch of plates so deep they resemble bowls. Then we're set!"

Trouble is, unlike most of Mr. Simpson's harebrained schemes, the above plot worked extraordinary well.

A Travel Agency it Ain't

2011-06-17T18:01:00.000-07:00

A popular website recently featured the most picturesque lakes from around the world. "That'd be a fun place to visit," I thought of a beautiful Canadian pond. Of others, I realized... "Wouldn't be safe there... That area is crawling with violent religious zealots... Because I'd probably forget that looking a man in the eye is an offense punishable by death, I wouldn't make it out of the airport closest to that lake..."

God formed our wonderful world and then added religion to prevent us from safely exploring every area?

"I will create a plethora of magnificent attractions, and then add people, who, based on their belief in me, will stop their counterparts from experiencing said magnificent attractions."

Pretend you have $10,000 to spend on a vacation. You must use the entire sum for travel related expenses. Not a dime can be saved, used to purchase Seventh Heaven: The Complete Tenth Season DVDs, or donated to the Boy Scouts.

Plan a vacation based on our current world.

Then plan a vacation as if religion never existed.

Look at your itineraries and marvel at the difference.

Religion even prevents people from experiencing other religions. I doubt a nice Baptist couple would feel comfortable visiting their local Mosque. Something tells me a Jewish couple would be equally as apprehensive.

How can you be for something that prevents you from experiencing a variation of itself!?

Why is something considered good, by so many people, when its simple existence hinders joy, experience, the acquisition of knowledge, etc.?

Only if everyone wakes up with religion amnesia can we all experience everything this brilliant world has to offer.

I can't think of a better way to assist the struggling airline industry...

"To what do you attribute your record profits," a financial reporter would ask the CEO of American Airlines. "Simple, religious zealots decided that, instead of trying to kill people who believe in a different book, enjoying life would be their top priority."

Collateral Damage

2011-06-10T10:38:00.000-07:00

Children of the Westboro Baptist church will lead abnormal lives. Homosexuals are still beaten to death strictly for their choice of romantic partner.

To moderate religious folks, these victims are simply collateral damage.

To spread nonviolent discrimination, you've gotta break some eggs.

I understand you genuinely believe that the collection of stories you frequently read are largely factual, but because they can't be proven, why not play it safe and purge the portions that result in the destruction of actual lives?

We're not talking about praying at a high school football game or publicly displaying a sign that reads, "Thou Shall Not Steal." We're talking about genuine lives.

Christians often debate whether non-violent Muslims contribute to terrorism by remaining silent. These same Christians never examine the roll their behavior plays in the persecution of homosexuals.

They're horrified when they see footage of folks jumping for joy in the streets of Pakistan after a terrorist attack kills scores of civilians. Then they curse American Muslims for failing to condemn both the attack and the exuberant celebration. But do they speak up after a hate crime is committed against the homosexual on their block? Or do they stay silent, only approaching the topic around people with whom they're comfortable joking, "Even though the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, I still wouldn't welcome a butcher of gays into my home... Not 'till he wiped the diseased blood off his shoes!"

Violence against homosexuals happens in every corner of the world, yet we rarely hear American Christians speak out against this particular form of global terrorism. American Christians also said nothing when the Pope argued that homosexuals are as great a threat to the planet as global warming.

Many Christians believe Muslims in Michigan wouldn't themselves slaughter infidels, yet consider blown up hotels in other parts of the world necessary to spread their faith. However I don't recall these same Christians marching down Main Street protesting the treatment of gays in notoriously homophobic Jamaica.

Everywhere homosexuals travel, they must be on guard due to a global anti-gay culture your religion promotes, whether by literature or silence.

Bullied male children who "act feminine" sometimes do the unthinkable because they can't bear another day of the same.

The stories are endless...

A school bus driver was arrested for calling a 10-year-old boy "gay" and then encouraging older students to chase the boy down after he got off the bus. The older kids followed the advice of their elder. Not satisfied with tiny fists, the bus driver joined in.

Brothers strolling down the street were beaten, one later died, because overeager homophobic murderers mistook them for a gay couple.

What's the difference between you and the Muslim who unemotionally sets down the newspaper after reading horrific details of a terrorist attack and then asks, "What's for dinner?"

Absolutely nothing; you both view the recently deceased as collateral damage.

If a fellow follower asks you, "Wasn't the most recent terrorist attack tragic?" do you respond, "It depends, what was the sexual orientation of the victims?"

I'm not saying all Christians and Muslims are insensitive louts. I am claiming, however, that only people without religion are guaranteed to loudly condemn every brutal act against the innocent. You all should do the same, regardless of what's written on the thin-pages of the book you've spent years coloring yellow. Occasionally you may want to read the words that don't make your insides feel warm and cozy, because those un-highlighted sections will keep brutality a part of our world forever.

A Blank Canvas

2011-06-04T09:10:00.000-07:00

I was fascinated to read New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's daughter Georgina has shunned political life. It seems she prefers the company of horses to public policy pundits. Her sister works for their father in City Hall; Georgina is an equestrian who writes books.

Allegedly, Papa Bloomberg is not happy that his daughter Georgina isn't the typical offspring of a billionaire politician. But were Georgina's sister not produced by the current mayor of New York, would a single Junior Bloomberg work at City Hall?

So many lives would be more fulfilled were we not imprisoned by what's expected of us.

Look at the box in which religion puts millions of people... How many shun pleasurable behavior they would otherwise consider sinless?

Had they experienced no household bias, how many children would grow up to follow the same holy book as their parents? Few would believe a factual holy book even existed. Of those who did, an astronomically small number would eventually decide they accepted the same book in which members of their family have believed for generations. In hopes good earthly deeds lead to heavenly rewards, some would believe in a loving creator, but, if not steered down a direct path, it's safe to assume most children would shun all specific religions, thus opening them up to limitless opportunities.

And they would most likely be better people. Instead of recalling sermons about the evils of homosexuality and therefore adding to the torment, brave untainted high-schoolers would come to the defense of bully victims.

Faithful people claim religion injects its subjects with goodness, when it instead acts as a barricade to inherent feelings of goodness. No religion in a young person's life means, "The high-voiced boy in my school is a good person; I know this because I judge him by his actions, not his mannerisms," would replace, "Only a small percentage of boys in my school talk like girls, and church teaches me that boys should talk like boys."

I understand that children often ridicule unique members of their class, and completely eliminating bullying is nearly impossible, but weekly visits to grandiose dwellings supposedly inspired by perfection, which actively back the assertion that the picked-on are vile sinners, certainly increases the amount of cruelty perpetrated in schoolyards across America.

If no parent influenced their child to believe a certain way, the world would undoubtedly see vast improvement.

Laws are aimed at making sure parents feed and water their children. Why not control what parents feed their child's brain by forbidding the teaching of propaganda? Again, think about how much society would benefit from legislation that required adults to only teach what they can prove. You can't prove god hates fags, you can't prove god encourages moderate levels of child abuse, and you certainly can't prove god smiles after the killing of an infidel under the age of 18.

Like Mayor Bloomberg should not be disappointed with his equestrian/author daughter; don't treat your child poorly for making decisions that fill his or her life with happiness. In fact, you should be proud they bravely carved their own niche - particularly when said niche doesn't call for baseless discrimination.

The "Real" Cult of Personality

2011-05-29T12:42:00.000-07:00

The now famous California preacher, who garnered massive amounts of publicity by predicting the end of the planet, got me thinking about just how easy it would be to start a cult of my own. Of course nothing worthwhile is ever accomplished these days unless it's eventually broadcast for the world to see!

Therefore I would like to pitch a reality show that chronicles the formation of The Laimbidians (pronounced "lame-bidians"). If the "end of the world is on May 21, 2011" preacher can get beaucoup people to sell their earthly possessions and drive across the fruited plains to spend the apocalypse with him, certainly I can get a few folks to join me at the Laimbidian compound. After all, I'm a lot younger and quite a bit curvier!

If a network executive reads this, please email me about turning my cult-starting-project into a reality show because I see dollar signs over the heads of the thousands of followers I'm sure to obtain.

The astronomical amount of religious folks around the globe makes it obvious that scores of sheep are ripe for the converting.

My hook will be: god approached me in a dream and said, enthusiastically, "In the major holy books, only the portions that portray me as good are accurate!" I didn't believe in him until he informed me that, not only does he exist, but he's a super-cool deity. He doesn't care if you’re straight or you're gay, he just wants you to spread peace throughout the land.

While I wouldn't be the only person to fabricate a story for the express purpose of spreading it throughout the land, I would be the first to bring a common sense approach to religion.

Since most religious people disregard passages in their holy books with which they vehemently disagree - instead choosing to believe their views are in lockstep with god's views - I'll ignore specific rules and regulations and handle promotion as if I were attempting to get people to visit my dance club. "There are three commandments all Laimbidians must follow..."

Commandment #1: Do the Right Thing

Commandment #2: Have a Blast!

Commandment #3: Follow Commandment #2 to the EXTREME!

Realistically, all I would need to start a successful cult is a dwelling in which to congregate with my followers, a professionally designed website, and perhaps a small budget for fliers and entertainment related expenses.

You can't tell me I'll fail to attract as many minions as the man who swore the apocalypse would begin on May 21, 2011!

My cult could even surpass Scientology, whose devotees believe Xenu, dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy", 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.

Laimbidian doctrine will simply state that god wants us all to do the right thing, and, when we slip, apologize to the person or persons we wronged. Much more believable than the Xenu story, no?

We won't have a holy book; we'll have a holy pamphlet. "Less words, more rock!"

At the first of what will hopefully be many Laimbidian schools, we'll focus semester number one on not discriminating. The second semester will be reserved for setting up a kick-ass graduation party.

The success of religion makes it obvious people are looking to believe in something, as well as be part of a group, so why not entertain America via the TV while giving folks an opportunity to join an organization that promotes guiltless pleasure, equality, tolerance and kindness.

It's sad that an atheist is needed to start the only religion that would actually make the world a better place.

We Got This

2011-05-24T11:59:00.000-07:00

Religion was developed to control people and perhaps it's actually serving its purpose. Perhaps society needs religion to thrive. Perhaps some of you wouldn't be able to get a lick of work done were you not taught certain actions are taboo; certain actions that, when performed in moderation, are not harmful to anyone.

If I am addicted to shopping, perhaps a good strategy in attempting to stay out of the poorhouse is convincing myself purchasing multiple outfits is a horrific sin. "More than one dress is excessive. Clothes are only needed to retain modesty and warmth. Striving to look fashionable is only done to feed the selfish ego."

The problem is that everyone doesn't share every vice. While you may need to refrain completely from a certain activity in order to lead a productive life, I'm able to moderate.

Stick with whatever contributes to your personal success, but everyone believing harmless acts are sinful is not necessary for society to prosper.

Seeing as how we're confident no punishment awaits us, why don't atheists go through life committing horrific deed after horrific deed? The reason we refrain from harming others, or putting our fellow man in danger, is simply because we're strong enough to do the right thing, i.e., we don't need a support group telling us we should refrain from a single drink because it will lead to the consumption of twenty in twenty-minutes, followed by the shouting of, "road trip!"

Many religious persons are similar to members of the military who only thrive with extreme structure. I'm talking about individuals that wouldn't bother putting on pants were a superior not perennially in their grill. In the armed forces, failing to perform 1,000 jumping jacks before breakfast may be considered sinful, and therefore necessary for some persons, while a nice cup of coffee shortly after waking helps me produce for the remainder of the day.

If you're addicted to pornography, you need to equate the viewing of erotic images as sinful, and completely refrain, or else your life will consist of little else.

Because I lead a productive life without following instructions listed between the covers of the book in which you've chosen to believe, please don't attack me verbally or portray me as "evil" when I haven't an evil bone in my body.

If it keeps you from waking up drunk every morning, by all means study your holy book daily. When you're finished, however, please don't say, "You know who'd also benefit from the words I just read: everyone."

If the church helped you prosper after you'd given up hope, then, by all means, stick with it, but please remember that not all of us have hit rock bottom and therefore aren't interested in hearing about what motivates you to remain on the straight and narrow.

Dance with who brung ya. If anyone asks who brung ya, provide them a biography. If people don't ask, it means you don't need to replace who brung 'em with your partner.

Organized Religion Profiled

2011-05-20T10:06:00.000-07:00

The Christian answer to Wikipedia (a site on which they at least attempt to post facts) is a hilarious web-entity called Conservapedia.

Conservapedia quotes a Christian writer who contends atheists are "socially autistic." Can you feel the love!?

While I'm much too kind to personally attack average Christians individually, I have drafted a profile for organized religion that I hope Conservapedia will accept with an open mind...

Organized Religion is a gaggle of people who choose to believe in the same book yet all interpret the words in said book very differently. For example, members of the Westboro Baptist Church believe god calls for the execution of homosexuals, while less hardcore American Christians think god wants gay men and women to remain amongst the living so church members will forever have the ability to discriminate against the "sexual deviants" and/or attempt to convert them.

Organized Religion and Charity

Instead of feeding hungry children, religious people often donate to causes that support the banning of same-sex marriage, leading uber-popular atheist blogger Sarah Laimbeer to create the satirical slogan, "Starvin' Marvin can eat cake after we prevent John and Steve from getting their tax break." (See what I did there!?)

Organized religion does help the needy on occasion, on the condition the needy are in the mood for a long lecture. Religious charity is doled out the same way Sea World trainers feed whales. "Listen to one more verse from Ephesians and then open wide! Good bum!" Non-religious people provide food, water and shelter to those down on their luck without a side order of guilt, oppression or discrimination.

Organized Religion and Megachurch Scandals

Many megachurch pastors have been caught up in sexual related scandals. Some have engaged in erotic activities with members of the same sex, a few have had opposite-sex affairs, while others enjoyed the performance of Alan Cumming in Cabaret a little too much.

Organized Religion and Judgment

Only through whole-heartedly believing in far-fetched texts can one deem certain actions sinful, therefore religious people enjoy harshly judging the harmless behavior of others. Their desire to feel superior to "sinners" helps them fill an emotional void; the same void that sent them searching for a group to join in the first place.

Organized Religion and Debate Claims

Despite a lack of science behind their arguments, many religious people adamantly claim their fellow believers routinely defeat atheists in debates. Their behavior is similar to staunch Republicans who argue John McCain wiped the floor with Barack Obama and ardent Democrats who contend Water Mondale took Ronald Reagan to the woodshed during their verbal pre-presidential election tilts. While not provable and highly improbable, religious individuals write about alleged debate trounces as fact, likely hoping their brethren will continue the habit of believing everything they read regardless of evidence.

Organized Religion and Intolerance

Publishers of religious websites, such as Conservapedia, which is only unintentionally funny, make it evident their hatred of people with whom they disagree consumes their lives. They do this by displaying pictures of ordinary Americans and claiming the persons in the photographs have weight issues because they don't believe exactly as the Conservapedia publishers. Though said publishers are adamant their own overtly-religious viewpoints keep the pounds off, scientists still argue that diet and exercise are the key to weight loss. A thorough search of Amazon.com reveal no book entitled, "Believe Your Way to Skinny," is a best-seller.

Organized Religion and Corporal Punishment

In accordance with the teachings of the Bible, many followers of organized religion physically beat their children with either their bare hands or objects intended to inflict maximum pain. They do this because they lack the ability to reason with their offspring. In order to spread abuse of youngsters throughout the world, many Christians ridicule non-violent forms of punishment and characterize un-abusive parents as "weak".

Organized Religion and Denial

Christians claim atheism leads to mental instability while denying the reality that a belief in an everlasting utopia is the only reason they're able to get out of bed in the morning.

Organized Religion and Hypocrisy

Ask a non-Muslim religious person if Osama bin Laden is still busy fornicating with his 72 virgins and he or she will likely roll their eyes. Ask the same believer if they'll eventually find themselves in a perfect locale for all of eternity, as a reward for the thoughts in their head, and they'll reply, "Of course, and you're a big fat idiot if you disagree."

These Are the Things We Tell Ourselves

2011-05-15T11:36:00.000-07:00

"Tomorrow I'm going to clean the entire house from top to bottom."

"One more donut and the rest are going in the trash. To make certain I don't pull a 'George Costanza,' I'm going to remove the bag from the can, tie it up and shake it around."

"This hurts me more than it hurts you."

I find it impossible to believe people who physically abuse their children don't enjoy the hell out of it.

The preppy blonde girl from The Facts of Life, now the mother of devout Christians, penned a book that advocates placing a tiny drop of hot sauce on the tongue of a child caught fibbing.

Those who follow the above advice may not verbally express their satisfaction, but I have a strong feeling their brain is saying, "Eat it, bitch!"

Witnessing such cruelty perpetrated on a minor with a different surname would make me sick to my stomach, so I can't imagine the resulting anguish from seeing a child in my own family burned on any part of their body.

If parents that abuse their offspring genuinely feel emotional angst whist inflicting physical pain, they simply wouldn't be able to do it.

Religious people claim that only through god do they know right from wrong. A large number of these people deem it "right" to burn their child's tongue, or repeatedly beat him or her about the backside. Through words inspired by a loving god, you feel wonderful about harming a young person the exact way you harm a dog that has yet to master the art of differentiating linoleum from grass!? You feel that, upon your child, you are bestowing the beautiful gift of physical pain!?

Religion definitely doesn't teach anyone right from wrong, and often teaches wrong is right. It helps scores of people justify abuse and persecution of children.

When you're forced to remind yourself, "I must refrain from crossing the line or my child will be left with teacher-attention-getting bruises," it may be time to rethink your parenting strategy. Only being able to sleep soundly due to confidence your children's school is so overcrowded insignificant bruising typically goes undetected isn't a product of loving your child too much.

With throbbing fingers, have you spankers, beaters, and hot-sauce placers ever Googled specific laws in your state to make sure the violent act you just perpetrated doesn't officially constitute "abuse" in a legal sense? Do you disregard political party and vote strictly for candidates that vow to expand your right to spank, beat and place hot-sauce? Do you eat from the same bottle of hot sauce, or is it too traumatizing for Junior? If the site of the label makes your little-one shriek in fear, and a Mexican restaurant automatically places a bottle on each table, do you ask your waiter to remove it out of worry convulsions will cause unwanted attention? What precautions do you take to ensure your captive will adequately cover for you should unusually intense rage, or one too many pre-beating margaritas, cause you to leave a very noticeable love welt? Are you a big fan of the, "Even with the occasional flogging, we still provide a better home than a foster couple ever could?" strategy?

I doubt people like the aforementioned Facts of Life actress even admit to themselves that what they're experiencing with every swat, and drop of liquid heat, is enjoyment. While they probably feel as I do after a heated verbal confrontation with an adult (I, honestly admitting the barrage of vile adjectives I rained down upon the jackass in question felt great), they tell themselves such euphoria is actually pain that stems from causing the apple of their eye to shed massive amounts of tears.

We don't punish adults with pain. In fact, we go to great lengths to make certain prisoners are not harmed physically. Why do we take so many precautions to protect those who knew better, yet deem it okay to hurt those whose brains have yet to fully develop?

I'm certain some non-religious people spank; just as I'm certain some religious people find the practice abhorrent, but the reason child abuse is legal in America is because the Bible gives it glowing reviews.

"He who spareth his rod hateth his son" is the Bible's way of saying, "If you're going to employ only one method of punishment, you must make it pummeling with a stick."

Since your Bible, and the law, approves of the spanking you just gave, your conscience is likely clean. You know whose conscience is also clean; the Sharia law following man who just murdered his two daughters for the crime of becoming too "westernized."

Instead of telling yourself, "I am physically abusing my child, which makes me a great parent," why not focus on reality: you are physically abusing your child and you enjoy it.

I'm not saying lying to yourself is always bad. I sometimes tell myself Christians and atheists are both wrong; that there is a generic god who chooses which people go up and which people go down. In my little fantasy universe, regardless of whether or not they stop at bruising, guess which direction child abusers go?

Warning: Written Without Assistance from Published Author

2011-05-10T13:38:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure how to write this piece and don't have time to run out and buy a book on how to draft a successful article.

Actually, none of my actions today have been based on advice from books, which probably means I've done everything wrong.

I don't care if you're a tiger mother, or allow your children to play fast and loose with the rules, my only request is that you not speak to any minor that emanated from your womb without assurance every word is recommended by an actual published author. Not a dinky blog-writer like me, rather a person that went to the immense trouble of sending out thousands of query letters to various literary agencies around the globe before eventually finding success.

I kid...

Does religion fill everyone with fear their own instincts should be dismissed? Do they say, "I don't get angry at the site of homosexuals, yet they're horrific sinners... If I'm wrong about that, what else must I be wrong about?"

If ancient scribes are trusted with what religious folks consider the most important aspect of their lives, I suppose it's not surprising they turn to modern authors to advise them on topics not covered in the Bible.

I constantly argue that a deity is not needed for us to know right from wrong; that hurting people is wrong and everything else is a personal choice. Sure there are some grey areas in life, such as, "If I walk past that beggar, will it motivate him to get a job? Or should I give him a quarter because I have one to spare?" But the fact that there are socialist Christians and staunch conservative Christians makes it clear that books don't clarify such dilemmas.

So we instinctively know what's right and what's wrong, and no book helps us definitively resolve the areas in-between...

When my stomach boisterously calls for sustenance, is it my inner-atheist that causes me to pick up the first fork around which I can wrap my hand and immediately dig into the meal that lies on my plate; as opposed to scanning the other eaters in an attempt to discern their choice of utensil? Is it my natural aversion to being scolded, for doing what I believe is correct, that prevents me from looking up to the heavens at social gatherings and desperately shouting, "Why did I fall asleep while reading Miss Manners!? Had I intellectually devoured two more chapters I would know for certain if the situation in which I currently find myself requires a curtsey or a kowtow!"

This is unlike most articles I've drafted and has little to do with religion, but I'm genuinely curious as to why reliance on written advice from strangers is so prevalent. When things go wrong, do we desire to throw our hands in the air and say, "Wasn't my idea - it's what I read I was supposed to do!" Is it our way of deflecting blame? Is it our way of never being labeled a failure?

I find our dependence on books sad for the simple reason I personally know decent people who, were it not for their religious backgrounds, would likely stand with me in opposing injustice.

Maybe I should start accepting advice from my published betters. Yes, that's just what I'll do. So won't you kindly pardon me so that I may discover if the current etiquette advisors deem it unmannerly of me to ask them to go screw themselves in the one place on their body the star at the center of the solar system rudely refuses to shine?

Best wishes,

Ms. Sarah Laimbeer

You Still Can't Tie!

2011-05-05T16:53:00.000-07:00

Against homosexuals, many Christians discriminate because a book tells them god smiles upon such bigotry. Ditto Muslims and Jewish people. I can connect the actions of religious people to their belief in specific books.

You cannot, however, connect the actions of atheists to anything. Regardless of interpretation, the Westboro Baptist Church founder and the preacher at the Presbyterian Church closest to my home follow the same guide.

While many religious people would love to compare me to Mao, I'm mature enough to admit there's a huge difference between the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church and the local Presbyterian preacher. The former protests at military funerals because America tolerates homosexuality while the latter only mutters things such as, "While perverse, at least Married with Children was a show about straight people," as he flips past reruns of Will & Grace, Queer as Folk, and The L Word, on his way the 700 Club.

While I will not connect average American Christians to mass killing, I cannot deny that organized religion has been responsible for much brutality over the centuries. Still is.

And again, we can tie religion directly to the brutality, while no religious person can tie atheism to the hurting of a fly! Despite this, religious folks point to bad deeds done by atheists and say, "see what atheism made them do!"

Wrong! Words often inspire the committing of atrocities. Atheists share no manuscript.

If the only thing you religious people had in common was a belief in god, no one could tie your actions together. When the faithful committed crimes, but could not point to a text that told them their vile actions were justified, it would mean they didn't thumb their nose at the law specifically because of their belief in god; rather they thumbed their nose at the law because it satisfied a personal desire.

No atheist handbook told Joseph Stalin, "You shall build four gulags in the summer and four more in the winter." Many religious military generals, on the other hand, opened their book of choice nightly to remind themselves that each drop of innocent blood they spilled was extremely pleasing to their deity.

It's safe to say that many "religion-made-me-do-it" criminals would have failed to act inappropriately had they not been repeatedly told their cruel actions were noble. There's nothing atheistic that caused unbelievers to commit horrific acts, which means nothing could have been removed from their lives that would have resulted in a clean rap sheet. And an infusion of religion into the life of the aforementioned Joseph Stalin, for example, would have made it easier for the man to spread evil because most religious works promote monetary equality regardless of toil.

I'd also like to point out that most atheists don't mention the fact that mass cruelty has been perpetrated in the name of religion because we're attempting to convert the masses; we're simply warning everyone about the danger religion poses when it spreads from the church.

In addition to a reduction in stoning deaths of alleged adulterers and sexual assault victims, we'd like to prevent religious folks from forcing us to live by the many nonsensical rules in their books - whether or not they claim it is their sincere belief that such statutes further public safety. If you promise to keep your religion out of the voting booth, i.e., out of my house, public schools, and the place I'm trying to buy a bottle of vodka at 3:00 in the morning, I'll even help you recruit!

Whether we're talking mass murder or discrimination, the bottom line is that we need to focus on the complete elimination of cruelty. The best method for achieving our goal is to promote freedom, base laws on common sense, and stop heaping scorn upon individuals who follow said common sense laws, regardless of the sexual practices they carry out with other consenting adults.

Since I'm after only freedom and safety for all, I would like to put an end to the one-upmanship. I'm speaking specifically of Christian apologists who boast that religion has grown over the years while atheists will soon suffer the fate of the dinosaur. The majority of Saudi Arabians believe the practice of stoning alleged adulterers is righteous because that's what they've been taught by their religious elders. In other words, I'm not quite ready to concede I'm wrong simply because I'm in the minority.

Okay, now let's end the one-upmanship.

You Better Start Believing in God, Fatty

2011-05-01T15:50:00.000-07:00

To my absolute delight, I recently discovered a website that argues atheism is evil. The site actually claims that failure to believe in a deity leads to obesity. Though I'm fairly certain this Christian-Conservative entity is not satirical, it's funnier than Charlie Sheen when he's not trying to be funny.

Most religious folks make the claim that atheists do bad things because we're atheists, while bad deeds done by religious folks are not related to their belief in a deity. Apparently we overeat, and sit down for long periods of time, simply because god is not inspiring us to put down our forks and stand up with the express purpose of eventually moving around rapidly.

"Very religious Americans make healthier choices than their moderately religious and nonreligious counterparts," the site contends.

Since they're speaking about "very" religious people, I actually agree with the above quote.

The "very" religious tend to get a lot of exercise swatting their children on the backside, which could be labeled a "healthy choice." As I mentioned in an early posting, an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church preacher challenged his adult congregation to start an exercise routine of their own. "If you're not bruising the child, you're not spanking the child enough," he said.

Since we atheists have no instruction manual encouraging us to leave marks upon our own flesh and blood, naturally we leave them physically unscathed. Instead of burning calories with each swat of our tot, we sit around getting fat watching them smile from ear-to-ear as they frolic and play.

Simply thinking about happy, un-bruised children makes me feel like I just ate a whole turkey. Who would have thunk humane punishments lead to portly parents?

On this same website, in a maneuver undoubtedly inspired by the Old Testament, a link is posted to a different site which contains photographs of several atheists. Please keep in mind that these non-religious men and women are not famous. Before clicking the link, everyone is instructed to pay close attention to the extra pounds the unbelievers carry.

Funny how a website arguing atheism is evil taunts everyday overweight people like schoolyard bullies taunt physically unimposing children the ruffians don't match up with intellectually. Even funnier, the site actually claims one thing has to do with the other.

In response to the horrific act of drawing attention to the excess girth on ordinary atheists, I will provide you with a link to the official site of a small Methodist Church in northwest Mississippi; specifically a page displaying a digital photograph of the fattest, most disgusting female treasurer you've ever laid eyes on. You may need to scamper to your local Best Buy to purchase a bigger monitor so every vile flap and fold will be visible. Seriously though, please keep a bucket near your desk to make sure there is a place to aim your lunch...

This lady so fat, when she goes to church she sits next to everybody.

This lady so fat, she was baptized at Sea World.

This lady so fat, when she sits around the church, she sits AROUND the church.

Wait a second, I actually won't provide such a link. I just remembered that I genuinely care about people with differing viewpoints and would feel rather bad about what I'd consider an immoral transgression, yet many Christians consider, "God's work."

The Gay Marriage Consequences

2011-04-27T08:04:00.000-07:00

How would your life change if gay marriage was legalized?

Of course the lives of committed homosexuals, i.e., your fellow man, would improve, but I'm talking about your life.

Are you anti-gay marriage advocates afraid there will be gloating on the part of the homosexual community? Are you viewing gay marriage as you do your upcoming slow-pitch softball game against the local (we're-the-only-ones-going-to-heaven) Church of Christ? Though losing a sports game has no lasting repercussions, you'd hang your head in shame simply because you failed; just like you'd do if gay marriage was legalized.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no way your life, nor society, would suffer one iota if a man and a man were allowed to wed.

Common sense tells you that gay marriage wouldn't pave the way for a man to legally obtain the right to marry one or more of the following: his beloved box turtle, his first cousin, eight women, or the entire cast of Glee. Common sense does this the same way it informs you the school administrator who expelled the first-grader for accidentally bringing a plastic knife to school, violating the zero tolerance policy, acted stupidly.

Funny how the only secular argument against gay marriage involves far-fetched scenarios to which the best retort is usually a simple, "Come on!"

You resemble children who've outgrown a stuffed toy that's collecting dust in the corner yet won't let your younger sibling snuggle up against for the simple reason the plush panda makes them happy.

"Satisfied gays make me sick! If they're gonna live in sin, I'm going to make them dedicate every waking hour to achieving the same benefits my opposite-sex spouse and I enjoy! For no 'offense' other than settling down with the person to whom they're most attracted, they will pay! Dearly, those scum suckers will pay!"

Really!?

It means that much to you!?

It means so much you're willing to waste your time, their time, your money and their money to fight a fight rooted in spite?

Think of all the progress and charity you're preventing. As usual, organized religion hinders goodness.

Seeing as how your life would not change, spite is the only explanation.

If an individual were completely ignorant of religion, you do realize it would be impossible to convince him or her that gay marriage would directly lead to the decline of society, right?

If you stated, "A man and a woman can create a child, while a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) lack that specific capability," a person unaware books have been written, allegedly inspired by a higher power, could easily retort, "Yeah, but since many heterosexual couples abuse their own children, doesn't the physical capability of persons to reproduce have little to do with the quality of parent they become? More individuals are heterosexual than not, so legalizing gay marriage will not lead to the extinction of mankind. And wouldn't an increase in gay married couples lead to an increase in loving households ready and willing to adopt unwanted children produced by heterosexual people?"

Please at least admit your opposition to gay marriage is solely based on a book on which American laws are not supposed to be rooted. Please don't try and make it seem as if you're concerned with the well being of society. Don't argue, "A child is better off with a man and woman at the helm," when you know full well that a child needs only loving and moral guardians to thrive.

Please admit your only desire is to see the country governed by rules your specific religious text promotes. Of course you'd like society to focus on statutes that don't hinder your ability to enjoy life. Because you need to inhale dozens of alcoholic drinks every day of the week ending in "Y', passages frowning upon excessive drunkenness should be ignored, i.e., interpreted differently. Because you enjoy intimate relations with members of the opposite sex, Biblical passages forbidding same-sex love are not open to debate.

It's Not the Region, Stupid

2011-04-20T16:07:00.000-07:00

Faithful Americans wish to believe organized religion is not responsible for horrific violence in the Middle East. Though they'd never dare admit it, they think a primitive culture is to blame, or that brains of certain foreigners resemble those contained in the skulls of cavemen.

But people born in Afghanistan are the same as those born in Ardmore, Oklahoma.

The truth is that religious folks in America commit many abhorrent acts because their church elders tell them it's okay, or worse, encourage them to, "Just Do It." We all know the Westboro Baptist Church has a bad habit of protesting military funerals because they're angry Nathan Lane isn't rotting in jail for a specific reason unrelated to his role in Joe Versus the Volcano.

As noted in a recent 20/20 episode, several Independent Fundamental Baptist churches have seen their members arrested then convicted of abusing children. Of course no organization can prevent every single member from committing crimes, but most don't go to great lengths covering up abuse and/or blaming the victim. IFB preachers often encourage the beating of children. The aforementioned 20/20 episode aired footage of a preacher angrily telling his flock, "If you're not bruising the child, you're not spanking the child enough."

It's not the region; it's religion.

We have our Founding Fathers to thank for making sure acts of abuse against children are indeed illegal and therefore require hiding, or else we'd witness young girls routinely standing in the public square apologizing for their sin of being abused by an adult. Since I don't know the location of any public squares, maybe they'd beg forgiveness while standing in line waiting to purchase their back-to-school Trapper Keepers, you know, a couple days before abuse at the hands of a family elder gives way to abuse at the hands of a school official.

America is great place in which to live because our Founding Fathers understood this country would remain in the stone ages were religion holding it back. These visionaries realized that, while people might continue clinging to their faith, they would reject past norms to achieve greatness, and shun cruelty, if overtly religious laws and peer pressure were non-factors.

Let's talk about slavery...

Slavery was prominent in the south, so an end to the practice wasn't brought about by multiple Bible readings; it was brought about by people who became inherently sick to their stomach at the site of abuse, not sick to their stomach after reading the Bible then witnessing unimaginable cruelty. "A black man beaten within an inch of his life used to not bother me, but after reading the Bible I have a burning desire to hurl my body in front of his master's whip!"

Christian abolitionists succeeded because they lived in a country where a supreme leader wasn't allowed to send out goons to exterminate them as the extreme Hutus slaughtered their moderate brethren.

It doesn't give modern religious people pause that the primary reason widespread cruelty no longer occurs in America is because joining a church is voluntary!?

Everything America has achieved was made possible because religion does not hold back progress as small puddles of mud held back the Yugo Cabrio.

I'm glad our Founding Fathers gave religious people a way to keep the faith yet not feel it's their duty to hurl rocks at my head when I promote atheism, but no one should forget that organized religion remains responsible for much cruelty around the globe.

I know the typical Christian will respond, "You can't compare us to psychopathic American churches that claim the Bible is their inspiration and you certainly can't compare us to radical Islam..."

Due to your penchant for baseless discrimination, I certainly can't equate you with people who do the right thing.

After all, the right thing is what atheists do.

What Was I Thinking!?

2011-04-15T20:50:00.000-07:00

A favorite question asked to atheists by religious people is, "What will you say to god once the act of standing before him proves you're wrong?"

Well picture this...

As you pass through the pearly gates, you can't help but notice they're adorned with large swastikas.

"Strange," you think, and then surmise, "They must not be symbols of hate as they are in the place from which I came."

You sit down and wait for the entity that will judge your earthly actions. As you mentally list your good deeds with a confident smirk, he begins walking toward you from a great distance. "It can't be," you mumble. "Uh-oh; that mustache is unmistakable." You don't even have to wait for the thick German accent to know you're doomed. "Do I stand and salute? Oh no, if he's omniscient he's aware of the fact that my best friend throughout college was Seraphim Bernbaum!"

If the above scenario actually happens, will you express regret over your failure to champion Nazi programs? Will you say, "Why didn't I embrace the formation of a master race!? The Third Reich wasn't evil like my disgraceful pro-Semitic teachers portrayed it. After all, if you want to make a world of perfectly sculpted, blue-eyed beauties, you've got to break a few inferior races."?

No matter the consequences, you wouldn't wish to turn back the clock so you could disrupt history class by booing footage of Allied soldiers liberating Nazi Concentration Camps.

I'm not comparing anybody to Hitler; I'm simply saying that, by rejecting the deity whose actions you strongly admonish, you'd be standing up for your fellow human beings, which is exactly what I'm doing as an atheist.

If it is revealed that a creator, responsible for me and the planet on which I lived, considers homosexuality a sin most wretched, I'm not going to all of sudden hang my head in shame for failing to even attempt converting my gay friends. No matter how much heat I feel, I will never say, "Since you, my creator, favor the stoning of gays, then such brutality must be just. I only wish an earthly person would have convinced me of this and then placed in my hand a few rocks that were light enough to get some muscle behind yet heavy enough to do significant damage to the face of a sodomizer."

If you eventually discover Sharia law is god's real preference, will you kick yourself for allowing your earthly wife to remain scarless after that Super Bowl party during which she without a doubt proved who wears the pants in your relationship by intensely glaring you into dropping what would have been your twelfth beer into the cooler and slowly walking away?

When you base your decisions on right and wrong, and bestow admiration on individuals whose actions you consider noble, future judgment is of no concern.

If I am wrong and find myself awaiting a meeting with my maker, I would be concerned, however, had I spent a lifetime judging the sinless, an act I felt in my heart was wrong, yet performed simply because I was convinced great reward would follow.

In Christian circles, atheists are considered immoral despite the fact that one of our biggest desires is making sure not a single life is negatively impacted by religion. Without fear of consequence and without regret, I would pridefully tell anyone, or anything, my earthly goal was championing human dignity.

One Stop Justification

2011-04-11T21:51:00.000-07:00

Despite there being no correlation, religious people enjoy arguing that atheism causes communism and is therefore responsible for many deaths.

Of course the above argument is bogus, as is the argument that a robber is driven to hold up a convenience store because he or she doesn't believe in a specific deity.

Sure atheists have committed atrocities, but these butchers didn't claim they murdered based on words from the manual in which all true atheists must believe because no such manual exists.

Some religious people point to their favorite book and say, "See, throwing stones at her face until she stopped moving is exactly what I'm required to do."

According to the faithful, religion is needed to differentiate good from bad just as a history book is required to teach us that George Washington was the first President of the United States.

But religion doesn't incentivize good behavior; it comforts people who enjoy performing abhorrent acts.

Look at the amount of evil that's been perpetrated because individuals, who wish to think of themselves as noble, accept a book that either excuses or encourages despicable behavior. These folks have the audacity to claim that thoughtfully concluding a deity is not responsible for the universe is a gateway crime.

I'm always trying to figure out if the majority of people on this earth are inherently good, or if most simply have a natural desire to believe their actions are just.

Was religion formulated to control the masses, or because people wanted to selfishly harm others and sleep soundly once their oil lamps were extinguished?

In other words, religion could have been an early answer to the, "For making goo-goo eyes at that strong-jawed goat-herder, I wanna bust my wench of a wife upside the head with a large stone, yet am aware such brutality is immoral and get far more shuteye with a guilt free brain," dilemma.

One thing is certain: there's no limit to evil if the evildoer truly believes he is acting in the best interest of humanity.

People strive to achieve great wealth so they can afford to compensate a staff hired for the express purpose of serving their every non-erotic need. Why would a man go to the trouble of building a fortune when all that's required is accepting a certain religious work that plainly states the woman he wed is nothing more than a glorified employee who must grant his every wish, regardless of where it measures on the perversion scale?

Instinct, not belief in words drafted by ancient men, lets us know what's good and what's bad. When guilt consumed monsters desire to perform an act they're cognizant is cruel, they pick up a book that tells them, "It's okay - have at her. Trust whoever wrote this when they stated, 'they're called wifely 'duties' for a reason.'"

When people find themselves saying, "I know you could interpret my holy book in a way that makes the work appear evil, but I inexplicably choose to believe it promotes peace," it's time they contemplate following writings that leave no room for interpretation, or better yet, apply common sense to every situation. Religious works have directly led to unimaginable cruelty, yet moral devotees actively tout such writings with hope their fellow followers interpret them, "the good way."

Why not just promote words that unequivocally instruct everyone to refrain from harming their fellow man!?

It's such a simple concept, yet only 20% of my fellow countrypersons are with me!

Eugenics Atheist Style

2011-04-06T18:51:00.000-07:00

Leaders on both sides of the political aisle have used the United States military to make foreign nations better places in which to live through regime change, yet no one discusses purging fanatical theists who routinely kill the innocent based on orders from their holy books.

No legitimate leader or authority figure has ever proposed making it a priority to preemptively exterminate fanatical religious herds on their way to decapitate innocent people in response to whatever has angered the zealots that particular day. Governments sit back while the overtly religious violently scare the masses into submitting. None even make the case that such abhorrent people deserve to die before they can raise a single knife.

Eugenics is making the world a better place by wiping out the undesirable. Should we be asking if those who say, "My religion demands I kill you in response to the actions of persons with whom you have no connection" are desirable?

When people, who claim their holy book instructs them it's time to kill, mobilize, should there be armed troops nearby ready to save innocent lives by taking lives? It's not like nobody knows where these people live and what sets them off.

I'm sorry if infants are fed religious propaganda from the day they can comprehend words until the time they are capable of killing innocent persons in the name of their god, but does an unfortunate childhood mean we must wait for them to draw first blood.

Is, "UN Workers Killed by Religious Fanatics during Protest," a headline we must just accept?

Why hasn't a candidate proposed making sure, if he or she is elected, the above headline will be replaced with, "Allied Troops Slaughter Knife Wielding Herd en Route to UN Headquarters."?

Would the world be a better place with rulers who mercilessly exterminate theists willing to kill in the name of their religion? Would a majority of the noble smile if there were a leader who bashed in the heads of those looking to murder the innocent as Aldo Raine laughingly killed Nazis?

This candidate wouldn't even be required to speak or act against a specific religion due to the fact that the specific religion changes. Come to me and say you belong to a mainstream religion that stands for peace and I can point to historical periods of darkness so extreme you will lower your head and exit in shame. In other words, don't think, "She's not talking about my religion; she's talking about the religion practiced by the shady family across the street," because I'm talking about your religion and the religion practiced by the shady family across the street.

If no one is currently killing in the name of your religion, then you and such a leader would have no quarrel. You leave the innocent alone and he or she will leave you alone.

Why has no leader advocated for the formation of a special unit of elite fighters to combat the problem of religious based killings? When a Koran is burned in the United States and a sword wielding gang therefore gathers in the streets of Afghanistan, the machine gun equipped soldiers could be to the zealots as Indiana Jones was to the expert swordsman. When an interracial couple moves into a house down the block, members of the same unit could be waiting outside the homes of Bible toting Klansmen who have violence on the brain. Of course they couldn't stop every killing, but they sure could have fun trying.

Because they're the least likely to realize true peace cannot be achieved until extreme versions of their kind are wiped off the map, is it a shame people of religion continue winning elections?

It seems to me that some sort of solution is required other than instructing everyone to forever walk on eggshells because religious fanatics may eventually learn of your actions and take it out on innocent bystanders. Now that America is in the habit of killing to prevent death, it stands to reason we'd at least discuss doing everything in our power to save human beings from brutal beheadings at the hands of angry mobsters who claim a book told them that shedding innocent blood is the best way to serve their god.

Is it a noble action to murder someone at 1500 Kandahar Lane to make sure the international aid worker at 1550 Kandahar Lane doesn't have to quickly draft an email to friends and family members in which he or she relays the following unfortunate information, "in response to a news story about a kooky American and his penchant for burning books with which he disagrees, an angry mob is outside my door brandishing weapons sharp enough to cut through the entirety of my neck. Hopefully they will kill me quickly, but precedent suggests otherwise. Goodbye."

Will there be a point when the world so tires of religious fanaticism that someone in a prominent position finally suggests we get medieval on their asses? Because, despite the fact that you've done nothing to offend them, that's exactly what they'd enjoy doing to yours.

Monopolizing Good

2011-03-31T15:56:00.000-07:00

I find it fascinating that Christians in America have a monopoly on good. They hoard it. Because of at least one flaw, no other group can lay claim. With their silence, Muslim Americans praise terrorism. Atheists are rotten because without god in our life we have no way of knowing that it's wrong to murder and pillage. Jewish people are in second place, but that one flaw will always separate them.

America has come a long way in areas such as equal rights for women and minorities. While still not perfect, we're continually improving from eras during which unfathomable acts of cruelty were commonplace. Yet many in our country can't get over the antiquated notion that Christianity equals good and everything else equals bad.

Even if folks strictly learned goodness in Christian churches, they wouldn't have exclusive rights. Good is good. Good does not mean believing in certain words unrelated to moral action.

And a moral action isn't moral because a Methodist church is where a person was encouraged to take it.

In friendly debates, I have actually heard the faithful argue their god can't see acts of kindness committed by the non-faithful because a wall of disbelief blocks the deity's vision.

Not only does our good go unrecognized, the Pavlovian response to the "A-word" is one of fear.

Can you imagine the reaction to an event held specifically to raise funds that would later be used to spread atheism across the country? By most it would be compared to the Aryan Brotherhood renting out the local Holiday Inn, hiring a DJ and holding a dance contest to raise money that would later be used to tattoo toddlers so full of Nazi propaganda they could effectively be used as crawling billboards.

I know a lot of atheists and they're all great people. More atheists would mean more tolerance. An increase in atheists certainly wouldn't increase the rate of crime, yet many Americans would attempt to aggressively counter any planned expansion.

Though Christianity calls for discrimination of people who have done nothing wrong, I do not actively seek the tearing down of a single church and would not throw myself in front of a bulldozer clearing land on which the next mass center of worship is scheduled to be erected. Atheists call for the discrimination of no one, yet an attempt to grow the number of nonbelievers across America would undoubtedly be labeled "alarming to the fabric of our nation."

In a country with so many religious folks, I suppose it's only natural that nonjudgmental citizens are labeled ne'er-do-wells while those regularly instructed to look down upon the sinless have a monopoly on good.

Convert Yourself!

2011-03-28T16:23:00.000-07:00

I recently began wondering if conservatives genuinely believe homosexuals can choose to whom they're attracted. I mean, there is no way even the staunchest Christian could think a fellow human being would declare, "I love women. I love their curves, their skin, the way their luscious booties wiggle and jiggle whilst they shake their 'groove thing' on the dance floor. At the beach, my skin has been burned many times while I gazed at perky women in skimpy bikinis. Despite this, I have intimate relations with men."

Exhaustive research, completed during American Idol commercials, reveals that most conservatives actually acknowledge the fact that homosexuals are attracted to their same-sex partners. However these Christians insist gay people should refrain from acting on their inherent desire because the act of love is a choice. In other words, while Rebecca may want to have sex with Gertrude, instead of committing the sinful act, Gert and Becky should spend a mellow evening repeatedly reading Bible verses which clearly inform them that, while the whipped cream currently atop the bare butt of Becky looks delicious, the protrusion of Gert's tongue would only be moral if Becky were a man and the two were joined in matrimony.

So basically, when conservatives speak about "converting homosexuals" they're talking about helping gays suppress their inherent attraction and perhaps assisting them in finding members of the opposite sex appealing.

But who's really in desperate need of conversion?

Homosexuals are naturally attracted to members of the same sex and therefore settle down with such a person, just as heterosexuals settle down with members of the opposite sex. Of course there are exceptions (the televangelist currently parading around your television) but most married Christian men didn't propose to the woman with whom they fell in love because the Bible contains zero verses telling them it's a sin. "I want to propose to my girlfriend and am reading the Bible to make sure it's okay. I just started on the Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy and so far my intentions are holy!"

In one way or another, most religious people persecute homosexuals based on words in a book science has largely disproved.

A frantic man runs into a heterosexual wedding ceremony carrying an ancient parable-filled book he claims to have been inspired by god. Words in said publication declare unequivocally that such a man/woman union is immoral. Inspired by the book, in which none of the attendees believe, the boisterous man attempts to convert the woman-in-white by screaming "You're a sinner!" while showing her pictures of Shakira sunbathing in her skivvies.

If we switch the frantic man with a Christian man, and the heterosexual couple with a homosexual couple, then people belonging to a certain religion all of a sudden go from saying, "That guy is totally nuts" to "That guy is doing the work of the Lord."

Christians hope the frantic man will eventually convert to their faith so he will stop irrationally speaking out against the wonderful institution of straight marriage because he read in an old book, Christians deem false, that such union is heresy and start rationally speaking out against the deplorable institution of gay marriage because he read in an old book, Christians deem true, that such union is heresy.

If we convert religious folks, however, then everyone who opposes loving couples from walking down the aisle will be considered kooky. And isn't the ideal conclusion one that leaves not a single person baselessly discriminating against his fellow man?

The Axis of Evil: Iran, North Korea and Sarah

2011-03-23T18:41:00.000-07:00

America is currently waging four wars.

One in Iraq.

One in Afghanistan.

One in Libya.

One in America.

In Libya, America is fighting a brutal dictator. In Iraq, America is fighting religious zealots. In Afghanistan, America is fighting religious zealots. In America, America is fighting Americans the majority of other Americans consider anti-religious zealots.

I grant you, we atheists aren't gathered together in a bomb shelter awaiting the next wave of missiles; rather we're sitting in our homes awaiting the next Fox News story on how horrible we are for expressing frustration over the fact that our supposedly secular government bases laws on the Bible. Some Fox News personalities declare our refusal to sit idly by while the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is spat upon was the catalyst for war, i.e., America is acting in self defense.

Conservatives constantly lament that they're vilified by the left. "Well golly-gee-shucks, why do liberals call for our heads on a platter when all we want is limited government?"

I would ask them, "Why do you vilify atheists when all we want is to live in a land where laws are based on reason? Why do you accuse us of attempting to ruin the kid-centric holiday of Christmas - insinuating our motives are purely rotten - when all we want is nativity scenes moved from public courthouses to private front lawns."

Liberals vilify conservatives. Conservatives vilify liberals. Christian conservatives vilify atheists. Atheists vilify... Wait, who do we vilify? There must be at least one group of people we vilify. Think, Sarah, think. We often speak out against faithful folks who refuse to "live and let live." But asking that they take down overtly religious works on public land doesn't exactly constitute "vilifying." Come on Sarah, use your brain! After revealing their opinion, whose lips do I wish to see sewn shut in a ritualistic ceremony so horrific it would make producers of the Saw franchise say, "Damn!"? Wow, no one comes to mind. It appears as if I only desire to reside in a country whose leaders don't make asinine statements like, "The mass displaying of rules and regulations taught by the holy book I choose to follow in no way 'establishes a religion.'"

It appears I simply wish that people who belong to the religion practiced by the majority of my fellow countrypersons say, "We're going to honor the wishes of the great Thomas Jefferson by building a wall between church and state." After all, does abiding by the words of our third president hinder in any way your ability to practice whichever religion you deem true?

Instead you verbally attack us for undermining "American values" while simultaneously expressing outrage over the fact that your political adversaries accuse you of despising the poor, an argument you claim has no merit.

In other words, you can dish it out but you can't take it.

Now I must sign off; I need to start getting ready for the Axis of Evil Spring Formal. Let me tell you, it's very difficult finding an outfit that, A. won't give Kim Jong-Il the wrong idea, B. is super-sexy, and C. makes it impossible for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to see my face.

Should I Show You a Picture?

2011-03-21T08:08:00.000-07:00

Our blood boils every time we see still or moving images of Middle Eastern stonings carried out by villagers claiming their religion makes it clear the deviant actions of the condemned left the townspeople no other choice.

Sadly we see gruesome still photographs, and sometimes video, far too often. It makes us think, "How could anyone believe such a deplorable act is the right thing to do?"

The sad fact, however, is that folks of many different religions have throughout history claimed their holy books instructed them to brutally murder those who performed harmless actions or committed petty transgressions.

If you all of a sudden believed in the teachings of Islam, yet continued to find violence abhorrent, would you join the Taliban five years from now with assurance from the supreme leader that they no longer interpreted the Koran to mean the stoning of homosexuals was righteous and instead simply chose to nonviolently discriminate against everyone who acts on their inherent attraction to members of the same sex? Would you join the "Nouveau Taliban" if their actions truly made it seem as if they belonged to the "religion of peace"?

I ask anyone belonging to a modern religion that adheres to a book which details past unimaginably cruelties; would it take regularly looking at pictures of such atrocities for them to hit home. If you constantly perused images of the resulting carnage, would it be more difficult for you to "get past all that."

Would it help to have a television network dramatizing deplorable acts depicted in your religious works as well as air actual video of modern day punishments carried out by monsters claiming their god makes it clear a brutal execution must be carried out against the young girl for the sin of being sexually abused by filthy men whose deed will go unpunished?

We often hear, "Holy books aren't factual and the atrocities documented didn't necessarily occur." I'm sure knowing his fellow villagers are hurling stones at his head because of a fictional story makes the very real man in the very real hole feel a lot better about his situation.

If visual reminders don't do the trick, the least people of every religion could do is strip their holy books of unspeakable cruelty. Just take out all stories and instructions that could be used to justify or encourage brutal punishments. Obviously we can't rely on hope that, "people will have enough sense to refrain from taking action based on these stories, which, while horrific, aren't meant to be interpreted literally."

Just think of how much senseless violence you could prevent. You have no proof your books are accurate and therefore isn't it better to play it safe over risking millions of human lives, especially considering the fact that, when recruiting, you only highlight the good parts.

If these updated holy books were passed down from generation to generation, eventually no one would recall passages that could be used to justify brutalizing the innocent.

No more, "If you read chapter five, verse seven of such-and-such book you'll find I'm required to hang these young homosexuals," if chapter five, verse seven of such-and-such book doesn't exist.

Actually, we could save the entire works in museums. When asked about, religious elders could tell up and coming followers, "In the dark ages people believed these writings instructed them to brutally punish those who had done nothing wrong, but thankfully we came to the realization that actual works of god would never promote such cruelty."

Arguing over nativity scenes and religious-based laws is one thing, seeing blood of the young and innocent shed based on fictional tales reminds me exactly how serious our differences are. It's especially frustrating knowing that no one who shares my beliefs could fathom justifying such brutality. It's very easy for me to understand slaughtering the innocent is wrong, as is promoting books that could be interpreted to encourage such behavior. Yet, because there are so many religious people across the globe, I'm in the minority. Accepting the fact that I posses the extremely rare ability of differentiating right from wrong is difficult when the consequences are so high.

Outlawing Same-Sex Marriage

2011-03-15T04:41:00.000-07:00

When arguing with proponents of gay marriage, many Christians claim, "If we allow gays to marry, we must then permit all kinds of crazy weddings. A man can marry forty women, his pet goat, a doorknob, or a perky blonde blow up doll he's nicknamed 'Hootie' because Only Wanna Be With You was playing during their first intimate encounter. No more asking fellow wedding invitees 'Are you a friend of the bride or groom?' We must begin asking, 'Are you a friend of the groom or were you involved in the production of the rubber that now constitutes the bride's buttocks?'" Then the gay marriage antagonist smiles and nods as if he or she has just presented an argument so persuasive that gay marriage backers in every corner of the country somehow sense their cause is rapidly crumbling.

If they're going to argue that legalizing gay marriage would open the floodgates to all kinds of oddball weddings, I'll retort by suggesting we needn't cease progression, rather we should regress, i.e., the government should immediately stop recognizing opposite-sex marriages. Of course Uncle Sam couldn't prevent persons from carrying out private ceremonies of a religious nature, but having a preacher preside over your wedding wouldn't earn you a single tax break because the IRS will consider everyone single for, "as long as they alone shall live."

Why do conservatives, who say that marriage is not a right, have the right to marry someone with opposing genitalia? Before opposite-sex marriage became legal, a heterosexual marriage opponent could have easily said, "Once we allow men and women to marry, we'll have to let homosexuals marry, then we'll have to grant licenses to men who've fallen in love with their snow blower because they find a little danger keeps romance interesting."

I'm not a big marcher, but would proudly walk up and down many blocks in an attempt to make null and void heterosexual marriage. Boy would I love to tell gay-marriage-opposing-religious-heterosexual-newlyweds that they're now just shacking up.

"Sorry," I would say to what we formerly considered, "the wife," faking sincerity. "But since you reside in the same dwelling it's not like you'll be forced to recreate the 'walk of shame' you made famous during your college years under the guise you were trying to find yourself."

Two people have the desire to get married. It's okay if one is a man and the other is a woman. It's not okay if one is a man and the other is a man.

Why?

Religion.

If the Bible said, "A man is encouraged to lie with a man as he lies with a woman," gay marriage would be legal in the United States.

Because the Bible declares such action a sin, gay marriage is outlawed in our great but still flawed country.

That is not honoring the separation of church and state.

It's as black and white as the pages inside Bibles perused by most lawmakers before they draft legislation that impacts everyone.

We Could Be Living in a Huckabee World and I Am Not a Huckabee Girl

2011-03-09T19:21:00.001-08:00

Those on the right claim President Barack Obama is radically transforming the United States of America. If Preacher Huckabee ever becomes President Huckabee, look out for some radical transformation religious-style!

The former Arkansas Governor recently said Natalie Portman's pregnancy was "troubling" because she and the father have thus far failed to walk down the aisle. By accepting an Oscar expecting, she is glamorizing out-of-wedlock pregnancy, he claims.

So Mr. Huckabee, you're upset she put on a beautiful dress and a nice pair of earrings for the Oscars? Had she donned sweats and a torn t-shirt, would you be fine with her condition? Would you applaud her for making it seem as if out-of-wedlock pregnancy leads to inappropriate frumpiness?

The former Arkansas governor then recited stats he finds alarming regarding the number of babies born to unwed mothers and somehow tied his criticism to economics. He made the connection because he's too cowardly to say, "My religion teaches that sex without rings is a sin and everyone should follow my religion. If they don't they are immoral."

Either it's about economics or it's about sin. Ms. Portman after all, the target of his criticism, is completely capable of supporting a child as well as every orphan in California.

If it was about economics, Mr. Huckabee would say, "Those without the financial means to support a child should refrain from giving birth until they are able to adequately provide."

The bottom line is that Mr. Huckabee wants everyone to live by the teaching of his religion regardless of economics. If you're married and have no money, Mr. Huckabee doesn't have any problem with you birthing a child. If you elect not to marry, or even own a calendar that highlights your future wedding day, and have enough money to visit Starbucks thrice daily, Mr. Huckabee has big issues.

Is Mr. Huckabee really concerned about impressionable women with limited resources witnessing Ms. Portman glamorizing single-motherhood? As a result of her Oscar win, is he worried these downtrodden ladies will all of a sudden choose to have babies of their own? If that's the case, I suppose Mr. Huckabee would prefer Ms. Portman refrain from any costly action her less affluent fans might mimic. Would he tell her, "One of your most ardent supporters could possibly make a reservation at Nobu in Malibu. While you credit card has plenty of room to take care of the meal as well as a generous tip, the financially strapped fan may get the check, realize his or her wallet is too light to pay for every sushi roll they consumed and therefore run for the hills, so quickly instruct your limo driver to turn the car around and head straight for the Subway sandwich shop in El Segundo where it would be in the best interest of society if you ordered a six-inch foot-long on wheat bread alongside a bag of Baked Lays."?

By disgustedly informing the audience exactly how many children are born out-of-wedlock by ethnicity, Mr. Huckabee is attempting to convince the masses that all babies born to single parents will be raised by drug addicted welfare recipients who can't possibly provide homes suitable for children. In reality, many of these births are by women in committed relationships, or by single women who choose to have kids because they earn an ample salary and have oodles of both peer and family support. And you don't necessarily need millions to provide a loving home.

If you were to ask him, "Do Natalie Portman and her partner have the financial means with which to raise a child?" Mr. Huckabee would be forced to respond with a convincing, "yes."

So, other than the fact that Ms. Portman is not living in accordance with the teachings of your religion, what's this "trouble" about which you speak?

Admiring the Honor Code

2011-03-06T15:58:00.000-08:00

I recently noticed a popular search engine was displaying, "BYU Honor Code" as a trending topic. Realizing millions of people likely didn't wake up and coincidentally ask themselves, "I wonder what rules students of BYU must follow in order to remain in good standing," I conducted a little investigation.

Turns out a rather adroit BYU basketball player was suspended from the team for breaking the code. An Honor Code board is to decide if the young man will be allowed to remain a student at the esteemed university.

The BYU Honor Code states that students must...

Be honest
Live a chaste and virtuous life
Obey the law and all campus policies
Use clean language
Respect others
Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee and substance abuse
Participate regularly in church services
Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards
Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code

First of all, I have no problem with the honor code or the students who agree to live their life in accordance. People should be free to start or join any group they want with whatever rules they want as long as they don't hurt anybody. In America, both group-starting and group-joining are thankfully voluntary.

However, in researching the story, I discovered that a great many sports journalists claimed to respect BYU administrators for strictly enforcing the code. "They sacrificed basketball wins for morality. For braving certain backlash from our sports obsessed society, I say kudos," the sports writers pompously said.

Really?

A few of the Honor Code demands I can understand, but why would any rational person have respect for individuals who punish college students for the crime of breaking random rules? And how can abiding by these random rules be admired by anyone except people involved in the group?

If a club declared petting puppies was grounds for immediate expulsion, would sports writers applaud every member who managed to keep their petting-hand away from all collies, spaniels, pinschers and pointers?

Would they say, "I can't understand why anyone would join a club in which puppy-petting is forbidden, but I can and do admire members for walking by every 'Fido' they encounter and suppressing their inherent desire to extend a friendly hand and say, 'Come here, boy! Who's a good boy!? Are you a good boy!?' That takes real courage."?

Why exactly is it noble to refrain from non-sinful actions?

I suppose religiously inspired rules that don't serve practical purposes are considered noble because that's what the majority of our elders have always taught us. After all, not until 1973 did the American Psychiatric Association stop listing homosexuality as a mental disorder. That means, in 1972, instead of just being ashamed, parents could justifiably respond to the revelation that their child was gay by pinning him or her down and then forcibly dressing them in a straight jacket. While the BYU Honor Code doesn't specifically reference homosexual behavior, I have a strong feeling school administrators would strenuously frown upon a pair of basketball players whose pre-game ritual included twenty-minutes of sucking each others face. In fact, BYU administrators would likely kick the student-athletes off the team for not acting in a virtuous manner.

And if a desperately thirsty BYU player gets kicked off the basketball team for consuming a Diet Snapple Peach Green Tea, which are fabulous by the way, because his faucet was producing a sludgy brown substance, would these same sports writers rise and applaud. "Way to stand up for your anti-tea beliefs! I don't understand them, but I admire you for making sure, if another player finds himself in a similar situation, he'll either drink the sludge or become dangerously dehydrated, because that's what god would want."

An Insane Argument

2011-03-04T11:25:00.000-08:00

Picture the kindest, most generous woman in your church. I'm talking about the lady who constantly puts the needs of others above her own. The woman who cooks for hurting families, volunteers her time to assist those suffering from addiction, and can always be counted on to simply lend an ear when a fellow parishioner is suffering from a seemingly trivial dilemma. Let's call this woman, Mrs. Lovelady.

Now picture the heavily made-up woman who sits in the exact same pew each week. She tries to treat you with respect, but is unable to hide her contempt while chatting with you and your ordinary family during the post-church meet and greet. Typically people like you silently paint her kitchen while she converses with her Prada clad peers, thus making it difficult for her to speak to you as an equal, even at church, where overt discrimination based on social status is outwardly frowned upon. We'll call her, Mrs. Snoot.

Now pretend Mrs. Lovelady stops believing.

Since many religions insist good deeds are meaningless unless performed with the express purpose of pleasing their specific deity, Mrs. Lovelady immediately goes from a "good Christian woman" to a "heathen woman." This radical transformation occurs simply because of the thoughts pulsating through her brain.

"I tell my daughter Suzy that you're the person I most want her to emulate as she progresses into womanhood," a parishioner informs Mrs. Lovelady.

"While I will always lend a hand to assist persons of all religions in times of tumult, I am no longer certain I believe in the teachings of the church," Mrs. Lovelady meekly replies, worried she will be shunned by her dearest friends.

"Suzy, avert your eyes before you both float to hell in a sea of wickedness!"

How does one argue against such nonsense!?

They're saying Mrs. Snoot, a lady best described by a word that rhymes with "witch", is looked upon more favorably by their deity than the kindest woman they know.

In one second, she loses it all.

And Mrs. Lovelady doesn't even have to stop completely believing to be considered yet another individual who has succumbed to evil. It's not sufficient for her to be certain there is a god and that he or she is just, rather the kind woman must believe in very specific details that have absolutely nothing to do with good and evil.

If you hadn't been taught your specific religion was the one true belief system since the day you were born, can you honestly say any of the above makes rational sense!?

On the other hand, if the scenario does come true and your beliefs happen to be 100% accurate, the good thing for me is that I'll be lucky enough to spend eternity cheerfully chatting with Mrs. Lovelady while for eons you'll receive the cold shoulder from Mrs. Snoot.

If she hires you to fix her personal pearly gates, inside the main pearly gates, please tell her "hi" from below. It will be the location from where the loud music and boisterous laughter emanates.

Doing More Harm than Good

2011-02-28T14:17:00.000-08:00

Throughout history, after weighing the good against the bad, can anyone claim organized religion has had a positive impact on our world? To this day, the murders of individuals by brutal theocracies still occur. These killings are labeled punishment for acts a person completely ignorant of religion wouldn't possibly consider a crime.

Of course churches around the free world perform deeds of a charitable nature, but the overhead involved with running a religious institution has actually reduced the number of dollars and goods going to folks who desperately need them. I'm not diminishing the charitable acts; I would simply rather see additional full-bellied children in impoverished areas than finely detailed craftsmanship in the doorknob of the Baptist church I just drove past.

They say religion is about faith. It pleases god that you have enough faith in him to assume he'd want you to be involved in an organization that has historically harmed humanity and currently puts the superficial wants of its well-to-do parishioners over the needs of the downtrodden? "Did you get a whiff of our new leather bound hymnals? We were only able to feed half the children at the shelter because of their exorbitant cost, but I'm sure knowledge a pleasurable aroma wafts through our church as we sing 'Go Tell It on the Mountain' will fulfill those hungry tykes much more than a hot meal ever could. Give a starving child food and he will feel full for mere hours, tell him how elegant our Sunday service is and his spiritual gullet will never remain empty."

After a disaster, who would you rather have helping: a charitable group whose leader instructs, "Make sure a kid is safe, feed him or her, and then quickly move on," or a religious leader who instructs, "Make sure a kid is safe and then feed him or her. While they chow down for the first time in days, talk up the Old Testament. Answer any questions they may have about Deuteronomy. In their current state, they'll be even more confused by the concept of a Triune God so don't harp on the topic. Before you move on, give them a flyer promoting our Wednesday night youth service. Really emphasize the fact that our band mixes traditional hymns with pop-rock and our drummer used to have long hair."

The harm done by organized religion isn't restricted to brutality. Even when presented with the possibility of freedom, those who've lived under strict religious rule are unable to hop out of their cages. "Come on out. You can do it! Away from these walls you can abide by your holy book with equal vigor. Freedom just means changing your mind won't result in the death penalty and you'll be spared harsh punishment should you commit acts which were considered crimes under your former leader. There is literally no downside! Though law no longer forces them to abide by your every demented demand, you can even converse with uncovered women who aren't your relatives. You may even find a few attractive, both in appearance and in spirit, wouldn't that be nice... Wait, where are you going!? You don't have to talk to women!"

What causes a government to execute teenagers accused of experimenting with homosexuality?

Organized religion.

What causes a man to turn his back on a facially uncovered woman?

Organized religion.

What causes a father to murder his daughters for the crime of becoming too westernized?

Organized religion.

If you're right in your basic belief that a god exists and will judge all, once you reach those pearly gates and he asks, "You lived your life in strict accordance with rules drafted by an..." will you feel comfortable answering...

"Organized religion."

It's Finally Time to Ban Religion

2011-02-22T20:09:00.000-08:00

Normally I'm a big backer of freedom. Sometimes I'm shocked at how much I have in common with Ayn Rand types who want the Christian-dominated U.S. Government out of our lives.

I don't have a problem with anyone sitting in their basement seething with anger over the fact that certain people don't share their faith. If people want to believe in a specific religion, fine.

At least that's what I used to think.

But it's become increasingly clear that the only way to ensure peace on earth is to ban all organized religion. I suppose I've seen one too many headlines such as, "Teen Girl Dies Receiving Lashes as Punishment for Being Raped."

If every religious person is forced to refrain from assembling with like-minded individuals, fanatical theocracies that carry out inhumane punishments would cease to exist. Not to mention the fact that violent acts which kill scores would undoubtedly decrease.

The one religion currently blamed for doing extensive damage hasn't always been the main culprit. Go back a few hundred years and you'll find it was another religion. Go back even further and you'll find it was... you guessed it.

In other words, I'm not calling out a specific religion; I'm saying we must get rid of them all to ensure the safety of ourselves as well as future generations.

Think of mass killings and then think about their root. Cancel out tragedies spurred by organized religion and we've got ourselves a fairly peaceful history.

Of course this piece was primarily written out of frustration. I don't actually want liberty limited. In fact I would like to see it expanded in every land. I'm very grateful to reside in a country where I can write a blog such as this and my face will not end up on a poster printed by Human Rights Watch which they created for the express purpose of reminding everyone on the planet that brutal stonings are still carried out against individuals whose actions have failed to harm a fellow human being.

Since this piece is a tad on the dark side, I'll conclude with a joke.

Why didn't Saddam Hussein's friends let him drink?

Because he was a mean drunk.

Arab World Needs "Cosby Show" Starring Whitey

2011-02-17T20:27:00.000-08:00

CBS News anchor Katie Couric once suggested that a Cosby Show type program revolving around a typical American Muslim family should be aired in the United States for the express purpose of showing average citizens of our country that stateside followers of Islam are just like you and I. They're not suicide bombers in training, or even suicide bombing sympathizers. In fact, they hate terrorism just as much as whitey. Should such a television program air, most Muslim bashing would immediately cease. Or so Ms. Couric assumes.

I say a Cosby Show type program revolving around a typical religious American family should be shown on television sets throughout the Muslim world. This Cosby-like clan will show overtly religious Arabs exactly how intolerant church-going Americans are!

The television program I propose will focus on an American protestant couple struggling to raise their children to believe exactly as they do.

Despite pressures from outside influences to modernize, the apple pie eating parents preach endlessly to their children about the good that comes from preventing peers attracted to members of the same sex from acting on their inherent desires.

"Tell your friend Timmy that a life miserably spent sharing a bed with a member of the opposite sex will ensure he's happily greeted in heaven, while earthly fulfillment that results from spending every day and night with the person he actually loves means he'll eternally remain outside those exclusive gates," the mom will say to her son. They will then embrace, causing the studio audience to make a noise as if they were witnessing two adorable little panda cubs playing Patty Cake.

I think a few Middle Eastern Muslims would marvel at the fact that American matriarchs and patriarchs also teach their children that homosexuality is a sin most evil. Besides, some Muslim parents would likely be sympathetic to the fact that American mothers and fathers are forbidden from legally murdering offspring who engage in such deviant behavior. Therefore the television program could unite parents of differing faiths.

"You mean Americans caught experimenting with homosexuality are allowed to escape death by hanging and by multiple stones to the upper body!? Those poor American parents simply have no recourse!" they will sympathetically say. They will then symbolically reach their hand across the globe in an effort to comfort their kindred spirits.

Muslims will learn that many American couples have children who wish to date outside the religion. Like we Americans unsuccessfully yell to the protagonist near the end of a horror movie, "You better stick that spike through his spleen one more time cause that guy ain't dead," the overtly religious Muslim will scream to the adult characters on my proposed television program, "Gather together the townsfolk to carry out a community building honor killing and be done with it!? Hurry, before the sinners relocate to California where homosexuality is encouraged!"

I'm by no means suggesting that most Arab Muslims execute "misbehaving" children, but we clearly need to win the hearts and minds of people so fanatical they find carrying out such an extreme punishment the best way to handle immoral offspring, thus making radicals the target audience of my new show.

There's simply no good reason Hollywood shouldn't actively strive to bring together parents from all over the world who force their children to needlessly abide by prehistoric publications. After all, unjustified discrimination should never be restricted to a specific religion.

Targeting Losers

2011-02-10T19:27:00.000-08:00

Most of us can recall a time in which a fresh-faced friend of the family lived in his or her parent's basement longer than their peers. Most of these young people eventually find their way in the world. Many years later we say to each other in disbelief, "Remember when Bobby spent his first two post-college years working at the Burger Barn for minimum wage. Then he found his passion."

Recent graduates like Bobby are the target of churches across the country. Religions reach out to these youngsters before a passion is discovered. Once Bobby has a well-paying job and family, the church makes it seem as if his inherent talent would have forever remained repressed without their assistance.

They then make the successful man or woman feel as if the church is owed something for their efforts. "Once you opened your heart to our teachings, your life went from hopeless to fruitful. Without us, your bed would still be in a location that doubled as the laundry room. And remember how difficult sleep was due to the pungent aroma emanating from your father's soiled unmentionables!"

Of course it's important to meet contacts while job hunting, but with the networking options available today there are literally thousands of ways to seek out potential employers and references. Were you to join a different group, you could not only get acquainted with helpful people, you could also learn to cook, get fit or assist the needy.

If organized religion is so phenomenal, why go after those desperately seeking fulfillment? Why don't churches recruit in the lobby of the Waldorf-Astoria or pass out fliers on the red carpet at the Golden Globes? Before hanging out at the local bus station, I doubt most religions have attempted to contact everyone on the Forbes 400 list.

Most reputable organizations don't look for lost souls to recruit and certainly don't take credit for successes that likely would have occurred had they never formed. "You're now making seven figures and have a handful of beautiful houses in the Hamptons; it's all because you joined the Ultimate Frisbee Golf Enthusiasts and Go-Kart Klub!"

The Selective Outrage of Religious Conservatives

2011-02-04T19:07:00.000-08:00

Most modern day conservatives are angry because they feel the powers that be are hindering their ability to live freely.

The problem, however, is that they're only interested in preserving freedoms they deem moral.

I too am a big backer of freedom. In fact, I find it extremely off-putting when a public official instructs me how to live as if they're my self-appointed parent. For example, I would rather First Lady Obama help the underprivileged eat a meal of any kind than lecture the middle class on how much sodium they should consume on a daily basis. Unlike conservatives, I don't find the First Lady evil for attempting to influence the habits of average Americans, yet I do think her time could better be spent helping the downtrodden, as opposed to nagging those who know full well what excessive eating will do to their bodies yet choose gluttony.

Conservatives frantically say, "How dare Mrs. Obama instruct the citizenry to strictly devour foods of which she approves! Once she controls your diet, she'll come after the posters on your wall! So unless you want the cold eyes of Mr. Obama fixated on your bed as you make love to your wife, you must vote Republican!"

Despite this, most members of the GOP are not so keen on freedom when it applies to prostitution, gambling and marijuana smoking.

Some conservatives say such acts should be outlawed due to public safety concerns. But if we're going to make actions illegal because we can't trust people to be responsible, why are cars on the road? Why is the sale of alcohol legal? Why can amateur male athletes buy balls that could strike them in the same groin that produced the very offspring whose errant throw was directly responsible for the infliction of what I infer is immensely intense pain?

It's a common theme in my columns, but no one can claim to fully support freedom when they're only a proponent of individuals retaining the freedom to participate in activities that "feel right." Like pornography, conservatives know actions that should remain free when they see them. A family eating five happy meals per day: must remain free. A camouflage clad clan taking an SUV full of hunting rifles to the nearest forest: must remain free. A man selling another man a dime bag in the privacy of a dwelling in which no children are present: must remain forever forbidden.

I suppose I'm harping on the topic because I'm so extremely tired of hearing conservatives say, "They're taking away my freedom to purchase the light bulb I deem ideal for placing in the lamp under which I frequently re-read Rush Limbaugh's 1992 bestseller, The Way Things Ought to Be," and, "They're taking away my freedom to keep the healthcare plan I've grown to love over the past several years even though I haven't stepped foot inside a doctor's office since 1998."

How do I respond to the cries of the concerned conservative? I say to them, "All I caught was chirping crickets when I communicated consternation at the complete lack of freedom that has for years hindered the ability of others to partake in victimless acts."

I Know Nothing... NOTHING!

2011-01-28T20:18:00.000-08:00

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...

2011-01-28T07:53:00.000-08:00

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.

I Damn Thee Due to a Difference of Opinion!

2011-01-26T09:36:00.000-08:00

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."

Glenn Beck: Fighting for Your Right to Follow His Religion

2011-01-22T19:29:00.000-08:00

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.

Oldies but Goodies

2011-01-20T06:53:00.000-08:00

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!"

Why We Target Christians

2011-01-17T20:56:00.000-08:00

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...

Atheism and Freedom: The Only Winning Combination

2011-01-12T17:09:00.000-08:00

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.

For One Month, Please Forget I Exist

2011-01-10T16:41:00.000-08:00

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!

I Demand Credit for Stuff You Doubt I Did

2011-01-07T19:48:00.000-08:00

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?

Should We Raise Our Child Anabaptist or Prairie Saint?

2011-01-05T15:40:00.000-08:00

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!"

Why Don't You Think of God as Normal?

2011-01-01T09:21:00.000-08:00

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."

Living in Fear

2010-12-28T14:27:00.000-08:00

Though publicly most religions promote peace, love and harmony; they're actually rooted in fear and paranoia.

While we all have foibles, most people involved with organized religion would be much better individuals were their reaction to seeing a holy book, "What in the world is that?"

Fearing the unknown, they choose to believe a tale that eventually puts them in heaven for all of eternity. Because of this fear, they're forced to champion positions with which they would otherwise likely disagree.

Discrimination against gays is the best example. Were someone not telling you, "That same-sex couple is sinning" you wouldn't think an offense was in progress because their actions harm nary a sole.

When somebody else must tell you that a specific behavior is sinful, it means the fear has taken control of your life. When your judgments are not your own, something is wrong. Ask yourself, what other non-harmful behavior could the elders convince you to believe is a sin?

If you witnessed a thief ruthlessly bash an elderly man about the head with a brick, rob him and then leave him for dead, a rush of adrenaline would shoot through your entire body. You would be sickened to your very core. You would instinctively have the desire to enact immediate revenge.

If you saw two men walking down the street hand-in-hand, you would feel no rush of adrenaline. As your instincts would not alert you there is a problem, you would be forced to remind yourself that the men in your presence are committing a horrible crime against humanity just as you would be forced to remind yourself that your "lovely" wife had asked you to pick up a carton of milk after passing by the refrigerated section of the supermarket on your way to select a six-pack of something that would ease the pain associated with the fact that heterosexual marriage was legal when you tied the knot.

It's a shame too, because, and trust me, I know; a life without fear of the irrational is a life worth living, whereas, a life wasted worrying about what could possibly be on the other side is, well, just that: wasted.

The fear also forces you to credit your good deeds to a higher power. Would you not act nobly, an overwhelming majority of the time, had you never even heard of the religion your mom and/or dad told you was the one true god-based non-profit organization?

In other words, you treat people with respect because you're a good person, not because you're afraid you'll eventually be punished for your earthly transgressions. After all, were you to carefully read the Old Testament, you'd discover that you’re either committing loads of victimless crimes, or allowing others to get away with them. Unless, that is, you’ve recently slain a person or persons entering an establishment filled with readers of tarot cards.

Let me ask you... Since you're likely ignorant of some Biblical crimes you either commit, or allow be committed in your presence, are you a sinner of epic proportion? Or, in instances where you assume your Bible doesn't offer an opinion, are you simply choosing right over wrong and therefore choosing correctly?

I have a feeling it's the latter, for when watching a fictional program or a very real newscast, that either dramatizes, or shows the aftermath of, a morally questionable act, you likely never say to your loved one, "I am unable to pass judgment without guidance from my creator."

I bet you were convinced most atheists vehemently dislike all followers of organized religion, and here I go telling the world that most of you are good and would be even better were you to think for yourselves!

Look at me bridging the gap!

So stop living in fear and listen to your gut. Your gut wouldn't tell you that homosexuality is a sin.

But it would tell you that the persecution of a same-sex couple is an act most vile.

The bottom line is: had you never opened your holy book of choice, you would be far more moral than you are today, and, unlike your holy book, would likely be correct in your interpretation of right versus wrong.

Are You Certain Atheists are to the Extreme?

2010-12-22T09:46:00.000-08:00

Like most atheists, I'm a very rational person. I don't have a conniption fit every time I see a Nativity scene displayed on public property. Though I would prefer it be absent, upon returning home I don't get out my laptop and begin a thorough letter writing campaign using words like, "disgusted" "outraged" and “had to pull over and upchuck the bean & cheese burrito I consumed for lunch!" (Aren't my columns ladylike!?)

Instead I prefer to target my rage at store clerks who respond to my after-purchase thank you with, "You're welcome," instead of, "No, thank you for your business." Makes me so mad!

But I digress...

Again, while I personally don't object to Nativity scenes on public grounds, me thinks you Christians have used your overwhelming majority to portray those who do protest such displays as kooks.

But why is someone insisting public property be free of Nativity scenes labeled "irrational," while a person demanding Nativity scenes be all over public property labeled "normal."

Because in America there are many more Christians than members of other religions and atheists combined, if half of you displayed a Nativity scene on your front lawn you could prevent someone like me from driving more than 50 feet without seeing yet another oversized PVC version of Saint Joseph the Carpenter!

But no, that's not enough! You can't be satisfied with 50% of the homes in America being adorned with Nativity scenes; each one must be in the exact location you deem appropriate. It's just like how you freak out when a store greeter says, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". "Happy Holidays" covers more people and still expresses cheer and goodwill, but it's not enough. It must be the exact two words you've selected. It doesn't matter that you don't own the store and aren't forced to shop there. Yet you claim atheists are psychopathic for declaring a "war on Christmas"?

I understand many Christians don't care if store greeters say, "Happy Holidays" or "Satan is instructing me to remind you that apples are priced so low he needn't tempt anyone," just like I don't care if I'm blindsided with "Merry Christmas" a dozen times in a single Wal-Mart. There are sensitive Christians who only visit courthouses to make sure the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed, just like there are sensitive atheists who dedicate a majority of their time to ridding all public land of anything remotely religious.

Yet sensitive atheists alone are fanatical despite the fact that their desire is for everyone to follow the law!?

I know, you claim the Constitution doesn't specifically call for the separation of church and state; only declaring that the government cannot establish an official religion.

But if you declared that the members of your household would not establish support for a particular NFL team, then placed banners on which were printed the red and gold logo of the squad that plays weekly in San Francisco, everyone entering would be pretty certain they're in 49er country and therefore be mighty uncomfortable showing support for the Dallas Cowboys.

So stop saying people who don't agree with you are fanatical simply because anyone with a differing opinion must be nuts. "How crazy are they for failing to just shut up while we erect displays that violate the Constitution."

I know it's a little premature for a column related to holiday controversies, but I'm trying to get my Christmas writing done early.

Why is Choosing One Religion Slamming the Others?

2010-12-18T08:07:00.000-08:00

I view any follower of organized religion, who claims the existence of god is certain, who claims to know exactly who god speaks to or has spoken to, and claims to know how God feels about victimless acts such as homosexuality, the same. For peace of mind, they've all chosen to find comfort in stories that don't logically add up.

From conversations I've had with religious people, they view followers of other religions the same way I view followers of any religion.

In other words, I'm saying, "You're all gullible for believing such farfetched tales," whereas you're saying, "I'm willing to spend thousands of hard earned dollars furthering a story common sense says is bogus, but the crazy scenario you've chosen to believe is ridiculous! Seriously, I own a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell ya on the cheap."

It'd be like saying, "You actually believe Santa Claus visits the home of every single boy and girl in the world on Christmas Eve. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard! Now, if you'll excuse me, I just lost a tooth and therefore must get to sleep in anticipation of a visit from the esteemed Tooth Fairy. I have a hunch her majesty is going to be very good to me!"

Christians say, "Jews are nuts for not believing Christ is the son of God." Muslims say, "Those poor Christians and their false prophet... what are they thinking!" They all believe the other is insane despite the fact that they likely came to their conclusions for the exact same reasons.

You guys sure aren't very tolerant, though you all claim your god is perfect. I suppose you view tolerance as less than ideal. And why aren't you people on the same side? I'll make up a parable that relates to your situation: There are two groups of people fighting for the right to marry animals. They constantly butt heads because one group wants to marry their tigers while the other group wants to marry their lions. "Why in the world would anyone want to marry a lion!? Lion marriage is against nature, while tiger love is as pure as the driven snow," the leader of the first group asks the leader of the second group. Then they each realize bestiality is wrong, and, in their case, very dangerous, and live happily ever after.

Okay, the ending needs work but you get the idea.

It's clear why you have a burning desire to silence me, but why each other!? "I chose my religion because my parents told me it is correct, but nevertheless condemn you for choosing your religion for the exact same reason."

Seriously, if you are a follower of organized religion, you must realize that you only believe because you were taught to believe. Can you Christians say with certainty that you would still accept Christ had your parents taught you that Islam was the path to salvation? Can you Jews say that you would have chosen Judaism had your parents taught you the New Testament was fact?

Of course not.

All followers of organized religion believe because otherwise would mean fearing an afterlife in hell... Because otherwise would mean ridicule from your parents, peers, and siblings... Because otherwise would mean spending time alone in your room just thinking about how horrible a person you are for not blindly following the teachings of the church elders.

Face it, anything could have been written on the pages of the book you were taught is holy. Your teacher could have erased everything and started over and you'd still accept every word.

So whether you're a Christian, a Muslim or a follower of Judaism, why not embrace your differences and give your fellow religious man or woman the freedom to believe as they see fit, because they basically followed your path.

Had religious people throughout history taken this stance, scores would have been spared. If all religious people currently in the world would acknowledge everyone has an equal right to believe as they choose, we could keep our shoes on from the time we enter the airport from the time we exit the airport!

What Is Your Obsession with the Unknown?

2010-12-14T19:37:00.000-08:00

One of the biggest questions facing the United States today is whether Barack Obama is a Muslim or a Christian.

Thankfully most Americans take him at his word and recognize he is a follower of the Christian faith. Sadly, however, many think he's not telling the truth about the story he chooses to believe regarding the origin of man and what is needed to experience perfection in the afterlife.

What's even sadder is the obsession everyone has with the unknown.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't know with certainty that anybody believes what they claim.

Maybe Barack Obama isn't a Christian. Maybe he says he's a believer simply because he wouldn't otherwise be electable. I wouldn't really blame Mr. Obama if that were the case; I would instead fault the millions of citizens who refuse to elect a qualified candidate simply because he or she chooses rationality over a far-fetched tale that, "feels true."

Despite words to the contrary, perhaps your loving spouse doesn't share your religious views. Perhaps he or she joined a church because it was a good place to meet members of the opposite sex. And, after building a romantic relationship with roots in the church, it's not easy to all of sudden admit you're a fraud.

"Please bow your heads and let us thank God for this meal."

"Yeah, about that..."

Every regular on your pew could be living a lie. Someone could be using the church as a fraternity for adults, someone may love to sing but has grown tired of the local karaoke scene, and someone could be in desperate need of a stellar day care center. (Okay, I got that from an episode of Malcolm in the Middle, but life imitates art!)

Organized religion has corrupted society so much that it becomes a scandal when a person believes, but can't prove, another person doesn't believe what they claim to believe but can't prove. The future of our county rides on information nobody will ever know for certain is true and doesn't really matter anyway.

Why not make life about what we do know. We do know we're here. We do know the legislative habits of most major candidates. I say we leave it at that.

Maybe Your Bases Aren't Covered

2010-12-09T15:56:00.000-08:00

Religious people enjoy telling atheists, "If I'm wrong and you're right, it's really no big deal because our fates will be identical. If you're wrong and I'm right, it's an enormous deal because I'll be in heaven for all of eternity while you'll be experiencing pain of the worst kind."

But what if we're both wrong? What if there is a god, but every single religion in the world is way off regarding the specifics?

And what if the creator of the galaxy is extremely upset so many people buy into unsubstantiated rumors that he's in favor of stoning homosexuals?

About atheists, what if he says, "Big deal if they don't believe in me; at least they think logically."

About those involved in organized religion, what if he says, "They believe I did what!? I'd rather them not believe in me at all than believe I have no moral compass."

What if it irks him to no end that so many people constantly ask for small favors? Or what if he's actually quite humble and therefore annoyed with all the worship? "Stop making such a fuss over me and get on with your life!" After all, had you created an entire civilization, would you want your minions running around asking for things unworthy of your time? Do parents appreciate it? "Can I get a new skateboard, can my tax refund be large enough for a trip to Disney World, can I get enough votes to be named captain of the cheerleading squad, etc."

If there is a creator, and he isn't exactly like the being described in your holy book, chances are he's nothing like the being described in your holy book, and may even get a little offended at how he's portrayed. Say your parents never told you which religion was correct, but, on your own, you deduced a deity created the universe. Would you automatically assume he despises the behavior of individuals who simply act on their inherent attraction to members of the same sex? Or would you assume he'd say, "As long as they're not harming anyone, what's the big deal?"

But only religious beliefs taught to you by family elders, or individuals clad in decorative robes surrounded by stained glass, bring the peace of mind you seek, and I'm sure the comfort level that accompanies thinking your bases are covered for all of eternity is off the charts! The fear of the unknown is the reason organized religion has spread like wildfire. It's the reason so many otherwise rational individuals are willing to believe irrational tales originating eons ago as passed down by individuals whose sanity can't be verified. "There's no way I can know what the afterlife holds, so I'll convince myself that those who dreamed up a perfect, albeit far-fetched, scenario are correct!"

Peace of mind is important. You sleep better knowing with certainty you closed the garage door. It's something you can't control. "Just go to sleep, you know you pushed the button," you tell yourself. Then you hear a noise. Probably just the wind, but you convince yourself it's a gang of unruly teenagers that consider a wide open garage, "the motherload." So much irrational doubt simply because you lack peace of mind...

Because peace of mind is so vital when pertaining to the mundane, when it comes to matters of great significance, such as where you'll be spending eternity, peace of mind becomes more valuable than gold.

It's a shame that the comfort peace of mind brings cripples the ability of many to arrive at rational conclusions.

For Pennies a Day, You Can Help a Child

2010-12-05T08:38:00.000-08:00

Your heart aches when you think of their tiny impoverished faces. Their blank stares cause you to wonder if the surrounding circumstances have warped their fragile little minds. The rumbling of hungry stomachs is nearly deafening. A fly lands on the head of a child who got so little sleep that he doesn't even have the energy to shoo it away... He looks up at his father, wondering from where their next meal will come.

The hunger finally overwhelming the tyke, he tearfully grasps the hand of his father and bellows, "Daddy, are we going to Denny's or IHOP? And when, I'm starving!?"

"Right after church. I told you to eat a bowl of Golden Grahams before we left."

Millions of similar heartbreaking tales occur around the world each week.

Throughout history, many children, just like the one in the above story, grow up to perpetrate violence in the name of their religion.

The aggressive religion often changes, as if there is an invisible, yet deadly, baton they pass back and forth, but most have been guilty at one time or another; and even religions that currently promote peace could take a brutal turn for the worse at any moment, for their books all contain passages that call for the brutal termination of "sinners."

Join me in stopping the violence.

For pennies a day you could keep these people occupied with secular outings.

People like coffee in the a.m.

Bowling alleys are relatively empty on Sunday mornings.

10K run, anyone?

Most fishermen I know catch their biggest prizes before noon.

If we each get one person to refrain from participating in organized religion, we could save lives.

You don't need to convert the believer, just keep him or her away from large groups of likeminded people to ensure they don't develop a plan to carry out their god's wishes as revealed in Chapter the Seventh, Verse Five Plus Twenty of their holy book, which states, without room for misinterpretation, "Off with the head of the non-believer!"

Just think of how much bloodshed could have been prevented had people in ancient cultures distracted those who began seeking guidance from tablets others claimed were the word of a higher power?

It's never too late.

Please, won't you help me end the misery?

Glenn Beck Should Open Up About Organized Religion

2010-12-01T19:21:00.000-08:00

I recently wrote a piece about the reluctance of religious leaders to talk about controversial beliefs held by their followers. Basically I was wondering why, since he's so gung-ho to promote Scientology, Mr. Tom Cruise isn't out there happily telling anyone and everyone the story of Xenu. According to Scientologists, Xenu, dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy", 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.

Obviously the reason Mr. Cruise isn't regularly on Good Morning America talking about such things is because everyone would recognize the fact that he, and his fellow followers of Scientology, are a tad loco.

The fact that Scientologists have a few loose screws is not exactly breaking news.

And besides, Mr. Cruise isn't out there slamming people for their unwillingness to discuss uncomfortable topics.

Glenn Beck is.

"All I want is for the White House to tell America why they hired admitted communist Van Jones as Green Jobs Czar," Mr. Beck told his audience.

Because he claims to only desire openness, why isn't he in favor of controversial portions of his own religion being widely discussed with great regularity?

Like most followers of organized religion, Mr. Beck will only talk about the good parts. Don’t harm your fellow man, reject vices, if you believe, you are looking at an eternity of perfection, etc.

Though Mr. Beck never claimed President Obama is a Muslim, during his discussion of the topic, he played a clip of Mr. Obama saying, about the Bible, "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?"

While the clip was being played, Mr. Beck only shook his head in disgust. He was absolutely sickened by the fact that President Obama would point out such disturbing truths.

But Mr. Beck never explained why such passages should be so easily dismissed.

Was Mr. Beck implying that Jesus came in and rectified all the really bad stuff in the Old Testament - that, because of Jesus, every evil act supported in the Old Testament should be forgotten? Instead of shaking your head because the topic was discussed, why not further the discussion, Mr. Beck?

Were I considering a conversion to Christianity, I would want to know how the church justified the stoning of a child. What, did Jesus change god's mind? Hasn't god always been perfect - how could he go from suggesting such a thing to condemning the act?

But Mr. Beck left the uncomfortable topic untouched, just as he criticizes the Obama Administration for doing when matters such as communists in the White House arise.

Mr. Beck, who is calling for the entire country to return to god, is a Mormon. I would love to get his take on Kolob, which Mormons believe is the star closest to god.

What rational reason does he have for believing an angel visited Latter Day Saint movement founder Joseph Smith in the 1820's and delivered, in an unknown language, what would later become the Book of Mormon?

Why doesn't Mr. Beck reject the claims of Mr. Smith as he likely rejected the claims of former Waco cult leader David Koresh? What about Joseph Smith makes his very unusual story believable? Mr. Smith also claimed god and Jesus paid him a visit. Why does Mr. Beck believe the claim of Mr. Smith over the claim of every other person over the past 200-years who has told a similar story?

I'm not talking about discussing these topics with Glenn Beck while making faces that suggest he's crazy. Regardless of what you think about Mr. Beck, you must admit that his IQ is rather high. And, as an atheist, I find it enjoyable attempting to understand why intelligent individuals believe so deeply in books I consider far-fetched, written by prophets I don't consider trustworthy.

I assume Mr. Beck doesn't discuss such topics because, like Mr. Obama (and every other politician) has a difficult time convincing America that all decisions made within the walls of his domain are spot-on, Mr. Beck would be unable to simultaneously sound rational and reasonable while explaining the controversial topics pertaining to Mormonism and Christianity.

So, to keep the conversion rate high, he chooses to ignore beliefs about which he doesn't want you to know specifics; which is the exact reason he so often criticizes the Obama Administration.

The Ground Zero Shrine to Atheism

2010-11-28T16:08:00.000-08:00

There has been much talk about the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. Those against the mosque say, while legal, the erection of a Muslim place of worship so close to the place where the World Trade Center once stood is highly inappropriate.

Those in favor of the mosque say it will show New York and the rest of the world that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful.

But you know who are really peaceful - Atheists!

So how about we scrap plans for a mosque and build a shrine to a group of people who have always retained the ability to refrain from slaughtering thousands of people for any reason whatsoever! And do you know how frustrating it is dealing with fanatics trying to convert you!? Yet not one Mormon missionary has been found dead in the living room of an atheist. What amazing restraint we have! Perhaps extreme atheists are occasionally cited for protesting inappropriately, but again, you'll notice history books completely lack sections about atheist uprisings in which thousands of believers were slaughtered in the name of nothingness. Atheist martyrs aren't willing to blow themselves up so that people will stop believing.

Despite backing up our non-violent rhetoric with non-violent action, we've never been honored. We're known as the freaks. "They relentlessly protest having our version of god shoved down their throats," the religious fanatics say. Religious folks feel confident their beliefs are correct simply because they have many fellow followers at home and abroad.

But despite the fact that atheists are the minority in every corner of the world, we've never violently lashed out. No atheist in a Muslim country dares to speak out for fear of being stoned to death for the horrific sin of not strictly following the tenants of Islam. Atheists in Christian countries, such as America, are considered outcasts, because, as the Christians say, "America was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy."

People belonging to organized religions have always used oppression of their people in certain parts of the world as justification to kill. Atheists, oppressed in every part of the world, have never needed to justify violence, because we've never mastered the art, or had a desire to master the art, of mass killing.

Yet we atheists are the epitome of freakishness because we don't enjoy seeing overtly religious displays on public property.

I suppose I shouldn't condemn the weak masses, who only lash out because they're not mature enough to handle the unknown. Their desire to pretend that every unanswerable question is answerable by humans is so overwhelming that they must either kill, or justify the killing, of those who point out the fact that some mysteries will forever remain.

Since I have no chance of successfully completing my mission, I won't start a Facebook page attempting to garner support for my Ground Zero shrine to atheism. Doesn't matter really, the majority of my life is not spent trying to please what may or may not be above the clouds based on the writings of people who lived centuries ago. It's amazing how saneness is so prevalent in a group of people who start with a rational premise.

Not Talking About It Doesn't Make It True

2010-11-19T19:35:00.000-08:00

Certainly I lean one way politically, but have never considered myself uber-partisan simply because I believe the majority of politicians are buffoons. One of my favorite habits of elected officials on both sides of the political aisle is refusing to discuss topics about which they're clearly wrong.

"Did I pardon that criminal because his wife was one of the biggest donors to my campaign!? That is a ridiculous question and I refuse to dignify it with a response. Next unrelated question!"

It's as if some people believe that preventing the discussion of a certain topic means they're in the right.

Ever try and have a rational discussion regarding the alien/outer space beliefs of Mormons with a Mormon? To some followers of Mormonism, the proposition, "Let's discuss Kolob, which you believe is the star closest to the throne of god," are fightin' words.

Why are people so adamant they hang onto religions when the mere mention of a specific belief held by followers of the religion is cause for massive tension?

That's the beauty of atheism; you're only required to believe what you actually believe!

What a concept, huh?

It never gives religious people pause that they have been taught stories so outlandish that the mere mention of them puts followers on the defensive!?

Back to the political analogy for a second... Religious people refusing to discuss specific beliefs are akin to candidates in the midst of debates answering questions posed by moderators with completely unrelated information. It's misleading when they do it, yet I'm sure those who follow a specific religion mention all the controversial topics right away while trying to convert the lost. "So you're thinking about becoming a Mormon! I'll explain the, 'love thy neighbor' stuff later, but first I want to tell you about all the creature-inhabiting planets god created besides ours, because we can't be alone in the universe... Am I right!?"

Religious folks are of the opinion that you're required to meet certain belief-criteria or else you'll be denied entrance into the kingdom of heaven. For those who don't believe 100% of the words written in your holy book should be taken literally, what makes you so certain the authors were completely accurate while writing the verses explaining what you're required to believe in order to secure an eternity of perfection?

"Sure, some of those parables weren't based in reality, and I don't believe they actually meant I should execute that homosexual who tried to sell me hand cream in the mall, but they absolutely nailed the part about me needing to believe such-and-such in order to achieve eternal salvation!"

Just think; if they left out important details, or couldn't read their own penmanship after taking notes from god as he informed them exactly what everyone needed to believe, you could be royally screwed.

"What do you mean I can't pass through the pearly gates, I believe everything the Bible taught me," a religious person complains after receiving a notice of rejection on really nice letterhead.

"Yeah, but there was a typo in your Bible which instructed you to believe something you weren't supposed to believe. Therefore, you, and all other humans who purchased a 2008 Zondervan Bible, will not be spending the afterlife in heaven. Who would have thought the omittance of the simple word, 'don't' in Ecclesiastics would have such disastrous consequences" St. Peter replies.

"But that's not my fault!"

"You're right, it was the fault of typesetter J. Randolph Kendrick, who ironically purchased his Bible in 2000 and is therefore currently enjoying a juicy steak that will not add an inch to his svelte waistline... He is in heaven after all."

Coming Out of the non-Gay Closet

2010-11-14T15:37:00.000-08:00

I've never understood why it's impolite to talk about religion. Of course it's folks who strictly follow a specific religion that make the topic taboo.

If you tell me that atheism is a bunch of hooey, I get excited because it means a lively debate is forthcoming.

If I tell a religious person that they're full of hooey, they start foaming at the mouth and then string together a bunch of euphemisms for parts of the female anatomy before perfectly segueing into descriptions of unladylike sexual acts they'd like to see me perform on myself.

True, throwing a temper tantrum at the declaration their religious beliefs are not universally held is much better than brutally murdering those with whom they disagree, but still does not excuse exhibiting child-like behavior due to the opinion of a fellow human being.

There should be no topic rational adults must refrain from discussing for fear fists will fly.

And it's not just fear of a violent response that prevents many atheists from bringing up the origin of man...

Organized religion has done such a stellar job of making it seem as if non-believers will suffer an eternity of horror that the prospect of revealing oneself to people about whom they care deeply is extremely nerve-wracking.

It's about a thousand times worse than saying you're too busy to come home for Thanksgiving dinner.

The following sentence is likely what Christian family members hear while a loved one is announcing they've taken to atheism, "You know what, I don't believe in a word of the Bible; so, instead of us being together for an eternity of perfection, I'm just going to hang out in hell where I will exist in agony. Since your time in heaven will be perfect, I suppose they'll somehow wipe me out of your memory so you won't be forced to imagine the desperation emanating from my tortured screams."

Obviously one of the reasons organized religion is so popular is because they enjoy pretending that they're absolutely certain the reward for believing is perfection while the punishment for not believing is absolutely horrendous.

Not only does extreme punishment for non-followers influence individuals to believe, it also discourages debate. If I genuinely believed members of my family would suffer in the afterlife simply because they made a rational conclusion after the gathering of facts, I would do everything in my power to convince them of their error. I would be so adamant they change their opinion they'd probably take a, "It's best not to bring it up," attitude toward the topic of religion while speaking with me.

I suspect it's not only fear that a horrific fate will come to those who do not accept a traditional religion... Perhaps holy people have a problem with the discussion of religion because their argument is based solely on ancient people telling other ancient people stories about how god spoke to them. For us non-believers, the follower of a traditional religion is equivalent to someone who wholeheartedly accepts the word of a nut who approached them on the sidewalk and said, "If you don't believe my pants are the creator of the universe, you will rot for all of eternity!" I suspect religious folks don't much like to hear that kind of talk; especially considering the fact that a good comeback doesn't exist.

Or perhaps religious folks are afraid of actually changing their opinion after hearing ironclad facts backed up by science.

Because religion is spread by fear, I suppose it's only natural that those who follow a specific denomination are afraid to speak about their beliefs and mask said fear with anger when the subject is broached.

It's a shame organized religion uses scare tactics so harsh that families cannot openly debate the existence of god when one member is not of the same belief as the rest, but then again, if there were no consequence for failing to attend church, them pews would be some kind of empty.

God Told Me to Tell You to Stop Using Drugs

2010-11-10T18:28:00.000-08:00

There are more than a few so-called arguments against the legalization of drugs that tug at the heartstrings.

"I work with special needs children whose mothers abused drugs. If you could spend a day in my shoes, you would applaud the illegality of drugs."

While I have great admiration for anyone who dedicates their life to helping those unable to live independently, the above argument doesn't hold water.

Do you think good parents would all of sudden say, if drugs were legalized, "Put me down for five pounds of your finest cocaine!"

If murder were made legal, would normally good-natured individuals suddenly transform into killing machines?

And obviously the person working with special needs children of mothers who've abused drugs understands that there's a great demand for their services despite the fact that drugs are currently illegal?

The key is harsh punishment. We simply make drugs legal while severely punishing those who use them in ways that harm children. If a woman bears a child with disabilities directly resulting from her abuse of drugs, we throw her in jail for the remainder of her life. If a man played a part in said abuse, he goes in too. Maximum penalties for dealers caught selling to minors. Through negligence, if children gain access to drugs owned by their parents, we throw the parents in jail for eons. If someone is caught driving under the influence of drugs, we forever revoke their license on the off-chance they're still able to drive after being released from a maximum security pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Those who steal money, or physical possessions, with a plan to exchange said valuables for drugs, should also be punished harshly.

The reason the war on drugs has been so horrendously unsuccessful is because we do everything half-assed. Most junkies, drug dealers and impaired drivers get multiple opportunities to commit crimes. Their final offense usually has catastrophic consequences.

With harsh punishments, we could seriously reduce instances of expectant mothers abusing harsh drugs, dealers selling to children, and impaired drivers flying down the freeway.

If we were to legalize drugs, while throwing the book at those whose drug related actions led to the harming of innocence; the innocent would be protected, and those with a desire to destroy their own bodies would be free to do so.

As usual, it all comes down to religion. "God doesn't want us harming our bodies by using illegal drugs. Though not everybody shares my religious beliefs, I will nonetheless force them to abide by the same rules set forth by the unproven deity I choose to follow."

It's the same with prostitution. The only reason you can't legally pay fifty bucks for a quicky is because it goes against the teachings of a certain religion.

"But prostitution leads to disease and the abuse of women."

Only those willing to take the risk while not using every precaution made available by the fine folks at Trojan are likely to catch a disease. And, just as with my drug legalization proposal, if those convicted of abusing women or children faced serious consequences, offenders would not have multiple opportunities to commit crimes and the overall number of abuse cases would decline.

Despite disastrous consequences resulting from the illegality of certain behaviors, which are illegal solely based on their religious beliefs, opponents of drug and prostitution legalization refuse to even consider reversing their position.

They refuse to budge simply because being "anti-drug" makes them feel good. "Sure more people die thanks to my rigid stupidity, but I'm doing god's work!" they say while dreaming about the day they'll proudly saunter through the pearly gates still bloated from a life full of good intentions.

Preaching for Power

2010-11-03T20:24:00.000-07:00

Not a whole lot of people truly live for others.

But the majority of preachers; their only reason for existing is to serve their congregation, right?

Or are preachers like politicians, who, regardless of whether there is an "R", "D", "I", "G" or "L" beside their name, only crave money and power. They want you to give them money in exchange for advice on how you should live.

Here's a bit of advice I'll offer absolutely free of charge: work hard and be decent in your relations with others. Beneath my poignant, yet simple, guide to living a life of fulfillment and happiness, please notice the complete absence of PayPal links, which, if clicked, would take you to a page providing detailed instructions on how to deposit funds directly into my account. And please don't email me asking for my routing number, because I will not divulge such information! And that's not just because I have trouble differentiating it from my account number on the bottom of my checks, a problem from which I doubt a single preacher suffers.

Preachers differ from politicians in that they can't pass laws forcing you to fork over a large portion of your paycheck. However they can control you with threats.

And it doesn't matter what church you enter, the man or woman at the pulpit is usually similar to their peers in more ways than not. Do you really think President Obama's controversial preacher, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, had different goals for the Trinity United Christian Church than the "aww shucks" Methodist preacher has for the unassuming church former President George W. Bush visits while vacationing at his small town ranch? Do you think they have different goals for their own careers?

They both want power. They both want their name on buildings. They both want to increase attendance so the collection plate will be overflowing by the time it reaches their office. That's why they want your butt in that pew.

Like any working relationship, I'm sure preachers care about a few of their parishioners while remaining apathetic toward others. I'm sure preachers enjoy the company of some of their parishioners while finding it difficult to be in the same room as others.

Church is big business, and despite their tax status, if you think your preacher has any goal that trumps improving the bottom line, you're sadly mistaken.

Sure, things have improved in that religious organizations of yore tried to establish dominance by committing mass murder, while most modern day American institutions of religion attempt to financially better neighboring churches by printing more colorful fliers or implementing a stricter age limit on female members of the choir; but the ultimate goal is the same.

Though they seek far less than those who walk the halls of Congress, you're still being led by people who have chosen to follow fame, money and power. How many people who crave fame, money and power are truly wholesome, upstanding individuals?

By the admission of your own religion, human beings are imperfect; yet you choose to elevate scores simply because they've attended seminary.

Because there are exceptions to every rule, I'm sure there are a few preachers who abide by the teachings of the Bible, and, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they raise, get by on just enough money to pay for food, a decent education for their children, and to put aside a tiny bit for retirement. "To the layman, it may seem as if I deserve a raise, but because an increase in funds is not necessary for my survival, I will not take money away from those who desperately need it for theirs," are words that must have been uttered by a few preachers, don't you think?

Neither do I.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are decent preachers all over this fine country of ours; I just hate to see people follow a fellow human being just because others have elevated him or her to the position of pastor.

Hopefully, due to the Catholic Church scandal, religious leaders are at least somewhat scrutinized. Not necessarily because everyone is afraid they're committing unspeakable acts, just to make sure they're trustworthy. Because, if, when conversing with your preacher, you get the feeling an 800-number should periodically be displayed below his or her chin, you may not be dealing with someone who is making your needs the number one priority.

So please proceed with caution when getting close to church royalty, because they have similar characteristics to cult leaders who deviously convince thousands of people that it's in their best interest to participate in insanely self-destructive activities. And because their subtlety may cause a delay in the arrival of an illuminated light bulb over your head, you may want to be extra careful.

I Worship Monica from "Friends"

2010-10-28T18:04:00.000-07:00

There has been much controversy lately about the depiction of gods and prophets for comedic purposes on television.

Comedy Central censored cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammad a few weeks ago because the people who drew him received what basically amounted to death threats.

That very same network recently announced they will consider airing a comedy show that depicts Jesus and god in less than flattering ways. Christian groups are naturally beside themselves with grief over this decision.

Of course followers of Islam and Christianity have the option of not watching any show that doesn't meet their requirements for viewing, but they would rather issue death threats and call press conferences.

Hating to be left out, I have decided to worship Monica from Friends and will now protest any network that airs re-runs of the once popular situation comedy because it depicts my god as being a once-overweight, maniacally controlling, neat-freak.

More on my new religion later...

We can't take away the freedom of people to air programming they deem likely profitable in order to appease people with whom they disagree.

Why should religious people be allowed to stifle liberty by preventing me from creating a program that targets my fellow atheists when religious people have the age-old option of not watching? And there are thousands of religious programs on television every Sunday morning. I save time by not watching and not protesting these shows, while religious folks waste time by watching and protesting the programs they oppose.

I have been accused of focusing my criticism primarily on Christianity. The reason I tend to do this is because I've spent my life in a country that claims to value the separation of church and state yet does not back up her words with action.

But Christians have been granted a grand opportunity to separate themselves, which they could easily do by releasing a statement that says, "While we obviously won't endorse the proposed comedy about Jesus moving to New York to escape the shadow of god, we do realize that America and the world cannot be run solely according to our beliefs and will therefore organize no protests, plan no boycotts, and write not a single nasty letter of opposition to the show."

To non-believers around the world, people who worship one of the traditional higher-powers are akin to me and my fellow devotees of the great and powerful Monica Geller. Such belief makes no sense. Such belief is irrational. Yet religious people want those who don't share their views to nevertheless alter their behavior so those who do believe in a higher-power can go through life without being offended or, worse yet, be forced to change the station despite not having the energy to get up and fetch the remote!

And you followers of the traditional deities feel justified in doing so only because you are large in number. With ice cream and a bottle of vodka respectively, I could probably only convince the four-year-old daughter of my friend and the homeless guy to whom I occasionally give a few dollars to join me in believing that Mrs. Chandler Bing is divine. You laugh at my demand Friends be removed from the airwaves, but I should be deprived freedom because there are millions of you?

I Always Feel like Somebody's Watching Me

2010-10-25T20:47:00.000-07:00

How different would your life be if someone were constantly standing in front of you? They weren't saying anything. They were just watching your every move, silently judging.

My guess is that your day-to-day existence would not only be very different; it would lack any semblance of pleasure.

Horrifying novels have been written about governmental big brothers overseeing our every action; yet religious people are extremely comfortable in being watched constantly by a higher power that rules dictatorially! If you've ever read the Bible, you know that god handed out some pretty harsh punishments. And Biblical "criminals" had absolutely no right to an appeals court. Had the Ninth Circuit existed back in the day, perhaps Lot's wife would have hired attorneys so adroit at wordplay that the pillar of salt punishment would have been reduced to community service.

Policies the U.S. Government would be overthrown for implementing are praised when god is in charge.

"Watch and judge our every action and then punish us accordingly should we not behave admirably all day, every day."

I can't imagine the pressure you poor people are under. You're constantly being judged by a perfect deity that never takes his eyes off your person, or his, whatever he uses to read your mind, off your thought-waves.

But, when alone, do you behave as if a noticeable physical presence is actually in the room with you?

My guess is that you don't.

And because you relax while in solitude, does that mean you doubt the very existence of a higher power?

Even if every human being, who witnessed your strange, yet non-criminal, behavior, decided you should be harshly judged, would it really matter? According to you, they lack the power to allocate one-way tickets to hell.

And even if your private behavior fails to reach hell-worthy status; wouldn't god be the one being you'd want to impress? Wouldn't you spend your days staring into space, desperately attempting to keep out thoughts of dirty acts you'd like to perform on that flight attendant who worked the redeye you took from Logan to DFW - had you been lucky enough to convince her to join you in a sleazy motel room...? Things Don Draper likely does to his Mad Men mistresses, yet AMC is unable to lawfully depict?

So, if you're so certain god is watching your every move, I seriously doubt you'd do the things you've been doing while in the presence of no one. And I'm not even talking about things that would shame your family were they revealed to the world. I'm simply referring to actions you're too polite to carry out while in the presence of others.

I suppose I can only speak for myself, but I know that, when alone, I occasionally act in ways even Courtney Love would deem, "unladylike."

If religious folks are correct and he exists, just ask god.

Or my cat.

I Don't Know; I Just Live Here

2010-10-19T20:10:00.000-07:00

Some of the most magical moments in life are watching children discover new things. The look on a youngster's face as the first butterfly lands on their arm is simply priceless.

But such joy at discovery doesn't have to cease once we reach a certain age.

Those of us with freewill often discover new things about ourselves. We discover that our view of the world is constantly changing.

I can't imagine walking around with a manual I was forced to consult whenever I witnessed questionable behavior. Once you learned all the rules and regulations contained in said manual; there wouldn't be much living left to do.

"How do you feel about the current case being argued in front of the Supreme Court?"

"It doesn't matter what I think - I am required by my pastor to consult a book which informs me of my feelings regarding such matters. Of course I hope I agree with the side I end up taking, but my opinions were formed centuries ago and completely out of my hands."

What kind of being would lovingly put you on this earth with freewill, yet tell you exactly how to view each and every issue?

And that's not even mentioning the fact that all of your actions are closely scrutinized.

"Do not partake in desirable behavior that harms no one," doesn't sound very loving to me. Especially when the alternative instruction, "Be a good person," was available.

It's like telling a child not to eat bacon, and then putting a crispy piece in front of his or her door just so you can vent some pent-up frustration once they succumb to the intoxicating aroma only cured pork products can provide.

According to you, god would like everyone to take on the role of an apathetic K-Mart employee.

"What do you mean your company's manual instructs you not to give me a refund; you clearly sold me a defective product!?"

"I don't know; I just work here."

"What do you mean your holy book declares my action a sin; I'm not hurting a single person!?"

"I don't know; I just live here."

The reason people are so willing to give up thought is because they fear the unknown. They've been told the consequences of failing to fall in line are so dire and long-lasting that compliance is by far the safest bet.

The believer in a specific religion says...

"If I'm wrong: so what?"

"If I'm right: eternity of perfection."

"If thinking for myself is wrong: afterlife of hurt."

Should I, Sarah Laimbeer, end up in said afterlife of hurt; at least I'll have the comfort in knowing that I had the figurative gonads to do it my way.

And let's face it; were you not afraid of spending eternity in hell, you wouldn't dream of disregarding your own opinion when making judgments.

The Pope Said What!?

2010-10-15T20:20:00.000-07:00

The Pope recently said that gay marriage is, "an insidious and dangerous threat to the common good."

Seriously?

I'm tempted to bring up the fact that the Pope continues to judge others when he can't prevent his own employees from abusing children in the most vile of manners.

Not; he can't prevent his employees from stealing paper clips from the supply room, rather he can't prevent his employees from abusing children in the most vile of manners.

Look, if you want to make the argument that a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman, I will respectfully listen to your reasoning and then present my own brilliant contradictory point of view. I'll fully detail the flaws in your argument, but it's a debate worth having.

But, saying gay marriage is a, "dangerous threat to the common good," basically claims that an inherent attraction is evil. So the Catholic Church would like all homosexuals to know that their feelings, which, when acted upon, don't harm a single soul, are equivalent to constantly having the desire to spill the warm blood of stranger.

Would god really want you to deny feelings he gave you?

And the basis the Catholic Church uses to convince homosexuals to repress their feelings is an ancient book written by someone who supposedly had a direct pathway to god. "I read that someone who was really close to god, a few thousand years ago, said that god told him he wasn't a fan of homosexuality, so don't be gay, and if you are, don't get married. Seriously, live a life of misery in case the Bible happens to be factually accurate."

True, some inherent instincts shouldn't be acted upon, but only those that lead to action which results in harmed souls.

Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense to deny your desires.

The following is the conclusion to which the Vatican would like skeptical homosexuals to come... "Maybe the authors of the Bible were correct in saying that god declared homosexuality a sin. It's impossible to say for certain and makes no logical sense that following my desire to spend my life with a member of the same sex is morally unjust. But, I suppose I should go with what my forefathers claimed to be the word of god, based on a claim by their forefathers, based on a claim by their forefathers, based on a claim by their forefathers, etc,."

Discipline can be a very good thing, but only when the result of exhibiting discipline is positive. If you don't eat that extra piece of cake you'll have a wardrobe full of pants you can button without breaking a sweat. Don't purchase that $500 pair of shoes and you'll have enough money to pay the phone bill. Don't have a lasting relationship with a member of the same sex and... um, well...

Though heterosexual sex can also lead to disease, many Christians claim AIDS was god's way of proving that he despises homosexuality.

But what if AIDS was god's way of pointing out the bad Christians?

Of course I believe there is no god, but for the sake of this piece, I will take on the point of view of a deist.

If there were a single god, he or she would not be the god of a specific religion and therefore choose to honor only those who abided by the common sense version of good versus evil, as opposed to a (man-written) holy book version of good versus evil.

He would favor those who couldn't fathom a horrible disease being punishment for following ones inherent desires.

Those who said, "Yes, that homosexual died a horrible death as a result of acting upon the true love he felt for a member of the same sex," would be judged as the worst of the worst.

Let's discuss the three types of people listed below...

Tier One: People who don't believe in god and therefore claim any activity that does not harm a fellow human being is acceptable.

Tier Two: People who believe in god but don't argue that he or she would punish homosexuals in such a way, or that god would ever declare spending a lifetime with a person to whom you're attracted, regardless of sex, to be a sin.

Tier Three: People who believe god would punish homosexuals with horrendous deaths simply due to the fact that they acted upon attractions to members of the same sex.

The tier three individual spends a lifetime thinking the tier one and two people are in trouble, when, in reality, the tier three person's intolerance would cause a truly just god to frown down upon them with great vengeance.

Being an atheist, I think no one will suffer a horrible fate. That's both comforting and sad. To the disappointment of Christians; a homosexual will not burn in hell for his or her supposed sins. To the disappointment of me; Adolf Hitler is not burning in hell for his egregious sins.

But that's the beauty of the earth. Humanity is given the chance to prevent madmen like Hitler from achieving their goals. We must stand up for each other in the name of universal good, because every religion waiting for their god to make things right hasn't exactly been working out.

The truth is; homosexuality is not an insidious and dangerous threat to the common good.

People who believe in god are not insidious and dangerous threats to the common good.

Organized religion on the other hand...

The Constitution Says Nothing About Manipulation

2010-10-11T19:45:00.000-07:00

I enjoy hearing from Christians who claim that encouraging public school students to stand up, place their hand over their heart, and pledge allegiance to America, "under god" does not constitute the establishment of a national religion.

The preceding is not the start of a rant calling for the removal of "under god" from the Pledge. However, I do find it funny that, according to Christians, anything short of President Obama signing into law a bill that specifically names Christianity as the official religion of the United States does not fall under the category of "establishing."

What would happen if a high-school basketball coach said to his or her players... "I'd like you all to wear Air Jordan shoes. Of course I'm not forcing you to purchase a pair of the awesome sneakers that will undoubtedly improve your game. But, if you go sans Air Jordan shoes, you're going to stick out like a sore thumb and not truly be a part of the squad."? If those were the words used by the coach, parents would throw a fit, as any rational human being understands that he or she has just established a team shoe.

Using the fact that a majority of American children come from Christian households to manipulate other children into pledging their allegiance to god is perhaps not technically establishing a religion, but it is purposeful manipulation. It's skirting the intention of our Founding Fathers via a technicality.

Most conservatives claim, "The Constitution is not a living and breathing document that needs to be reexamined as the times change; rather it should be taken literally even though its drafters could not have fathomed what kind of country America would be two-hundred years after its founding."

In order to live by the above, conservatives are forced to plot and scheme due to the fact that certain portions of the Constitution don't fit their worldview.

In other words, by their actions, conservatives say, "Since I agree with most of the Constitution, I will fight relentlessly to ensure that America doesn't stray. The parts I disagree with, however, I will fight relentlessly to pretend mean something other than what the drafters intended them to mean."

In words other than that, by their actions, conservatives say, "I choose not to focus on the actual words in the Constitution and will instead interpret any portion I reject to make it seem as if the drafter of said portion wanted exactly what I want."

If conservatives truly desired to abide by the wishes of the Founding Fathers, they would enthusiastically call for the removal of all references to god on anything produced by the United States government.

They enjoy residing in a country that doesn't force them to believe in anything specific, but because they do believe in something specific, choose to manipulate non-believers into following the same book using government run institutions.

Atheists have the reputation of being militant. In the Bible Belt; you'll hear reports of a single non-believer forcing an entire community to refrain from reciting the Lord's Prayer before football games.

Yet atheists aren't calling for children to stand up and pledge their loyalty to the belief that there is no god. Instead we simply desire, in accordance with the Constitution, that all mention of specifics be removed. Such removal would satisfy Christians, Muslims, Jews, Deists, Atheists, Mormons, Buddhists... basically the removal of specifics would cover everyone under the sun, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended.

"You believe that the cricket chirping by your foot is god... You believe your favorite internet blogger is god... You believe Jesus is god... You believe there is no god... You believe there is one god, but you're not sure if he or she would reveal himself or herself to earthlings... Whichever of the above scenarios you believe to be correct; you're welcome to build a church in America," the Founding Fathers declared.

Too bad Christians can't live in accordance with the wishes of the aforementioned Founding Fathers; men for whom they often profess their love. Too bad Christians purposely misinterpret the words of the Founding Fathers to make it seem as if said Founding Fathers really wanted America to be a Christian nation, only a tad less militant than the Motherland.

According to modern day Christians; the Founding Fathers wanted a country where religious leaders had the freedom to preach the gospel a bit less literally than the religious leaders in England. Perhaps they wanted to reside in a country where sneaking out of a sermon two minutes before its conclusion, so they could secure a good table at the Denny's of yore, wasn't punishable by decapitation.

According to modern day Christians; the Founding Fathers had no desire for Americans to maintain the freedom to reject a higher power altogether. Modern day Christians say, "Of course public school children can choose atheism - as long as they do so while sitting in the corner as the rest of their class joyfully praises America and the Christian God that made such a glorious nation possible."

A Country Founded on Judeo-Christian-Atheist Principles

2010-10-06T17:19:00.000-07:00

According to Wikipedia, "Judeo-Christian" refers to a set of beliefs and ethics held in common by Judaism and Christianity. America was of course founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

In other words; the really good stuff contained in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were used as the basis of America's founding.

But I opine that America would be an even better country if we began including atheistic principles in America's general philosophy.

First of all, because atheists don't believe in god, we can take, "In God We Trust," off our money and remove all crosses from public land.

Wow, that wasn't so bad. I doubt anyone will be too traumatized by the above actions; even Christians and Jews who enjoying curling up in bed with a wallet full of cash to read before sleepy time. (I'll try not to give away what's on the back of the twenty-dollar bill, but, SPOILER ALERT, it has something to do with a pale mansion...)

The Ten Commandments are always a thorny issue, so why don't we just stick with displaying on public property the specific ones on which we can all agree...

May I now present to America, the Four Commandments:

Drum roll please...

Do not commit murder
Do not steal
Do not covet your neighbor's wife
Do not bear false witness against your neighbor

I think the commandment about coveting your neighbor's wife covers the adultery commandment, and we certainly don't want to be redundant. Plus, maybe you're cheating on your ratfink husband, as opposed to divorcing him, for the sake of your precious children, or vice-versa. I mean vice-versa in that maybe you're cheating on your ratfink wife for the sake of your precious children, not; maybe you're cheating on your precious husband for the sake of your ratfink children.

While honoring your father and mother is generally a good thing; if I were a Simpson offspring I doubt I would have much inclination to visit Papa OJ in the graybar hotel. And if I did, our conservations would consist of nothing but me asking, "Why didn't getting away with a brutal double homicide satisfy your lust for felonious behavior?" which I don't think anyone would consider, "honoring".

But I digress.

Now that the commandments have been condensed, public lands stripped of all religious symbols, and our money made free of god promoting phrases, we can begin the process of changing the region of the country known as the "Bible belt".

In many parts of the south and Utah you're not allowed to purchase alcohol at certain times of day. In some areas, the sale of alcohol is forbidden altogether. Perhaps a few of these laws were genuinely constructed with public safety in mind, but I don't think I'm being disingenuous in claiming that the majority of these ordinances were passed with the express purpose of discouraging the consumption of alcohol for the simple fact that it's considered a sin.

If religion played no part in drafting alcohol related statutes and individuals were free to purchase adult beverages whenever and wherever they pleased, abstaining religious folks could simply refrain from buying liquor.

If we took off the books all laws only in existence for religious regions, everyone would have more freedom and individuals wouldn't be subjected to senselessly living in accordance with religions they don't follow.

Christian conservatives constantly speak of freedom. They claim the Obama Administration is hindering our ability to live as we choose. However, in my estimation, conservatives are the number one culprit when it comes to limiting liberty.

They say, "Obama is going to prevent us from selecting our own doctor. Obama is going to prevent us from consuming the amount of energy we deem sufficient to live in comfort," and, "Obama is going to prevent companies from paying CEOs an amount they consider fair."

But when conservatives are asked, "Should people be free to buy and sell libations whenever they please, should people be free to marry the companion of their choice," or, "should people be free to walk public lands without subjection to religious spamming," they emphatically answer, "no!"

But it's clear to me that, if we were to include atheistic principles in our philosophy, Americans would have even more freedom and therefore receive greater enjoyment from life.

The problem, of course, is that the people of America will reject my proposal without consideration because the mere mention of an atheist conjures up images of Satan worshippers and Nazi skinheads. The religious majority's PR machine has been so successful in portraying individuals who reject a supreme being as whining degenerates that a feeling of disgust washes over the average American at the sight of an atheist that's so prevalent each time it occurs Pavlov nods his head and says, "Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about!"

So, religious fanatics; keep touting freedom through Judeo-Christian principles when you know full well that true freedom would only exist were America founded on Judeo-Christian-Atheist principles.

Actually, you could take Judeo-Christian out of the mix and things would be darn near perfect.

Is Church a One-Way Ticket to Sinville?

2010-09-26T23:03:00.000-07:00

I would strongly argue that a pew cushion is the last place under which you should look if you're seeking a well-adjusted member of society.

While I'm sure they're a great place at which to mingle, regularly scheduled church services give religious folks an excuse to sin, as well as a comforting feeling that they will one day soon turn their life around.

In other words; church is an enabler of sinful behavior because it causes the delay of reform.

In words other than that; simply by sitting in church, religious folks believe they are actively combating their vices.

Despite these frequent visits to church, when religious people egregiously sin, they always claim to have somehow forgotten the words written on the pages of their holy book; words on which the sermons are based.

Really?

You forget things you're reminded of on a weekly basis? The sermons don't help at all? If, every Sunday morning, I was reminded that Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States, I don't think I'd ever forget that Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States.

The downside to needing help from outside influences in order to solve your problems is that many individuals wait for said outside influences to miraculously take effect.

It's as if people are saying, "I've been going to church for years, I don't know why I continue robbing the local convenience store, cheating on my spouse, burning down libraries, etc..."

If people took it upon themselves to improve their own situation, they might have some success.

Because all church does is remind you that others are negatively judging your behavior.

And let's talk about people who sit through church listening to sermons about how they should struggle to alter their sinful ways despite the fact that they feel not a tinge of guilt.

When you attempt to improve your situation because another human being, or higher power via ancient writings, tells you that your life is off course, the attempt will usually fail. When the goal is improving your situation because you think you've strayed, the attempt usually has a fighting chance.

Because it's all about your version of right and wrong.

Por Ejemplo; if an Amish person tells you that, simply by turning on a television set or desk lamp, you're no better than Jeffrey Dahmer; you're not likely to decrease your electricity consumption because you'd view such criticism as loco.

The above scenario is akin to church elders informing you that you're living a life of unacceptable sin. If you agree, you already knew this. If you disagree, then no amount of reminders regarding the dreadfulness of your behavior will make you alter your lifestyle because you believe your lifestyle is perfectly fine.

So if you want to change your life, use as motivation the thought of how much gratification you'll receive from future looks in the mirror, because you'll most likely find nods of approval from nicely-dressed people who feel it's their primary duty to judge your every action to be a major disappointment.

If outside influences are pressuring you to make unneeded changes, let your conscience be your guide.

Now tell me quickly - who was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States?

You Could Be a Member of the Westboro Baptist Church

2010-09-24T18:24:00.000-07:00

For those of you not familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church; they're the people who make asses of themselves at funerals of slain military personnel. They proudly hold up signs that state god strongly dislikes homosexuals. They claim god is punishing all citizens of America because our government allows gays to roam as free as the African Wildebeest.

You too could be a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I'm sure you think of yourself as a strong minded individual who only reaches conclusions based on sound reasoning.

I hate to burst your bubble, but if your parents - the people that fed you, that nursed you back to health and tucked you into bed every night - had repeatedly informed a youthful you that god would send to hell anyone who engages in homosexual activity, you may have started to believe it.

You may even have started to believe that god would punish entire nations for the crime of failing to execute homosexuals based solely on their inherent preference of bedmate.

The above is not meant to equate all organized religions with the vile Westboro Baptist Church; it's meant to illustrate the potential harm in refusing to allow children to make their own decisions.

Footage of entire families holding up signs reading, "God Hate Fags," at the funeral of an American serviceperson causes my blood to boil. Then I realize the children will one day take on the role of the parent and therefore receive rightful scorn from every rational human being on earth.

But he or she never had a chance.

I suppose it's difficult to excuse this kind of behavior, but what option do the kids have that will spare them from a life of pretending to know full well exactly how vigorously god hates homosexuals and eventually bearing children they will brainwash into believing they have the same connection to the thoughts of the almighty?

Do we expect their underdeveloped minds to grasp exactly how much evil their parents possess, and, because of this advanced comprehension, run away from home and live out their youth in multiple foster homes? Or, due to the fact that no legal basis for a separation from their parents exits, perhaps they'll be forcibly returned to their hate-filled home. I can't imagine guardians who loathe homosexuals with such passion are tolerant when it comes to offspring covertly abandoning the nest.

I want to reiterate the fact that I am not calling all religious parents modern day versions of Adolf Hitler.

I just want to make sure every parent fully comprehends the amount of power they hold over the growing minds of their children.

Please don't tell your lads that opinions are facts. On their own, let them develop theories about life's unanswerable questions.

Don't give them a Bible and say, "You must believe every word printed on these pages or be subjected to an afterlife of misery."

Instead, hand them a Bible and say, "Please read this and then we'll compare notes."

If I had a child who approached me with a yearning to visit a Mormon temple or Catholic church, I would happily escort them and afterward discuss, in a non-bias way, what we witnessed.

If your children make a similar request, please don't act like you're disappointed. Don't act as if they said the equivalent of, "I have chosen hardcore pornography as my vocation."

Don't only announce, "I'm very proud of you," after occasions in which you learn the conclusions of your children coincide exactly with yours. Declare your pride after instances in which they think for themselves.

Tell them you're beaming with pride even if they have recently informed you that they completely reject the notion of a higher power.

Yes, you'll worry about their souls, but just think how much more secure you'll be regarding their long-term faith if, on their own, they decide to join you at church every Sunday morning.

And if they choose not to believe, do you really think - if there is a god, he or she will punish your kindhearted child for making an informed decision after thoughtfully considering every piece of evidence?

When Do the Ten Commandments XP Arrive?

2010-09-19T19:50:00.000-07:00

In biblical times, God had many ways to get his message across.

Not so much anymore.

Perhaps he's cut ties with earthlings and is devoting his attention to a newly developed planet in a galaxy far, far away. Sort of like when a sitcom producer leaves an establish hit like The Office to work on an up-and-coming program like How I Met Your Two Dads.

But don't you believers need god to tweak his rules a little bit?

It worries those of us who live our life in accordance with the norms of the society in which we reside that you religious folks are living by a set of principles written centuries ago.

I'm not going to send my children to a school that is still enforcing a code of conduct written before the Axis Powers were defeated. "So my child is required to alert school officials should they see a Japanese American student roaming the halls. Is there a specific number they can text with that information?"

We see how living by ancient rules impacts other societies and I for one have no interest in witnessing American girls stoned to death for fraternizing with members of the opposite sex.

And yes, a father living in America recently murdered his own daughters for being too "modern."

Because persons of all religions are following extremely old instructions, why not just follow the ones that are truly timeless until an update is provided by a trustworthy conduit to god?

I know some religions do an overall better job of conforming to modern times, but since there are extremists in all religions, everyone belonging to the big three should take the advice I humbly offer.

Do not commit murder is the perfect example of a timeless classic. You should definitely not commit murder. And it would be fantastic if you extremists could pay close attention to this one and stop killing people based on their religion or race.

So actually the anti-murdering instruction could use an update to read, "Do not murder anyone for any reason, whatsoever. Even if you read something else in your holy book that makes it seem like murdering someone is serving god, it's not."

Wow, you wouldn't think such a simple command would need revising.

Imagine the atrocities that could have been avoided if this update were provided a few hundred years ago.

Let's move on.

Do not commit adultery.

You should definitely not cheat on your spouse.

Wait a second.

When I say, "adultery" I don't include persons who married an individual they truly loved, but, despite the best efforts of both partners, could not make it work and later on in life found another. I mean, that, if married, you shouldn't have physically arousing contact with a person other than your spouse.

Okay, we need an update on this one as well because we want to make sure people don't get stuck in potentially destructive marriages that could negatively impact children.

I know a lot of religious people will say that you should either abide by the brutal and arcane laws written in your holy books or get it out of the religion, but I don't see these people ruthlessly slaying professional readers of tarot cards. (Look it up.)

So regardless of your religion, perhaps everyone should take it upon themselves to update the commandants to fit their own view of the world. While these updates sort of make the original rules irrelevant, it's important we're not living by outdated instructions.

After all, if the rules of the Old Testament were strictly followed, America would be a more oppressive country than Taliban-led Afghanistan. That's the reason our Founding Fathers were so insistent we separate church and state.

And if people of the same religion can read the same book and come to such drastically different conclusions, it's not vitally important that you stick with the rules by which you've attempted to abide your entire life.

When basic rules that ban murder and adultery need qualifiers, it's time you get an update so us non-believers can welcome people of all religions into our civilized world.

Religious people are fond of saying that it would be impossible to differentiate moral behavior from non-moral behavior had as sense of right and wrong not been instilled in each of us by a deity. But if that were the case, the most oppressive countries in the word would not be theocracies.

So perhaps don't ask for updates, because they may contain more brutality than the originals.

Instead, please vow to harm no one and don't judge your fellow man, as long as your fellow man is abiding by the first rule.

Now those are timeless classics.

Yes, I realize many people do a good job in self-updating the laws they follow, which is why church busses don't go through West Hollywood mowing down homosexuals Grand Theft Auto style. But just imagine how peaceful the entire world would be if you all took it a step further.

No Threat Equals No Religion

2010-09-17T18:55:00.000-07:00

I often wonder what it would be like to have a conversation with a person I feared would be sentenced to an eternity of horror.

Such a conversation would make me sad. It'd be like talking to a wrongly convicted death row inmate.

I'd ask them, "If your existence will be one of misery for thousands and thousands of years, why don't you take this short opportunity we call life to go crazy. Eat all you want, drink all you want - just go nuts, 24/7. Since things will be a lot better for me after I die, I'm going to rest up in preparation for all the good times and frivolity the afterlife will provide, so thankfully I don't have to live the rest of my life as if it were akin to a last meal."

I can't emphasize how pleasurable it is to talk to an individual about religion without fear that, if I don't convince him or her that my beliefs are correct, they'll forever rot in hell despite the fact that they're a person filled with decency and morality.

So let's examine what life would be like if religious people didn't believe in different outcomes for different faiths.

I think it's safe to say that church parking lots wouldn't be overflowing on Sunday mornings if nobody feared what's on the other side. Perhaps there would be no churches.

If only religious people claimed, "We think our god is the only true god. In fact, our god is so cool that if you don't believe he's the one true god, he'll still allow you to stay with him after your time on earth is through because he loves everybody. Not, 'loves everybody, but if you don't believe in him, will send you to hell, loves everybody,' rather, 'loves everybody, will let all humane persons bunk with him in the afterlife, loves everybody.'"

If that were the case, there would be no big three religions.

A few lost souls would still cling onto to Jim Jones type individuals promising a heaven beyond their wildest expectations, but the people content with life would make the decision to only concentrate on the things over which they have control.

They would focus on enjoying life, helping others, and studying historically accurate facts.

They would think, "If none of the proposed gods give a flying whit whether or not I believe in him, yet one of them is actually the true god, it means he probably wants me to focus on how I can benefit humanity instead of racking my brain in search of answers to questions I can't comprehend."

From the beginning it was never about the truth; it's always been about control.

Throughout history, the church elders have never really cared what you believed; they only cared that you followed their life instructions to a tee. I'm sure a few higher-ups were believers, but regardless of their thoughts on god and his teachings, their main objective was to control your life.

Unless you were convinced at young age to believe such a tale was factual, wouldn't you consider fishy a story about a man saying to another man, "Should you choose not to believe in the god I insist is the only real god, and should you choose not to live exactly as I say, based on said god's specific instructions as previously relayed to me, he will not welcome you into his kingdom of perfection."?

If that wasn't fishy enough, the stranger would then list contradictory rules with seemingly no standards.

But in simpler times such stories must have seemed plausible, because religion grew and grew.

Had ancient people enough sense to reject these so-called human conduits to god, millions of people who devoted their lives to destroying other religions could have focused on the betterment of all mankind, leading to a superior world.

Hitler Taught Me Right from Wrong

2010-09-13T19:15:00.000-07:00

Much is made by atheists about the amount of violence in the Bible; punitive violence directed at people undeserving of scorn. Undeserving of scorn unless you think having a keen sense of fashion and maintaining a healthy physique deserves a few stones to the upper torso and head.

This violence wouldn't be so bothersome if Christians didn't constantly ask us non-believers, "How would human beings know right from wrong if no higher power existed to instill morality in us?"

They're basically saying, "An entity responsible for horrific violence is the same entity that tells me it's not okay to punch an old lady in the mouth and take her purse."

How can you say a deity, who called for the execution of homosexuals, is responsible for instilling in modern day humans a sense that harming homosexuals is immoral?

I understand the Bible goes on to preach against adultery and other deplorable behaviors, but it makes no mention of the violence in the Old Testament being a mistake, because God is perfect.

That would be akin to telling others they should admire an unrepentant Hitler because he once wrote that future generations should go easy on the Jew-killing.

I understand the faith angle. You assume God wouldn't want to make it obvious He existed and therefore decided to give a few contradictory messages and perform a few contradictory deeds.

But to disregard the most extreme acts in order to pretend He is the one teaching you right from wrong is simply ludicrous.

You're basically saying that anything modern day society considers to be, "good," God taught you to do. In the year 1800 God told people it was perfectly fine to enslave certain members of the human race. Now that most non-Neo-Nazis living in America frown on discrimination, He teaches you to view everyone as equal.

But maybe you are correct. Maybe if God didn't go out of His way to instill in all of us an inherent sense of right and wrong we'd all resemble the Seinfeld character George Costanza, who, after being accused of sleeping with the office cleaning lady, said to his boss, "Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon..."

I'm a Proud American Atheist

2010-09-09T20:24:00.000-07:00

The world was made for freedom. Nature gave human beings the ability to run free. Any reduction in liberty is manmade and should be rejected by persons of all religions, but especially by those who don't believe a deity was responsible for the formation of the universe.

Despite the immense trouble America has had in properly separating church and state, the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world for those who seek liberty.

I have as much trouble with governments who don't allow citizens to worship a god as I do with governments who force citizens to live their lives in strict accordance with an ancient book written by human beings who claimed a direct pathway to the heavens.

I cherish the fact that I can convert to Judaism on Monday, Christianity on Tuesday, Islam on Wednesday, Buddhism on Thursday, and be back to my old atheist self by the weekend.

I am not a Republican and I am not a Democrat because I inherently distrust those who actively seek control over others.

I would encourage those who reject the notion of a higher power to also reject government officials who do anything other than quietly protect your family and construct the roads on which you drive. Those enthusiastic about governing usually believe they are better at making decisions best left up to the individual.

Much like those high-up in organized religion, politicians thrive on instructing others how to live. Religious leaders pretend to use a holy book as the guide by which they teach, but in reality they encourage you to live what they consider an optimum lifestyle. This is similar to how politicians pretend their proposed rules are constitutional, while the rules proposed by their opponents go against everything our founding fathers had intended by drafting that sacred document.

These politicians use the Constitution to manipulate their constituents as David Koresh used the Bible to control the minds of those who believed in his righteousness. It never matters what the document says; it only matters what those in power say it says.

In other words, human beings that seek control will twist any popular writing to make it seem as if they are not telling you how to live based on their own personal beliefs and prejudices; rather they are simply correctly interpreting the words of a wise man or deity.

So cherish your freedom and be weary of anyone seeking power over others, because they rarely have anything on their mind other than career advancement or manipulation for the sake of twisted pleasure.

Those Who Believe in Evolution Have Helped Society Evolve

2010-08-21T22:01:00.000-07:00

One of the longest running debates between religious people and those who believe in a little something called "proof," is whether or not the universe was created by an intelligent force.

But let's not talk about evolution in terms of apes slowly transforming into men, let's talk about evolution in terms of bigoted men slowly transforming into men with scruples.

If all men were stuck believing ancient, man-authored, writings were the word of god; this earth, especially America, would be a very different place.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Fox Network could produce a wonderfully entertaining musical-comedy series set in a Federal prison used to house men convicted of homosexuality, but I still much prefer a United States where it's legal for a man to lie with a man as a man lies with a woman.

Having people not raised in a church has helped us evolve as a nation. Not learning at an early age to categorize people into groups leaves many Americans inherently able to discover for themselves that there is no such thing as, "chosen people."

As a result of our diverse culture; as an overtly religious child grows, he is exposed to peers that the Bible preaches against. When this brain-washed lad discovers that playing basketball against the feminine boy with two moms didn't produce hideous lesions all over his body, he starts to realize that everyone is basically the same, and he may even enjoy spending time with people a sacred book has always told him are disgraceful sinners. This realization is enhanced as it becomes obvious that the "crimes" committed by these "enemies" have no victim.

Because intelligent design is not a requirement for all children in public schools to learn, we have evolved as a nation.

We've evolved into people who understand that witchcraft doesn't exist, and, if, by some nuclear accident, a human was transformed into a witch, it would be wrong to burn them at the stake.

We've evolved enough to know that there is never justification for killing the first born son in every household, no matter how many rotten things the pharaoh has done, or has vowed to do in his State of the Theocracy address.

It's far fetched to think these kinds of things would happen in America today, but religious people around the world still use their holy book to justify horrific sins like the execution of homosexuals. And it wasn't so long ago in America that a man could own another man. And many Christians did.

Admittedly there were Christian abolitionists. But would these abolitionists have felt differently had they not been Christians? Of course not; they inherently knew slavery was a horrific and immoral sin the same way 99% of modern folks don't need to be taught buying and selling individuals is a crime against humanity. And, had they not been Christians, they likely would have spoken out against slavery either earlier or more vehemently than they did were the church elders not pressuring them to hop on board the slavery train while using the Bible, which often calls for the enslavement of others, to justify the abhorrent practice.

Had no one in the world ever purported to hold the word of god in his hand; would large-scale slavery ever have been a problem?

I must admit that a great many Christians and deists are to thank for the evolution of our great nation. These founders realized that even though they believed a higher power woke up one morning and decided to start a civilization; liberty would be the foundation of a successful America. They understood that if government ruled using the Bible as their guide, people would never truly be free to prosper.

It breaks our hearts seeing people in other countries killed by the forces of a ruling religious zealot for simply protesting their lack of fundamental freedom. Thankfully, because people were smart enough to foresee that a fair and just nation desperately needed citizens who believe in earthly evolution to assist in the evolution of freedom, the United States has no such problem.

So keep on believing whatever it is you believe, but please remember how deplorable earth would eventually become were you to achieve a conversion success rate of 100%.

Because you want atheists on that wall between freedom and tyranny... You need us on that wall!

Are Christians Disloyal for Refusing to Declare Jihad?

2010-07-20T20:24:00.000-07:00

Our politically correct society makes it imperative we preface any discussion of jihad by claiming that only a few radical Muslims have perverted the teachings of Islam. Islam is "the religion of peace," the civilized must insist.

However, upon closer look at the Book of Leviticus, it appears that anyone who purports to believe in the Old Testament and is not actively punishing human beings for earthly sins may be perverting their own religion.

I suppose those who still consider the Old Testament a holy book are angered by jihadists because jihadists make them aware of the fact that they are choosing to only read chapters of their holy book that make them feel comfy and cozy. And instead of exchanging the entire book for a warm, marshmallowy cup of cocoa, they must live a lie.

It must be difficult to admit that those who call for the death of persons, who have done nothing other than practice the wrong religion, are far more stringent when it comes to following the strict guidelines set forth by their god.

Instead of claiming that Islamic radicals are perverting their religion, you should be admitting that, because you inherently know right from wrong, you can't abide by every rule in your Bible, and think it should be a given that every religious person ignore verses in their dearly beloved book when those verses contain instructions not acceptable in modern society.

You rightly admonish jihadists, but pretend they are perverting their religion, when it is you who pervert your religion by not acting in a similar manner.

Are you afraid potential converts will be turned off should they learn what's actually in the Bible? Do you only want to show them passages that call for everyone to love their neighbor? Since you're basically removing words from the Bible, why refrain from adding verses? Wouldn't that cute saying that claims little boys are made from puppy dog tails be a great addition to the Book of Zephaniah?

And I suppose it also wouldn't be a great selling point should the prospective converts ever learn that the Bible contains similar instructions to ones listed in the book strictly followed by jihadists.

So keep sweeping the truth under the rug while criticizing jihadists for being truer to their religion than you are to yours.

God Hates These Kids!

2010-07-10T14:08:00.000-07:00

Whenever a disaster occurs, which kills people of all ages; you have certain Christian evangelists who claim that God is paying the community back for committing sins of an egregious nature.

I find it fascinating that people assert the same God they worship is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent children!

For some reason I choose to differentiate myself from those who harm children, which is why I'm one of the few females who have never looked for true love by corresponding with inmates at my local correctional facility and/or mental health institution.

I can understand people making up an all-powerful deity in order to keep the masses in line, and perhaps, in ancient times, they felt obligated to pretend the deity was capable of unmistakable horror in order to get their point across.

But for Pat Robertson and his ilk to assert such a directive originates from heaven in 2010, and that Mr. Robertson stands behind the ordering of such disasters, is frankly frightening.

Many of their more rational followers, I suppose, insist God will not harm the soul of the innocent child. I suppose that assumption is similar to a parent telling their kid, "If you go to the dentist today without putting up a fight, I promise to take you out for pizza this evening."

"While you will die a brutal earthly death, when you get to heaven I'll let you watch cartoons until 11:30!"

No sane person would suggest that children should be punished for the sins of their family members, or of those in their communities, yet it's a perfect punishment for a supposedly "perfect" God to enact.

Americans condemn countries that refuse to differentiate children from adults when sentencing criminals.

Yet some in America praise God for imposing capital punishment on children for crimes they didn't even commit.

May I suggest you have standards when choosing a deity?

As an open-minded atheist, I have no qualms with someone who, after pondering the universe, arrives at the conclusion that it was created by an intelligent force.

But to follow a deity who doles out the same punishment a human being would be scorned for even suggesting is ludicrous.

I realize that most church going Christians don't believe such nonsense, but wacko evangelists have too large a following to get away with preaching about similar retribution.

Our stomachs get queasy when we think of former methods by which the guilty were killed. Throughout history condemned persons have been burned to death, crushed to death, sawed in half, decapitated, disemboweled, boiled to death, impaled, and dismembered. In some countries, those found guilty of adultery are still stoned to death.

Yet when God punishes innocent children with similar cruelty, He is somehow teaching us all lessons of value.

Sometimes I want to believe differently.

Sometimes I want to believe there is a god; and when he or she meets Pat Robertson for the first time, he or she will ask him, "You told millions of people I went out of my way to do what to whom for what reason? Where did you come up with such a cockamamie notion and why did you feel the need to preach about things of which you obviously had no idea?"

Although, because Pat Robertson believes God currently speaks to him on a regular basis, if a real God were standing in front of Mr. 700 Club, the evangelist likely would be much too ignorant to realize it.

Get a Load of That Religion!

2010-06-26T17:06:00.000-07:00

Admit it Christians; when you hear a Muslim extremist say he can't wait to sacrifice his own life in order to be rewarded with 72 virgins, you wonder how he could be so foolish as to believe such a pile of bologna.

Then you read your children stories about water being miraculously turned into wine, the seas parting, and an angry/verbally gifted fruit-pushing snake forever altering mankind. As you close the book, you instruct the kiddos to believe without question.

It's the same for every religion.

I have a feeling Mormons, who believe the great Joseph Smith was repeatedly visited by an angel named Moroni, snicker when they think about how gullible Scientologists are to believe the story of how Xenu, dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, 75 million years ago brought billions of people to earth, stacked them around volcanoes and then blew them to bits.

I have a feeling Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe Satan and his demons arrived on earth in 1914 and now rule the world, have a difficult time keeping a straight face when they hear a Hindu speak with great anticipation about coming back to earth as an exotic tree frog.

Many of these stories grew in popularity after people convinced others they were visited by divine spirits, or god himself, who informed them of how the world was created and which earthly behaviors would gain you access to a perfect afterlife.

You believe god created a world full of people, yet only chose to contact a couple. To the fortunate few, god told outlandish stories that, unless born into a family that scared you into believing them, no rational human being would buy.

Or are you under the impression that, had you been born into a family that taught you Xenu's habit of blowing up people with hydrogen bombs was a certainty, you would still be smart enough to reject the story of Scientology and instead believe the tales contained in the book you currently regard as gospel?

When people learn I'm an atheist, they usually want to start an argument about creation, but I have no problem with someone believing the world was started by an intelligent force, as long as their theory ends there.

But thinking the intelligent being then communicated with only a few earthly creatures is where you go off the deep end.

Now, if someone revealed that God approached an ancient person and said, "I command you to strive for perfection while occasionally helping out your fellow man," I might be open to believing him or her; because that actually makes a little bit of sense, and you religious folks rarely portray God as an entity with sense.

Will I Have to Bunk with Hitler?

2010-06-13T18:26:00.000-07:00

Since a lot of you Christians think every non-believer will eventually end up in the same place; one day I'll meet some of the vilest creatures in the history of humanity. You, on the other hand, will meet some of the greatest minds in the history of humanity. I bet you're nervous in attempting to come up with the right words to say when you meet Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for the first time. I would just steer away from anything similar to, "I'm really on board with your, 'judge people by the content of their character,' philosophy"; especially if you drove by the all-black church every Sunday on your way to the all-white church.

Meanwhile I'm nervous about something completely different, and that is trying to figure out how to keep that depraved Adolf Hitler off my ass. You'd think Satan would insist upon strict control of the entire population in hell, but if Satan is really on his game he'll give the worst of the worst free reign over us conscience-filled non-believers.

I know it's the equivalent of throwing non-Christian, non-felons in the same penitentiary as murderers and rapists, not for any horrific act they committed, simply for the beliefs roaming around in their heads, but if that's what the Bible says...

If Hitler has free reign in hell, for all of eternity he'll be able to brutalize the same people he tortured on earth. And wouldn't Satan actually reward horrific behavior on earth?

That's the problem with a one-size fits-all approach to punishment, and why the American justice system is smart enough to vary sentences depending upon the crime committed.

Or does God, who supposedly created the heavens and earth, have no control over what happens to those who don't believe the Bible is a historically accurate book?

But I suppose I'm naive in my belief that, if there is a residence for our souls, those who acted with kindness, without regard for possible reward, will be propped up, while those who treated their fellow man harshly will face some sort of punishment.

I know not all you Christians believe there is a horrific destination where those who don't share your faith will eventually reside, but if all the good people in the world don't go to the same place, does it really matter?

I Judge, Therefore I Am... Disgusting

2010-06-06T18:40:00.000-07:00

One act I could never in a million years understand is the act of judging another human being for behavior that has absolutely no impact on the person or persons doing the judging.

The first obvious is example is homosexuality. Because you churchgoers believe in a book that allegedly says homosexuality is a sin, you look down your nose at those who are naturally attracted to members of the same sex, despite the fact that their homosexuality has no impact on you.

And don't give me that, "If kids see a gay couple, they immediately start asking questions and I shouldn't be forced to explain the birds and the bees before he or she is emotionally ready for such a talk."

Here's how a married man would answer his kids questions about homosexuality if the little tike were to see a gay couple and become curious: "They're a couple like your mommy and I are a couple."

That's easily understandable and sex doesn't enter the picture. After all, if your kids are isolated from homosexual couples and ask why everyone has a mommy and daddy, you'd say something like, "people often meet someone with whom they want to spend the rest of their life and so they get married." You wouldn't say, "A woman marries a man because she enjoys the feel of that particular man's private area entering her private area more than any other man's private area."

So explaining the nature of couple-hood doesn't need to include details about sex. A simple, "Fred enjoys Hank's company above all others, just as I enjoy your mother's company above all others," will suffice.

But rationally explaining the situation to children doesn't allow you to judge others. It doesn't allow you to try and push your beliefs on others. It doesn't allow you to claim homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry each other or adopt children. It doesn't allow you to be a huge wanker.

And I'm not one of these people who believe everyone should be able to do whatever they wish with absolutely no consequences. If your behavior negatively affects others, you should stop.

But judging others for their own personal choices when those choices don't impact anyone else is simply reprehensible and reveals that your depravity has no end.

What if my sacred book told me that heterosexual sex is a horrible sin!? And don't tell me that procreation is natural and humankind would cease to exist without it, because maybe humankind should cease to exist. Have you seen the way humankind treats each other!? Shucks, organized religion has been trying to wipe out humankind for centuries.

So you can't say that replenishing the earth is natural when your people have killed off scores of individuals who don't agree with your specific beliefs.

Of course you say I'm being ridiculous, because a book declaring homosexual sex to be a sin is perfectly reasonable while a book declaring heterosexual sex to be a sin is asinine. But to those of us who think the Bible is largely fictional, the comparison is not far-fetched.

And why don't you compare your act of judging with homosexuality. They're having relations with people they find attractive. You're judging people for having relations with people they find attractive. Trouble is - you're also having relations with people you find attractive (or are at least desperately begging to do so.)

But, according to you, they should sacrifice their happiness because your sacred book, in which millions of people don't believe, tells you that their behavior a sin.

But I suppose, when all is said and done, you need to constantly judge, because when you're judging others you're not concentrating on self improvement, and you're probably not keen on being reminded of the staggering amount of self-betterment you require.

I Thought Sermons Were Supposed to Be About God

2010-05-25T20:35:00.000-07:00

As an atheist, the one thing that fascinated me about the Reverenced Jeremiah Wright scandal was how the good reverend enjoyed preaching about things not relating to God, which seemed weird to me because I always thought church was the one place in which everybody made it a point to talk about God.

Reverend Wright, for those of you who don't know, was the preacher at President Obama's church. At that Chicago church, Mr. Wright said some things that weren't very complementary of America or the white people who live here.

I bet God got all excited in thinking Reverend Wright's congregation was gathering together to worship Him, when all of sudden the esteemed Mr. Wright starting talking about chickens coming home to roost, the US of KKK, etc.

I suppose Reverend Wright talking about politics is the religious equivalent of, "I went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out." After all, I don't often hear the reading of Ecclesiastes 8:8 during political debates!

I can see the following conversation occurring in heaven.

Saint Peter: Why should we let you into the pearly gates?

Reverend Wright Congregant: I went to church every Sunday.

Saint Peter: And what did you learn?

Reverend Wright Congregant: That devilish white people have caused those in the Middle East to hate America.

Saint Peter: No, what did you learn about the Bible?

Reverend Wright Congregant: Come again.

Saint Peter: The Bible - The Word of God?

Reverend Wright Congregant: Never heard of it. Why, is it good?

And I don't mean to pile on Reverend Wright; I have a strong feeling the topic of God is mentioned very little in many churches throughout this great land of ours.

I understand everyone wants everyone else to know what they think about politics because everyone thinks they could run the world better than everyone else, but if God is the most important thing in your life, why don't you have the burning desire to elevate conversation about Him above all else - especially when you're in His house!

Could it be that church does nothing more than serve as a place to socialize with like minded people, as well as give you hope that there is more to life? Therefore, when you're there, talking about God isn't necessarily required.

So remember, if you're at a location doing something other than what you went there to do, you may want to ask yourself if going there in the first place was such a good idea.

As an atheist, I suppose I should be happy. After all, I know that for an hour every Sunday morning you Christians go to a place where God is the farthest thing from your mind.

Maybe I'll start an atheist group where we can talk about global warming, because if I want to start a group where we actually talk about atheism I'll have to tell everyone we're going to be comparing and contrasting the Soviet Union during the cold war with Russia in its present form.

Here Are "All" the Churches

2010-05-18T16:21:00.000-07:00

One of the many things that bother me about organized religion is the fact that so many adults have occupied the same pew since before they could crawl.

At an early age, children are dragged to church by their parents where they are promptly scared to death into thinking that if you believe anything other than exactly what the preacher is preaching, you will spend an eternity in hell.

Of course an eternity of damnation sounds rather unpleasant to persons of any age, which is the sole reason organized religion has expanded throughout the centuries.

People telling impressionable children that they not only know how the universe was created, but also exactly what will happen to individuals when they die, is a pretty good scheme. So good in fact, that organized religion is thriving despite scientific evidence that indicates their sacred books belong in the fiction section of your local Barnes & Noble.

I once saw Kirk Cameron, former child star and current fundamentalist Christian, talk about how he found Christ. His parents didn't force Him upon a young Kirk; Christianity is the path he chose after doing research on his own.

I got no problem with that.

I understand most parents would probably rather spend an eternity in hell than see their children spend an eternity in hell, and that is why they are so adamant their offspring believe a certain way. So I'm not saying brainwashing their children makes religious folks bad people. After all, in their eyes, desperate times call for desperate measures.

But how does one justify teaching a belief? As much as I want everyone to agree with me, I would never be pompous enough to say to a young person, "I'm going to teach you what's in your heart and soul. I'm going to teach you what's in your gut. I don't want you to have the opportunity to gather facts and formulate opinions on your own; I want to force feed you your core beliefs."

I would never force my child to wake up early on Sunday morning so he or she could be preached to by gown-clad figures insisting that atheism is the absolute truth, and then let them herd little Timmy or Suzy off to a room to be surrounded by peers who would consider my child an outcast if he or she didn't agree with the teacher's every word without question. I don't know if I'd rather stand up at a meeting and say that I adamantly disagree with my fellow labor union members regarding their stance on health insurance reform, or stand up in the middle of a third-grade Sunday school class and say that I think Moses was way too preachy in the Book of Deuteronomy.

I suppose having a belief system that says no one suffers for all of eternity means there's no reason for me to panic due to fear that I will unnecessarily be separated from my loved ones. I was once in a situation where the adults became separated from the children at one of those huge K-Marts and it certainly was not an enjoyable experience.

But that panic and desperation does not mean you should deny your family members the right to decide for themselves. Telling children that Jewish people are not saved because they fail to believe in Christ as their savior should not be considered a positive message because such a statement has never been proven.

Why not tell them what you personally believe, and why you believe it. Then tell them what others believe, and why they believe it. Take them to various churches and let them experience a wide variety of religions. Tell them that some people don't believe in a higher power at all, and explain the various theories, that have nothing to do with supernatural forces, which explain how the earth may have begun. Oh, and make sure to tell them of said theories without rolling your eyes or laughing out loud every few words.

See, I already provided a good example of how you should educate. I said, "Explain how the earth may have begun," as opposed to, "Explain how every scientist under the sun believes the earth began."!

There is nothing I enjoy more than sitting around a table with a bottle of wine discussing religion with folks whose beliefs differ from mine. But such conversations are only enjoyable if those involved are knowledgeable about the subject at hand.

Religious people just need to remember that knowledge is never a bad thing - no matter how old you are.

And besides, what do you think will earn your loved ones more brownie points in heaven; saying they came to believe in God because their parents insisted they go to church every Sunday morning and Wednesday night, or that they came to know the truth after examining all the evidence they could get their hands on?

Feed a Starving Child or Buy a Pew Cushion?

2010-05-11T18:58:00.000-07:00

In these tough economic times I can't help but think about the billions of dollars that have been spent to construct churches, as well as purchase the items housed inside.

When the authors of the Bible said that you should give 10% of your money to the church, do you think they understood a good portion of that money would be used to make sure the surface on which worshippers sat was soft and cushy?

When you proudly add the envelope containing your check to the collection plate as you subtly count those taking notice, do you ever think of what that money will be used to buy? It will be used pay the maid, the landscape company which mows the lawn, signage outside the church warning passersby that they will burn in hell should they not come to believe exactly as you believe, etc.

Churches are just like cars; they're nothing but unnecessary status symbols to show off the number of dollars you've been able to accumulate. You could get from point A to point B in a modest Ford Focus, but it wouldn't show the world that you just made partner. Congregations could worship together in the park, but it wouldn't show the world that the preacher has above average fundraising skills.

Sure, I'm a devout atheist, but I don't begrudge most people who gather together to worship. It makes them happy and the majority of the non-fanatical ones aren't hurting a soul.

But instead of worshipping in glorious shrines that cost a fortune, why not use the money to feed the, "least of your brothers."

The actions of those who profess to know God best always befuddle me. You say He doesn't care about earthly possessions, yet you fill the very house in which you praise Him with the finest luxuries money can buy. Maybe not the finest luxuries money can buy, but your churches are certainly filled with items you could do without. And what about the huge cross outside your church with which the preacher vowed to humiliate McDonalds?

I do credit churches for doing good works, but why limit those works because you feel guilty forcing your choir to be seen in robes that can be bought on the cheap via a discount choir robes website your internet security company warns you not to visit. Hey, why not let them sing in their regular clothes? Would their voices not adequately inspire?

I get it; you're 100% certain that your beliefs are accurate and you're already preparing for the day on which you'll be judged. But do you really think you'll receive a negative grade for choosing to provide hot meals to malnourished children instead of equipping the church bathroom with name brand soft soap that smells like a meadow.

I just have a problem with paying to spruce up a place in which people come together to worship an entity that no one can prove exists when you can look into the actual eyes of a starving child. But for some reason you have no problem seeing a being that isn't there, while flesh and blood born without hope suffer greatly.

I Gave You Freewill, Now Do Exactly as I Say

2010-05-04T10:30:00.000-07:00

I get a kick out of Christians who insist that one of God's many gifts is freewill. I can't understand why they get excited over God's decision to grant them freedom when He's provided an instruction booklet detailing exactly how they should live! Should they choose not to obey the 700,000-plus word manual, He will punish them with an eternity of suffering in the hoary netherworld. If you're from a country where the Bible is outlawed; you're doomed. If your parents taught you another religion; you're doomed. If you're doing your best to live by the teachings of the Bible but a few of the pages got stuck together and you missed some important commandments; you're doomed.

Is it freewill when a mother sends her son to his room with express instructions to make it shine? Should he choose not to follow her demands he will find himself confined to said room for the next month with no television or internet.

In other words, freewill doesn't work when it's provided alongside a harsh threat.

"Do as you wish, but if you don't do exactly as I say you will literally rot in hell!"

Wow, that's great, thanks a lot for all the options, how about I just sit here my entire life reading the Bible. Even though I'll have all of eternity to spend with Him, I might as well spend the only time I have away from Him reading about HIM.

It's the reverse equivalent of leaving home when you turn 18 and then spending the next 70-years reading about your parents!

Simply, freewill does not come with a disclaimer.

If God were real He would have logically given everyone no earthly assignments to carry out. Therefore He'd be able to truly judge character.

And why do religious folks insist they have freewill? Does pretending make conformity easier to stomach? Are they making the freewill claim simply because they have the physical ability to disobey Him? They often suppress very human urges that don't harm anyone because the Bible tells them said urges are wrong, which is not freewill, just as a mobster doesn't provide freewill to a store owner unwilling to pay for protection by aggressively telling him or her, "Of course you don't have to accept my proposal, but I sure would hate to see a massive explosion put a damper on any future bidness dealings you may wish to transact."

For some reason freewill is another topic at which believers refuse to take an honest look. Instead they use smoke and mirrors to make it seem as if their actions are their own, when in reality they are driven to act by the teachings of the Bible.

They wake up early on Sunday because of the Bible and they force their family to go to Sunday school because of the Bible. They do everything because of the Bible, all the while being thankful their creator gave them a mind with which to think for themselves.

What a gift: a mind you're instructed never to use.

Does God Think Exactly Like You?

2010-04-27T20:41:00.000-07:00

When a troublesome verse from the Bible is brought up in conversation, I always find it amusing that the usual Christian defense revolves around how you can't take every word literally, and each individual must interpret God's word.

Basically what those Christians are saying is, "God thinks how I think."

If you ask a Christian how their God could banish a wonderful Jewish individual, who has given his life to helping others, to hell for being born into a household that taught him Judaism was the correct religion, they'll often respond, "Well, I believe that God will handle such cases appropriately and not make any good person suffer in the afterlife."

In other words, "That does seem harsh, and even though God says he'll be harsh to all non-believers, I choose to believe He'll reward those who led decent lives."

To that, I retort, "Then why doesn't He say as much!?"

If you are going to believe in God, then why don't you take Him at His word? It's because His word is sometimes difficult to stomach, isn't it? Yet you continue to believe!

Instead of picking a deity and then pretending he thinks exactly the way you do, why don't you just pick a deity that really does think like you!

Or, better yet, why don't you consider the fact that there may not be a god!

I know, you'd really miss your friends and they'd probably kick you out of the slow-pitch softball league.

But shouldn't you make a choice? Because unless you believe everything in the Bible, aren't you really disrespecting your god. You wouldn't approach an author/philosopher and say, "I really like a lot of what you say, but you didn't really mean what you wrote in chapter 5, did you?"

"Of course I did. I wouldn't have written the chapter had I not meant every word. Who writes things they don't mean!?"

"No, you were just testing us to make sure we still followed your teachings even though you sometimes say a bunch of crazy stuff, because you don't actually believe all that crazy stuff. You only believe the things I already believed before I read your book."

To most Christians, God is like a Barbie Doll. They place Him on a pedestal and dress him up in their favorite beliefs. "He'll be good to people who were kind on earth, regardless of their religion. And He'll also be good to people who were only bad because they had rough childhoods. After all, it's not fair that some people were born without the opportunity to blossom into decent human beings. But individuals who were born into good homes, yet still grow up to do bad things, will rot in hell! Like preppies who commit murder. Preppies who commit murder will burn for all of eternity. Unless those preppies only killed because they had a mental deficiency. In that case, God will take care of them. But if people are born rich, don't have any mental deficiencies, yet still go on to kill - then they will rot in hell! But hell won't be too terribly bad, because nobody's perfect."

While it would be pretty cool if a deity went through a similar thought process, it ain't the one in the Bible.

Protecting Children Isn't Akin to Coversheet Adding

2010-04-25T14:10:00.000-07:00

Now that the Catholic Church is backed into a corner regarding their much publicized sexual abuse scandal, the Vatican has decided to take on the attitude of an employee who has fought vigorously against an order that says he or she must put a coversheet atop all future TPS Reports.

"Fine, if everyone is going to make such a big deal about it, I'll go ahead and put a coversheet on my TPS report. The company has managed just fine with coversheet-less TPS Reports for umpteen years, but whatever.

From what I've read, the Vatican is finally willing to clamp down on sexual abuse because... wait for it... the Pope has a goal of reviving the influence of the Catholic Church in Europe.

Does that mean they're not even a little interested in protecting children simply for the sake of protecting children?

I hate to break it to the revered church elders, but helping innocent children shouldn't be tedious. Helping innocent children shouldn't be viewed as busy work. "To help innocent children, or not to help innocent children," isn't a decision people should spend hours contemplating. In the Pope's notebook, we shouldn't find a list of pros and cons related to rescuing children from abuse. "Pro: fewer trembling altar boys. Con: extra paperwork."

Instinctively, upon hearing news that abuse has taken place, any decent human being should say, "I will make it my mission in life to aid those who have been victimized, punish the oppressors, and make certain said abuse never happens again." The response should not be, "Okay people, it's time for damage control. How do we make this all go away?"

People say that only through god can we know right from wrong. But we don't need a higher power instructing us that it's a grievous sin to harm other human beings in order to enhance our own selfish pleasure. Yet, because church is the number one priority in their life, Catholic leaders can't bring themselves to abide by the only law that all rational people know is vital to the stability of society.

I'm not even claiming that those looking to protect the Catholic Church are evil. Many are so warped by their duty that they've lost all perspective. The church is their drug. The church is more important than upholding the values they claim their god preaches.

Do they really think god, as they've made him out to be, would say, "In order to ensure there is a butt atop every square inch of pew cushion, cover up any vile action that occurs under your watch."?

Or do you think god would say, "I don't care if you have to sit on the sidewalk and preach to whoever walks by; just make sure you' re not harming anyone - especially those who seek me."

Why do I, an atheist, know exactly how your god would want you to handle certain situations; while those of you who have committed your lives to following his teachings haven't the foggiest idea!?

I have no problem with individuals who have chosen to believe in god. In fact; I'm so adamant you be happy with your decision that I will offer those with a penchant for covering up abuse, or looking the other way in spite of overwhelming evidence abuse has taken place, a great piece of advice for strengthening your relationship with god: take a step back from the church and just think about right versus wrong. Because, if he's as great as you claim; he is simply adamant you do everything in your power to protect the innocent.

A Guilt Free Life

2010-04-07T19:19:00.000-07:00

One thing we can all be assured of is that everyone who is alive gets one life.

I am of the belief that the one life should be enjoyed.

Guilt hinders enjoyment.

Why people want to take what little time they have to feel guilty about doing things common sense says are okay to do is beyond me. Especially when the entity that gave you the urge to do something is the entity you believe is harshly judging you for doing whatever it is that they gave you the urge to do.

If you're not harming anyone, don't feel bad about an action.

Don't feel guilty about waking up with a hangover on Sunday morning. Sure, your body is a temple, but what good is having a temple if you can't throw a party every once in a while?

Don't feel guilty about watching an x-rated internet video clip because you were curious to see the only footage in existence of a little person fornicating with an animal on the endangered species list. And don't feel bad because you enjoyed it. If you were alone, that clip, as well as thousands containing equal depravity, wouldn't be on the internet. Hell, the internet may not even exist if it weren't for people like you enjoying clips like that.

Don't feel guilty for hating everyone. Everyone is an idiot. You're very concerned with doing your job well, but no one else seems to take pride in their work. That's why you get the wrong meal at restaurants. That's why your Maxim magazine didn't come this week. That's why you have to sit in the waiting room at the barbershop for over an hour. If the waiter, mailman, etc. did their job as well as you do your job, you would never be inconvenienced. If everyone did their job as well as you do your job, the world would be a happy place. So hate them all and feel good about it.

Isn't it enough to only feel guilty about the times in which you disappoint yourself? If you're trying to lose weight, you feel guilty enough for sneaking into the kitchen to devour your fourth glazed donut of the morning. You don't need extra guilt that results from doing things you otherwise wouldn't feel bad about having done, had the book your parents forced you to read not frowned up it.

You always hear Christians say that God gives them freewill. Then why doesn't He say, "I give you the right to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong!"

After all, wouldn't that be a better indicator of someone's true nature? If someone says, "I decided that randomly beating up people is right and giving money to help mentally challenged children is wrong," then God would know He's dealing with a bad human being.

And don't tell me, "Without God telling us, nobody would know that savagely beating up another person is wrong!" Because I think the victim writhing around on the ground crying, "I'm in pain!" would be a dead giveaway. After all, most people have experienced pain and know that it's not a good thing - with the rare exception being people who suffer from that disease that causes them to never experience pain.

So, if no one is suffering as a result of your action, feel good about it. Or just stop reading the book that instructs you to feel guilty about doing things no person should feel guilty about doing. Of course, that's provided that you don't feel guilty about not reading the Bible, because if you feel guilty about not reading the Bible, it would make not reading the Bible a complete waist of your time.

Now I know why ministers have to go to seminary for so long, this religion stuff is confusing.

God Wasn't a Worker

2010-03-28T22:29:00.000-07:00

As a plethora of atheists have touched on many times, organized religion is full of wonderful contradictions that even the most learned scholars cannot properly explain.

Perhaps this is trivial, but I still can't figure out why a being that has no limitations needed to take a day off after creating the world.

"Wow guys, I'm beat - I'm going to spend Sunday taking it easy," aren't words you'd normally equate with the Almighty. Yet on the seventh day He rested.

But why?

He wanted you to take one day and do nothing but worship him, so He took one day off and did nothing but worship Himself?

If He's God, why didn't He just tell you to take a day off! Isn't that one of the requirements of being a Christian: that you must do what He says!?

And why would He encourage laziness? Wouldn't hard work honor Him?

And I'm sorry, but He "rested"? Why does God need rest? That means God can do anything except work seven days in a row. I suppose I should be impressed seeing as how I only work a measly five days a week. Or perhaps I should look at it like this: "God only has the stamina to work one more day a week than myself! I'm God-like in my work ethic!"

Does God not like work? Is it unpleasant for him? Why would He create something He didn't like? After He created the earth, did He say to His angels, "I can't tell you how glad I am that's over," while popping open a beer and picking up the remote control to watch a religious program about His glory.

I just think whoever wrote the Bible should have been a little more careful when it came to accuracy. Then again, I'm the same person who got angry when Rachel from Friends sisters came to visit and we discovered that they couldn't possibly have accumulated the wealth needed to buy a ski lodge despite the fact that in an earlier episode Rachel took the gang, minus Ross, for a weekend of skiing at "her sister's retreat."

I suppose the writers of the Bible had an understanding of just how gullible future generations would be and felt all that was needed to convince them of God's existence was a bunch of words carelessly slapped together.

Or maybe they didn't dream it would work...

"Hey Ezekiel, should we proof read this thing? It's got to be full of inaccuracies."

"Why bother - it's not like its going to eventually become the best selling book in the history of the world or anything. It's so full of holes I doubt I'll even be able to get my parents to shell out a single shekel."

Well, I better go now; I'm tired after all this writing.

Uh-oh, maybe that means I'm turning into one of those religious zealots!

Religion Will Give You Something to Cry About

2010-03-05T16:19:00.000-08:00

Some of my favorite debates on cable news channels are between Christian parents, who believe that sparing the rod is a horrific sin, and normal parents who realize one doesn't need to resort to acts of violence to be an affective teacher.

Christians use the Bible to defend behavior that makes them feel better about themselves. Spanking, or other abuse inflicted upon a child, will in no way help said youngster lead a better life. Rationally teaching them right from wrong at an early age is what they need.

How many adults make moral decisions in life because they're afraid of being paddled by a parental figure?

How many adults make moral decisions in life because they intellectually understand what is right and what is wrong?

We beat our pets because they can't comprehend language. You Christians spank your children because it's a great way to relieve stress, and your book of worship indicates that - not only are you not a monster – your abuse is of a holy nature.

"Did you notice that bump protruding from my child's backside - the ones that is throbbing so badly you can see it pulsate from across the room? Yeah, well I can't take all the credit - God's inspiring words helped my arm move through the air with the force necessary to create a welt of such magnitude."

It should never be forgotten that Christianity is not the only religion that has followers who consider violence to be their God-given responsibility.

Of course Christians criticize radical Islam for their desire to kill innocence with the, "It's perfectly fine to commit minor acts of violence against children, but to actively pursue their death is taking things way too far," argument. I keep expecting to drive by a local church and in place of the usual "God Loves You," sign, see the words, "Keep Your Physical Abuse at a Reasonable Level."

I suppose I understand why it's necessary for Christians to use force in order to discipline their children. I think it would be very difficult to teach them values based on a book full of contradictions.

"If you go by this Bible verse I did the right thing, Daddy."

"Yeah, but if you go by these three verses here, and this one in Deuteronomy, it's clear that you did the wrong thing, Son."

"But that doesn't make any sense!"

"Oh yeah, well, uhhh... get my paddle and bend over my knee!"

I understand raising children is not easy - but people who resort to violence as soon as things become difficult are what I refer to as a Neanderthals.

And of course spanking isn't even enough for some fundamentalist Christians.

Take the lady who played Blaire in the Facts of Life. She has bragged about her fondness for putting hot sauce on her children's tongues when they've been naughty.

Does anyone really believe she does this for the benefit of her offspring? Does anyone really believe that she doesn't immensely enjoy the feeling of power that comes with abusing her children in a manner that likely won't result in a lengthy prison sentence?

Her book, Creative Correction, which gives abusive punishment ideas to Christian parents, is basically a guide for demented souls who believe children are their property to be treated however they see fit - yet have no desire to see the inside of a jail cell.

I suppose I could be wrong. I suppose when those kids are all grown up and asked, "So, how have you managed to not go on a shooting spree all these years," they'll respond, "I have to give all the credit to God and a few drops of perfectly placed Tabasco."

I suppose, after they have children of their own, they'll never be at a Mexican restaurant, and when asked by the server if they'd like mild or hot sauce on their burrito, curl up in a little ball on the cushion of the booth, rocking back and forth, hugging their knees and sucking their thumb while screaming, "But why Mommy - I've been a good boy! I've been a very, very good boy!"

Church: The Original Infomercial

2010-02-21T19:39:00.000-08:00

"I have a product that will make the purchase of paper towels forever unnecessary!" you hear from some shyster on television.

You initially say, "No way can a single product do that!" But by the end of the infomercial you've dialed the flashing phone number and before you know it have a garage full of Sham-Wow's.

"I know of a man who can grant you eternal happiness!" you hear on Sunday morning.

"No way can a man do that! Let me see him."

"He lived a couple thousand years ago and therefore couldn't make it to church today, but He'll be back!" the preacher continues.

"When?"

"We don't know - it's a mystery! What good deeds would you perform for an eternity of perfection?" the religious servant then asks. "Feed a group of starving children? Be faithful to your spouse? Pray eight hours a day?"

"Yes, for an eternity of perfection I would do all those things!"

"Well you don't have to," the preacher would continue to thunderous applause. "All you have to do is ask to be forgiven after you sin!"

"Wait a second, what's the catch - do I have to be one of the first two-hundred human beings to beg for mercy?"

"Nope, membership is available to all! But wait, there's more. Not only will you eventually be in heaven, the perfect place of which I previously spoke, but while you are there will never be forced to hear about how you're extremely naive in your belief of such a far fetched story, because the faithless saps on earth who will enjoy reminding you that your belief system lacks common sense, will all be shipped to hell!"

"You mean the annoying guy from work who objects to the entire company being forced to recite a prayer of thanks before we storm the employee kitchen in search of cold cuts and stale bread left over from the board meeting won't be in heaven to nag me, as he will nag me at work tomorrow, if I join your religion?"

"Yes - you will only have to put up with people like that for a few decades - then it is smooth sailing forever! But wait - that's still not all! Act now and receive thousands upon thousands of free friends!"

"I don't understand."

"See all the people sitting around to you? They are required to be by your side through thick and thin - as is every other Christian in the world! No more people rejecting you because you're unable to carry on an intelligent conversation! And the best part is you can ask them for loans, rides to the airport, or help moving boxes of your old clothes to storage! Sure they can say no, but since it's not a very Christian-like response, chances are they won't!"

"I'm sold; I will give up all rational thought from this point forward! Thanks preacher man - you put that Sham-Wow guy to shame!"

Then the preacher removes his mask to reveal he is the Sham-Wow guy!

Spooky.

You're a Great Person and I'm Sure Satan Will Love You

2010-02-10T21:12:00.000-08:00

I don't understand why the one thing needed for admittance into heaven is in no way based on merit.

What if someone went before a judge and said, "I'm really sorry I randomly beat up everyone in that nursing home, but I believe you are a Holy Judge and therefore my actions shouldn't really matter."

"You're absolutely right," the judge would reply, before giving the man a free lifetime pass to Disneyland.

The next man on the docket would have committed no crime.

"Why do you stand before me!?" the judge would demand.

"I don't know Your Honor, I've done nothing wrong."

"Are you of the opinion I am a Holy Judge, as the last defendant believed?"

"No, I believe you're some guy who graduated from law school."

"You just got yourself a lifetime in the slammer!"

"But my actions have been continuously noble and I did nothing to warrant this unjust sentence!"

"You most certainly did – you believed something wasn't true simply because it didn't make sense, and also because you'd never seen any evidence indicating it was true. For shame - people like you are the reason the penal system is overcrowded."

That's not the kind of country I want to live in, but it's a good enough system for millions of Christians.

And I have a feeling you Christians think that cult members who believe in the "God of Wind" are complete and total freaks. But how can you judge anybody based on what they believe!

I, for one, don't differentiate the Christian belief system from the belief system of the people who were certain Waco cult leader David Koresh was a holy person. If you Christians think the previous sentence is out of bounds, consider the fact that, to most of those who lived 2,000 years ago, you were the people who lived in his compound!

Just because every street corner contains a building that houses people of the same faith doesn't mean you're sane. It means you're gullible, have trouble making friends, don't mind waking up early on Sunday and enjoy looking down on others for behavior you deem immoral though it doesn't hurt a fly. But it definitely does not mean you're sane.

No Reward, No Problem!

2010-02-03T20:40:00.000-08:00

How do you convince your children it's worth their while to perform a certain chore?

You promise to reward them.

And you Christians know all about reward!

Isn't it the reason you do everything?

"Are you going to cheat on your wife?"
"Nope, gotta get into heaven."

"Are you going to rob that jewelry store?"
"Nope, wouldn't want to find those pearly gates closed."

Here's a thought - why don't you do the right thing simply because it's the right thing? I suppose it's impossible to figure out if you would act morally were no one watching, because, according to you, God is always watching.

You must think it very odd that we non-Christians usually do the right thing even though no one is closely monitoring our behavior for the express purpose of gathering data which will later be used to choose the location we spend eternity.

I mean, we don't turn on the news every night and hear, "Another atheist has wreaked havoc among the citizens of our town. If they only believed their actions had everlasting consequences, finally we'd have peace!"

I wonder; if God was proven to be a fallacy, we'd turn on the news and hear about groups of former Christians committing horrific acts all over the world. After all, the fear damnation would be a thing of the past, and we have no idea how Christians would act were they not terrified of the hoary netherworld.

Religious people always talk about faith, yet they have little faith that other Christians will do the right thing unless the threat of eternal damnation is looming.

They say character is how we act when no one is watching. Of course that cannot be applied to those with faith because they believe God can see through their roofs and sheets.

I hope; if Christians are right in their religious beliefs, God gives me a chance to speak in front of Him before sending me off to hell. After hearing his lecture on how horrible it was that I didn't believe crazy stories in an ancient book were completely factual, I would try and convince Him that I am better than Christians because I lived a moral life despite the fact that I truly believed my good deeds would land me in the same location as the registered sex offender two blocks over.

By the way: you guys make it clear that if God doesn't want a person with Him in heaven, then he or she has no chance of advancing through those pearly gates. But is it written anywhere that Satan has to accept you? I just don't understand why everyone assumes the devil is so welcoming.

So continue to strictly follow the guidelines laid out in the Bible while claiming that you are displaying strength, willpower and class, when you know full well that behaving appropriately with no hope for reward is action of the noblest kind.

Perfection Equals Eternal Submission

2010-01-28T18:15:00.000-08:00

It's always good to seek a second opinion... unless you're in church.

Every Christian claims heaven is a perfect destination. "If you're lucky enough to make it through those pearly gates; you'll spend a blissful eternity with God," they say.

But how can it be perfect when He's the only arbiter of right and wrong?

What if you disagree with Him? I mean, if God tells you to shove your opinion that a few of His rules and regulations, as specified in the Heaven issued guidebook, are unfair, you just have to sit there and take it. I have a feeling a big section of the aforementioned manual relates to the practice of arguing with God, and uses phrases such as, "Please refrain from saying, 'I beg to differ,' or, 'In my opinion,' because in heaven your opinion is irrelevant, and even the desire to argue with God means you think you’re smarter than the Almighty, which you are obviously not."

Being in heaven has got to be like being assigned to the strictest teacher in school, yet I don't hear many children exclaim, "I got Mrs. Ratchet! She doesn't tolerate dissent, has a list of rules measuring a mile, and insists you bow in her presence! Score!"

In America, if you enter an overly religious institution led by a charismatic leader who demands you have faith in his nonsensical teachings and rules his flock with an iron fist, we label you as a "cult member" in need of psychiatric evaluation. That's why I don't understand why wanting to spend eternity in a place like that means you're a, "good Christian."

If there's one thing the past teaches us it's that one person having total control leads to destruction and mayhem.

There is a reason the word "dictator" has such a negative connotation.

Just look at all the issues facing our world about which everyone is certain they're correct...

How about gay marriage...

In California I am confident a large number of people swayed from the teachings of their church and voted in favor of gay marriage. These people feel strongly that homosexuals should be given the right to legally wed in every state.

When they enter perfect heaven, however, they better change their tune and show unwavering support for God and his strict anti-gay policy.

Acquiescing on every issue about which you're passionate just doesn't seem like perfection to me.

But what if you get to heaven and discover that humans have misinterpreted God's anti-gay policy and He's really pro-homosexual marriage?

Well, if the above scenario turns out to be true, every single Christian who went through life believing that a man having sexual relations with another man, "just ain't natural," must let go of his or her fervently held ideals.

Either way someone will have to admit they were off base, despite the fact that they adamantly believe in their ability to discern right from wrong.

Doesn't sound perfect to me, but I'm sure you Christians disagree, and you better take this opportunity to argue while you still have the chance.

My Wife Works in Mysterious Ways

2010-01-24T16:12:00.000-08:00

"My wife is having an affair with the Dallas Cowboys."

"That's horrible; are you going to leave her?"

"No, she works in mysterious ways."

If the above conversation between two male friends seems odd, think about the fact that the, "He works in mysterious ways" excuse is used whenever the Christian God did something they deem ungodly.

That's basically how they justify each and every horrific atrocity committed in the Old Testament.

Obviously if we excused all modern day criminal behavior by declaring that the offender is working in ways we simply cannot comprehend, we would have a chaotic society.

You religious folks call it, "mysterious ways."

Folks in the legal profession call it, "insanity."

Since America is such a Christian nation I think we should change the legal jargon to match up with your beliefs.

"Your honor, my client is clearly not in his right mind and therefore pleads not guilty by reason of working in mysterious ways."

That's the reason I have such trouble with the notion of your God. In church, instead of frequently hearing the phrase, "He works in mysterious ways," shouldn't you hear the phrase, "Of course it makes sense, He's God."?

This is another instance of being told something is true at an early age and spending the rest of your life trying to make all the pieces fit.

During your childhood, had you been instructed that Charles Manson was some sort of deity, your days would be spent arguing that the brutal murders committed by the Manson family were either justified or unexplainably good.

After all, that's what members of the Manson family could have told each other, had any of them had reservations about killing...

"Should we really be doing this; stabbing the person before me seems wrong."

"I know, but Charlie said we have to, and he works in mysterious ways."

So if you're going to follow someone or something, why don't you follow someone or something whose actions don't need defending, instead of choosing to follow someone or something based on the advice of others and then declaring their every action to be, "Perfect."

No Religion Equals No Recession

2009-12-11T17:51:00.000-08:00

I'm not an economist by any means, so I don't pretend to consider myself an expert on the current recession from which we're suffering.

However you don't need to be an economist to realize that if you hadn't spent thousands of dollars donating to the religious institution of your choice, you'd still possess that money.

And I bet you could use it right about now.

As zealous as some of you religious folks are, I have a strong suspicion most of you fall short of donating the Bible-required 10% of your earnings to the church. But let's say you give 5%. Now let's say you've been doing so for 20 years and have made, on average, $50,000.

That's $50,000 more you'd have in the bank right now! And even if you did spend a portion of that money on yourself, you most likely would have made it back in interest. So that's a grand total of 50 G's you'd have to spend on food, clothes, and other essentials needed to make it through tough times.

Or perhaps you're still doing okay, despite the recession. Then you could have used the $50,000 to add on to your front porch so you'd be more comfortable sitting there on Sunday mornings drinking cups of piping hot coffee while watching the poor fools in your neighborhood go to church and ask God why they didn't have any money.

Is it irony that the above prayer would be answered, were there really a God, "Because I took it."?

Now let's say nobody gave any money to churches and multiply that $50,000 by 500,000 would-be church going adults. That's $25,000,000,000!

Let's say most people spent their portion of the $25,000,000,000 wisely; saving some and spending some to increase the quality of their life on this earth, the only life, mind you, that they're scientifically certain will take place. In that case, the loss of religious institutions wouldn't affect the economy in the least. In other words, the contractor who added the rumpus room to the church wouldn't lose the work because individuals with more money in their pocket would hire him to add rumpus rooms to their homes. That wouldn't equal the money he or she spent on church throughout the years, meaning some would be left in the bank for a rainy day, i.e., now!

Of course politicians who must run as Christians or risk being burned at the stake, I mean risk being soundly defeated, can't suggest everyone stop giving money to their church, or that churches give money back to those who have donated faithfully over the years.

Instead one political party accuses the other political party of being in favor of too much regulation, to which the other political party responds, "Not enough regulation is how we got into this mess!"

As a result of these petty arguments, nothing is resolved.

You know how people blame violent behavior on guns, bad diet, global warming and other weather patterns, video games, movies, etc., when the true reason behind most violence that takes place now, and has taken place throughout the centuries, is organized religion?

Well, the reason we're in this current financial mess is largely due to organized religion's stellar ability to legally con you into giving up a hefty portion of your paycheck.

Organized religion is the gift that just keeps on giving...

So Help Me Loch Ness Monster

2009-11-22T12:35:00.000-08:00

All the talk regarding the botched Oath of Office, that officially made Barack Obama the 44th Christian in Chief, was about how Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed his lines, thus causing Mr. Obama to flub his lines, which may or may not have meant that the Oath was null in void.

Nobody focused on the last four vile words, "So Help Me God."

For those of us who don't believe in the myth that there is a higher power, it's a little unnerving that the President of the United States asks an imaginary figure for help with the most important job on the face of the planet. I mean I'd be scared if the guy who took pictures at the DMV asked for God's help in performing his duties. "God, help me focus the camera so I don't have to do a bunch of retakes." I would rather he or she just asked their supervisor for assistance.

The problem is that President Obama doesn't have a supervisor.

Bush basically governed based on conversations with his God and look where that got us.

Just like prosecutors use vague laws to indict people that didn't violate the spirit in which the law was written, politicians can use vague words said by their God to make horrific decisions that affect millions of people.

If some Muslims can use the Koran as justification for the murder of children, while others can use it to declare their chosen faith is, "The Religion of Peace," we can easily tell that people will interpret their book any way they choose.

In other words, most people don't let their book guide them; rather they guide their book. And the Muslim example is a good illustration of how religious folks go from one extreme to the other.

Look at some of the very real and very crazy things religious people claim their books teach; claims that others of the same religion say are asinine.

"My religion teaches me that the power of prayer will cure my child's malaria."

"My religion teaches me to marry Suzy, Jane, Jennifer, Wanda and Paula. And he wants me to have lots of children with each, though I can't even support myself financially."

"My religion teaches me to kill anyone who does not believe in my religion, even if we're talking about children who can't comprehend the notion of a higher power."

One of the major criticisms of Barack Obama during the campaign was his affiliation with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Reverend Wright said things like, "God damn America," and, "The US of KKK."

The problem is, those doing the criticizing were followers of the same religion!

This is yet another example of a person who follows a certain book appalling followers of the same book with words spoken in a religious setting.

So basically we have a situation where every Federal official who takes the Oath of Office can claim they're doing certain things in the name of their religion. And how they interpret their religious text is, "a very personal matter that should not be questioned."

I suppose it's too much to ask that our elected officials ask for help from mythical creatures that have at least been spotted.

So help me Mokele-mbembe.

The Randomness of God's Rules

2009-11-10T19:37:00.000-08:00

One of the things that puzzle us atheists about Christianity is the unquestioned worship of a God who lays out laws which largely make no sense.

The reason the framers of the Constitution are considered great is because their writings were based on reason.

Had the U.S. Constitution included things like, "No man should talk to his wife between 4:15 and 4:30 on Tuesday," we might not think so highly of them.

I'm not saying the Constitution, or the work of any man, is perfect, but it's surprising how many men have created laws that made more sense than God, yet He is supposed to be the perfect one.

Certainly there are some Commandments I can get on board with.

"Though Shall Not Kill."

I'm good with that.

But what about homosexuality?

There is no reason for it to be wrong, yet the Bible says it is.

They say arguments can be made that the chances a child succeeds in life are greater if they’re raised by a man and a woman, but it really comes down to the people involved.

So to say homosexuality is wrong based on the above argument is to say, "I'd rather have a straight drug addicted couple raise a child than a loving homosexual couple."

So the flat out argument, "Homosexuality is wrong," makes no sense and has no basis. And the fact that your pastor has always told you homosexuality is bad really isn't an argument.

Let's talk about an actual Commandment.

"Though Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife" (It basically says don't covet anything belonging to your neighbor, but we'll stick with wife.)

Now remember that covet doesn't mean trying to get the sloppy drunk wife of your neighbor in a room alone at a party so you can feel her up.

Because to attempt such a vile act is clearly dead wrong.

Coveting is looking out the window as many times as possible while the wife of your neighbor is out jogging in her sports bra and saying to yourself, "I wish I could join her in the bathroom for her post-jog shower."

There is really nothing wrong with the above because it is a very human feeling.

And why do you have those lustful urges? If you're a Christian you believe it is because God put them there.

Why would God put urges in your heart and tell you said urges are horrible.

Is it good parenting to have the following conversation with your child after giving them a toy?

Parent: Do you like it?

Kid: It's awesome; you're the best mom (or dad) ever!

Parent: Don't play with it?

Kid: Why not?

Parent: Because I said so.

Kid: I don't understand.

Parent: I know; you just have to have faith that I'm a good parent.

Kid: I have to have faith that you're a good parent, even though you're making a bunch of rules that don't make a lot of sense right now?

Parent: Correct.

Kid: Why'd you give me the toy then?

Parent: To test your love for me.

Kid: How does it harm you if I play with it?

Parent: It doesn't.

Kid: So why can't I play with my shiny new toy? I want to so badly!

Parent: Oh, it's also wrong of you to have a yearning desire to play with that toy. It's worse if you actually follow through; but it's still wrong that you want to.

Kid: But by putting the toy in front of me you caused me to have the urge. If you don't want me to do something, why give me the urge?

Parent: Again, to test you.

Kid: You want to make sure I don't do, or even have the desire to do, something that's not evil, will not hurt you in any way, simply because you say so? There is no reason, logic, or thought behind your demand, yet if I don't follow your instructions I am doing a very bad thing and failing to have faith in your parenting skills?

Parent: Correct.

Kid: So your bad parenting is supposed to give me faith that you're a good parent?

Parent: I'm glad we understand each other. And you may not get where I'm coming from now, but pretty soon you'll be extremely thankful I'm a New Testament parent.

But We've Never Attacked the Methodists!

2009-10-27T20:04:00.000-07:00

A lot of Christians become appalled when you bring up the fact that organized religion has been responsible for horrific brutality throughout the ages.

"But the folks in my congregation have never taken up arms and invaded the Methodist church across the street," the loyal Baptist says. (Unfortunately the commandant, "thou shall not lie," prevents the militant Church of Christ person from saying the same thing.)

So, by that logic, if someone started yet another modern-day Nazi Party and didn't brutalize a specific religion or harm anyone in general, it'd be fine and dandy, right?

"No, the Nazi's before us were the ones that slaughtered six million Jews, we just give them dirty looks when we ask them for loans," is what they'd say to justify their existence.

But the truth is organized religion has been responsible for many massacres throughout history.

They just take turns.

A group of extreme Muslims are now using their Holy Book to murder the innocent.

And though it's a relatively small group of Muslims, it still represents a continuing trend of religiously likeminded people getting together to kill people who don't believe the contents in a certain book are of a factual nature. Not only that, they even go after people who interpret the book differently.

I really don't how to combat this age old problem when all the books in which they believe tell them that people who don’t buy into every word printed in said book are unworthy of life.

While I'm certainly not one for censorship, it would be difficult for me to vote against replacing all the passages in Holy Books that talk unfavorably about non-believers with something to the effect of, "If someone doesn't believe in the words you're currently reading, it's their loss. Who needs 'em!"

Or even better...

"If someone doesn't believe in the words you're currently reading, be nice to them and perhaps your kindness will cause them to ask questions about the specific religion that produces such friendly people!"

That would at least stop a few zealots from killing in the name of their religion as the above is very difficult to misinterpret.

However it wouldn't solve the problem entirely as some would read the part about being nice to the non-believers and claim the verse was an attempt at reverse psychology. "In saying 'be nice to them,' it's saying, 'kill them!'"

Or some smart nut would convince a bunch of dumb nuts that the verse was attempting reverse psychology.

Just think about how many lives would have been saved throughout the centuries if none of the Holy Books had been written.

Therefore, for the purpose of saving lives, you'd think we would get rid of these killer books.

Or at least make a horror movie about them.

"What's lurking in your bookshelf is thirsty for blood..."

But instead we pass them onto our children with a cute little inscription in place of what should be a stern warning. They proceed to pass them onto their children, who pass them onto their children, etc.

And though radical Islam is what we're accustomed to hearing about these days, we're likely only a couple centuries away from the day when radical Scientology is the number one enemy in the War on Terror.

Timing is Everything

2009-09-09T17:25:00.000-07:00

I don't understand why people that proclaim to be gods, or at least conduits to gods, are usually believed to be totally and completely legitimate as long as they meet one requirement...

That they lived hundreds of years ago.

Today, if someone told you they were a god, or closely related to a god, you would likely advise them to seek psychiatric help. In fact, I'm sure nut houses across the world are full of individuals who make a similar claim.

If you lived in Biblical times, why would it be any different? Of course if you lived in Biblical times, you wouldn't see it as "Biblical Times"; you'd see it as "now."

True, Jesus was able to garner a lot of followers back in the day, a fact many people use to argue that he is the true Messiah.

But I choose to believe the reason no present-day person could be referred to as god by the masses is because we're all a little bit more sophisticated.

But even in recent times a few charismatic individuals have convinced others they were either godly, or so great that they should be blindly followed.

Remember Jonestown?

And besides, because of Christianity, 80% of you out there already have that position filled.

"You're god?" Christians ask a modern day person claiming to be holy. "Sorry, I've already got one of those; go offer your crazy to someone still taking applications."

So I suppose that would only make us atheists more sophisticated now-a-days.

I mean, if the parents of Christians wouldn't have instructed them what to believe, they'd still be looking to fill that void in their life, and would want something to hope for.

And what helps them believe in Christianity is that its origins are so long ago, and during a time so ancient that we can't even fathom day to day life. Therefore someone going around claiming to be godly doesn't seem so far-fetched.

They won't say it publicly, but I'm willing to bet that most non-Mormon Christians look at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and facetiously think, "Yeah, right; some guy named Joseph Smith, Jr., who lived in the 19^th century, was visited by Angels. What a crazy loon that guy must have been and how gullible are the Mormons for believing such a fable!?"

Yet the story they believe is SO much more fathomable because it happened further back?

Makes no sense when you think about it.

I Happily Wish You a "Merry Christmas"

2009-08-26T19:41:00.000-07:00

Merry Christmas!

Sorry, I hope you didn't do a spit take with your morning Joe after realizing that a real-life atheist just wished you Merry Christmas!.

The truth is most atheists are fairly normal people. You probably don't realize just how rational 99.9% of us are because the folks at Fox News have done a good job in portraying us as crazy zealots who won't rest until the word "merry" is never again uttered directly before the word "Christmas."

The attempt by Fox News to brand us as insane is equivalent to me portraying everyone in the Christian religion as having the same qualities as members of the KKK. The KKK brands themselves as Christians after all.

I will even go as far as wishing you Merry Christmas in a Christmassy color...

Merry Christmas!

In case you missed it; let me bold it and increase the font...

Merry Christmas!

Yes, it would be nice if there was a holiday during which you could return the favor, but I’m okay with that fact that you need a week or so where it's all about you!

I mean there is obviously insecurity that dwells deep within you which causes you to seek the comfort of a religion that tells you you'll forever live in bliss should you happen to believe a specific book contains facts.

So you need Christmas.

You really need Christmas.

Merry Christmas by the way.

I can even appreciate some of the fantastic things Christmas has given us.

It’s a Wonderful Life – Great movie! Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't believe in hope, love and togetherness! I just believe in getting together to laugh and have fun, as opposed to getting together to pay my respects to something that doesn't exist.

A day and half off work – Almost makes me want to say praise Jesus!

So, unlike the few atheists insistent on getting press this time of year, I choose to take a stance of strength.

I am content to live my life without a specific time of year where everyone celebrates my beliefs and I get angry with them should they choose not to greet me in a certain way.

You, on the other hand, are emotionally unequipped to deal with an entire year going by without everyone taking a few days to focus on your religion.

In fact, you remind me a lot of my good friend's toddler. Every time the little tike does something he deems worthwhile he holds up his creation and won't stop nagging until you say something to the effect of, "I love it; you did a good thing!"

So in the spirit of the Season, let me just say, "You are good people who believe in virtue; not bigots who discriminate against those with whom you disagree."

Feel better?

In the words of the wise Bart Simpson, "Christmas is the time of year when people of all religions get together to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ."

Well Bart, you can count me in!

Merry Christmas everyone!

Gay is the New Atheist

2009-08-04T15:21:00.000-07:00

First of all I want to say that were I a resident of California, I would have voted "no" on Proposition 8. In other words, I am in favor of gay marriage.

However, I get the feeling the homosexual community believes they now have a monopoly on non race related discrimination.

Excuse me, but last time I paid for a sandwich I didn't see any catchy pro-heterosexual slogans on my money. "I'll have a turkey club on whole-wheat and a small soda. Four-fifty, no problem, let me just pull out a five spot with, 'Sex Between a Man and Woman Feels Great!' printed to the right of Honest Abe's nose, and then you can give me back two quarters, each with 'Heterosexuals Do It With Natural Lubrication,' printed underneath George Washington's chin."

Yet, 'In God We Trust' remains on all U.S. currency.

With all due respect to the homosexual community, the fact that they have civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of marriage really doesn't make a whole lot of difference as they're basically the same thing.

Especially in California, where the domestic partnership law is very strong, gay couples really don't face obstacles other than the tears that come from the emotional strain of not being able to introduce themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife.

Perhaps I'm a little jaded when it comes to this issue, but after being left alone to fight against the rights of atheists being trampled in a nation that overwhelmingly believes in the existence of a deity, I am not ready to have sympathy for another group who claims rampant bigotry.

President-Elect Barack Obama, a man who I support, is not even progressive enough to cease the practice of ending his speeches with "God Bless America." Sure, I'd be more sympathetic to the gay marriage struggle if Mr. Obama instead concluded his speeches with, "God bless Americans in heterosexual relationships." If that were the case, perhaps we could even team up!

And don't get me started on hate crime legislation.

President-Elect Obama has indicated he will quickly expand hate crime laws to include sexual orientation. While I applaud this, I wonder why he hasn't declared his desire to see the law expanded to include atheists. (Sure, hate crime laws already include religion, but we all know it means theists harming other theists for believing in the wrong deity.)

The expanding of hate crimes legislation would mean that if me and a homosexual are standing at a bus stop together and I am beaten beyond recognition by a religious fundamentalist because I am an atheist, and the homosexual is beaten beyond recognition by a religious fundamentalist because he or she is a homosexual, the person who had unleashed fists of fury upon the face and body of the gay individual would receive more time behind bars than the person who disfigured me. Heck, they'd probably let my tormentor off the hook with a, 'Thank you for doing to that atheist what this badge prevents me from doing!'"

Again, I don't oppose hate crimes legislation being expanded to include gender, sexual orientation and gender identity; I simply want it expanded to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and atheism. And until those pressing for the passage of an expansion include atheists, I'm not too interested in helping them out when I've suffered so much since publicly declaring my atheist beliefs.

Let's examine the struggles we atheists go through on a daily basis: Reading about all the past theist leaders of America in our history books, our future progressive President choosing to exclude us at the conclusion of his speeches to the country, the money we exchange for goods and services being plastered with religious phrases, and having to watch nearly every sports figure in America point to their god in thanks after doing something good on the playing surface.

Being an atheist I normally take liberal positions, and that's why I favor gay marriage. So why write a column critical of the homosexual community when all they're doing is fighting for equal rights, you ask. Because atheism is a lonely life; and our isolationism makes us prone to take our own stance, regardless of whether or not it puts us at odds with people with whom we usually agree.

Perhaps I should be a big person and reach out to others who face discrimination, but the pain in my heart causes me to be constantly fearful said outreach will only be met with more bigotry.

Do You Realize Everything Will Be the Same?

2009-08-04T15:20:00.000-07:00

How many of you on either side of the political aisle truly believe something magical will happen if your candidate gets elected?

I think the country gets so caught up in Presidential elections because we assume a victory for our candidate means our lives will suddenly be transformed into some sort of fairy tale.

But regardless of who wins, come January 21st, 2009 you will have the same crappy job, be forced to pay the same exorbitant bills, drive the same ratty car, and be acquainted with the same group of ne'er-do-well friends.

If you're one of those unemployed people who don't enjoy working, neither Presidential candidate will somehow find you a job that "doesn't feel like work."

In other words – your life is not going to change.

You "believers" truly feel that everything but you control your life!

If you were hired by your current employer after January 20th, 2001 does that mean that George W. Bush got you the job? Or do you have the job because you applied for it?

Something tells me it's the latter.

Because I bet if Al Gore were elected in 2000 you'd still have that job. While had you not applied for it...

Maybe most of you know this, but neither Barack Obama nor John McCain will create a single job!

I'll put it another way: Unless they start a business using their own money while in the White House, a President will never create employment opportunities!

The only Presidential candidate that could influence me into thinking he could create jobs is John McCain, who could do so by promising to take some of his wife's 10-trillion-dollars and open up a little coffee shop outside the White House. He could call it "Café 1600" and hire 10 recent college graduates to run the place! That, above any of the current job creation plans, would get my attention.

His press conference would be simple... John McCain: I will create jobs as President.

Reporter: How? John McCain: I'll take Cindy's money, open a coffee house, gather a bunch of prospective employees and point to the ones I like while saying, "You're hired, You're hired, You're hired, etc."

And I'm not saying this in a partisan way either. If John Kerry would have promised to do the same with Teresa's money, I'd have fully supported his efforts.

This piece is not meant to be negative; I'm just trying to warn you that everything will remain exactly the same for you if your candidate is elected President in November. You'll be excited for about five minutes and then all of a sudden say to yourself, "I have to go to work tomorrow where my boss will tear me a new one if I am unable to foresee his every want and need, just as he has for the last eight years."

Then you'll get frustrated because everyone to whom you owe money will still want to get paid.

"But my candidate got elected, and he promised a brighter future for everyone with a salary similar to my own," you'll explain to the bill collector.

"But if you don't pay me, my future will fail to be bright," the bill collector will correctly respond.

I realize a lot of you are treating this election like a sporting event and, while you want your team to win because its members share a like worldview, realize no matter who takes office in 2009 your life will remain in a constant state of sameness.

And to take the sports analogy one step further: most of you who truly believe a victory by your candidate will mean great prosperity for you and your loved ones, while a victory by the other guy will result in poverty for all, are probably a lot like my cousin Richie, who swears a victory by the New York Jets once made him so happy that his sinus infection disappeared.

I sh*t you not.

So remember; it's not about a higher power guiding your every move or a god-like politician somehow making it easy for you to be successful; it's about you getting out there and making something of your life – because you are the only person (or being) looking out for you.

We Don't Need a Higher Power to Know it's Wrong to Harm Our Fellow Man

2009-07-21T16:16:00.000-07:00

One argument for a higher power revolves around the notion that a higher power gives us a sense of morals. Without "God" we would have no concept of right and wrong.

Really?

Without "God" we would fail to realize that making people suffer was bad? We would beat someone up, leave them for dead and take their money, but have no idea we had just done something immoral?

Really?

The only true crimes in this world are deeds that hurt someone else. Sure, there are "crimes" made up by society which take place without injury to another person, but those victimless crimes are only "crimes" because of a fictional book called the Bible.

Take prostitution. Why is it a crime? Because the Bible says it's wrong. Does it harm anyone? No. Is it legal in some places in the world, even in some parts of the United States? Yes. Is anyone born with the knowledge that prostitution is immoral? No; it has to be force-fed by thousands of hours of church services and Bible studies.

Sure, there are health concerns with prostitution, but government regulation could make it very safe. And there are health concerns with a myriad of perfectly legal activities, so that argument doesn't fly.

Name me one crime that all sane people think is wrong, which does not involve harming anyone.

That's right, you can't.

Even the drug war is bogus because the only people hurt are hurt because drugs are illegal and therefore a dangerous business. But if people want to harm themselves with drugs, who are we to stop them? Hey, I don't recommend shoving a pencil in your eye but don't think we should outlaw the practice if children should become addicted to the rush of graphite puncturing their corneas.

Do you "believers" really think if it wasn't for "God" you would be unsure whether or not it was wrong to randomly punch a stranger in the face for no reason? That you would have no empathy for the person lying in the ground screaming, "You broke my nose! The pain is unbearable!"

Maybe I'm crazy, but I give myself all the credit for coming to the realization that it's wrong to harm my fellow human being.

I know you believers like to credit a higher power with everything, but maybe you should pat yourself on the back the next time you walk by a little old lady and refrain from beating her up and taking her purse, because maybe you had a small hand in your decision.

Allow Me to Punch You in the Face with Some Sound Financial Advice

2009-03-20T21:09:00.001-07:00

First off I'd like to say that you're all idiots.

Because of your belief in religion, the country is on the verge of collapse after Congress passed a $700 billion bailout package – also known as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

The reason we're in this mess is because you let people who pour water on their cereal purchase homes!

Mind if I ask you a question?

Why did you do that?

Because it's the Christian thing to do...

I understand your belief in the Bible is strong; and helping the less fortunate is a great concept – but we wouldn't be in the current catastrophic predicament if people lived by this simple creed: If Jesus would approve of a fiscal policy, do the opposite!

Always remember that you believe Jesus fed a lot of people by performing miracles; miracles that He could only do because He is the Son of God! You Christians don't believe you are the Son of God – so why are you selling houses to people who will only be able to pay for them if a miracle befalls their bank account!

And why do I have to remind you what you believe?! There is not a moment in my life where I ask myself, "Wait a second – do I believe in creationism or sound scientific reasoning? Hmmm, maybe I wrote my core beliefs down somewhere."

But I digress...

Perhaps you've all watched a few too many sitcoms where the family is saved from financial ruin through an incredibly unlikely turn of events. Problem is however; that incredibly unlikely turn of events that warmed your cockles was made up by writers!

And you people who bought homes you couldn't afford – raise your hand if you looked at your spouse before signing on the dotted line and said smilingly, "God will help us pay the mortgage."?

Keep those hands up – I'm not finished counting! Since 80% of the country is Christian it's going to take forever to get an accurate tally.

How'd that work out for you, by the way? The odds suggest maybe four or five you won the lottery, so the results weren't all bad! Nice job!

See, it's not about Republicans or Democrats screwing up – it's about 80% of the country fervently believing something that has no scientific basis.

And if you'll believe that; you'll believe spending money you don't have will somehow work itself out.

Well guess what – it didn't work itself out; and now I'm paying for your extreme gullibility.

So please, regardless of how you spend your Sunday mornings, absorb this financial advice I dole out with no tithing required...

Regular people: Don't buy s*it you can't afford!

And...

Politicians: Unless you're going to pony up the dough yourself; don't help people buy s*it they can't afford!

I know my advice may sting for a bit; but it should help us recoup enough of the money we lost so that some of us might possibly be able to retire by the time we're in our late 80's; and that'll certainly be pleasant.

While I am outspoken in terms of my belief that the universe was not created by a higher power, I'm not one of those atheists who hates religion with religious fervor. However I do think it's important to point out the dangers involved with putting people in power who are willing to believe in far fetched stories because it means they're likely to believe in miracles – and if said miracles don't come true... Well, you know the results.

Unfortunately I don't think things will change and I can already guess how they'll try to get us out of this mess...

They'll pray about it.

How Can all Sins be the Same!

2009-03-12T18:43:00.001-07:00

What would you Christians say if your friends, the parents of two, informed you that they had doled out equal punishments to their children, one whose transgression was breaking curfew by five minutes, while the other's evil deed was selling crack cocaine to neighborhood toddlers?

Would you say, "Bravo; what wonderful parenting skills you've exhibited!"

Something tells me you wouldn't heap praise on your friends. You'd probably nod along politely until you were away from them, at which point you'd talk about what awful parents they were. You'd possibly even contemplate notifying authorities.

But wait a second, isn't equal punishment regardless of the crime what your religion teaches?

Rob a bank, kill a guy for looking at you funny, expose yourself to the elderly or oversleep and miss church on Sunday morning; it's all the same.

And how do you atone for your sins? Ask for forgiveness. That's it. Just ask. To return to the parenting analogy for a moment, let's say one of your children stole a quarter from a classmate and the other beat a smaller kid so badly he was in a coma.

Not only would you dole out the same punishment, but that punishment would consist of an apology. You'd say, "I want you to apologize for your string of brutal left-hooks to Timmy's face and I want you to mean it!"

The "I want you to mean it," part has to do with the fact that God will only forgive you if you are truly sorry for your transgression. If that's the case, and you are correct in your beliefs, you'll all have trouble on judgment day, unless you're genuinely remorseful for the very natural act of saying the lord's name in vein after slamming your finger in the car door.

All I can say is I'm glad our justice system, which is supposedly based on Judeo-Christian philosophy, does not work this way. Then it'd be what, 15-days for every crime?

I suppose you religious folks would be happy with Jeffrey Dahmer spending 255-days in jail, but I'm happy he got a tad longer sentence for his 17 brutal murders.

Are Prayer Requests the Perfect Crime?

2009-02-14T21:24:00.000-08:00

Before we get started on this column I would like to use this opportunity to take a few prayer requests. If the prayer requests are granted, however, I will not be responsible for the consequences.

That might not be the wittiest or most original joke in the world, but it sure hits home with me.

I'm no virgin to church (calm down Christians, it's just an expression) so I know prayer requests are usually about very sincere matters and come from the heart. But what if "Old Testament God" is answering prayer requests that aren't exactly wholesome?

What if all the tragedies you see on the nightly news were caused because prayers were answered?

What if your troubled teen was successfully able to burn down your garage by simply praying that it happened? Because, according to your beliefs, you are all sinners, and sinners need to be punished. What better punishment than a destroyed garage with your prized SUV reduced to ashes? Who knows, maybe the SUV was your sin, and the transgression for which you admonished your teen wasn't actually a sin in God's eyes.

Whether it is your child, or your worst enemy, who unleashes havoc upon your life simply through the power of prayer, your only recourse is to pray harder. It's not like the courts will start prosecuting people for "requesting the higher power in which you believe to perpetrate illegalities against those with whom you are unfriendly." In other words, prayer is the perfect crime.

That's what makes the notion of prayer a little strange. I'm not against all prayer, I can understand how prayers of thanks can be very therapeutic, but requesting specific things from your god seems like an unusual practice.

I mean, wouldn't a religion that supposedly stands for personal sacrifice equate a prayer request to standing up and shouting, "Look at me God! Do what I want!? Ignore him; his kidney is fine; he doesn't need a new one! But I could certainly use that lottery money!"

So the next time you say a prayer, remember that your angry teen could be asking God for the subject of your prayer to be destroyed by a horrific natural disaster.

It's a slippery slope, and because you admittedly can't comprehend your God, don't you think it would be wise to just give thanks to whatever began the universe for all the gifts with which you've been bestowed.

If You Christians are Correct, I'm Glad I'm Going to Hell

2009-02-04T20:25:00.000-08:00

Okay, let's say you're right.

Let's say the Bible is a completely truthful history book.

If that's the case then I am going to hell.

Am I depressed about the potential of an eternity spent in the deepest regions of the hoary netherworld?

On the contrary. And truth be told, if it were somehow proven that the Bible was accurate, I wouldn't change my beliefs.

But, "Heaven is perfect," you say.

Yeah, that's according to your religious teachers.

And what do religious teachers like to do most?

Teach religion.

The schedule for Heaven probably resembles the one listed below:

6:00 - Wake Up
6:30 - Breakfast Prayer
7:00 - Breakfast
7:15 - Morning Chapel (a three-hour look at Deuteronomy, Chapter 1: Verse 1)
12:15 - Lunch Prayer
12:30 - Lunch
12:45 - Afternoon Chapel (a two-and-a-half-hour recap of the Morning Chapel session: a three-hour look at Deuteronomy, Chapter 1: Verse 1, followed by a half-hour preview of Deuteronomy, Chapter 1: Verse 2)
3:45 - Speech by Moses (with introduction from Shadrach, Meshack and Abendigo)
5:00 - Five-Mile March
6:00 - Group Shower
6:30 - Dinner Prayer
7:00 - Dinner
7:15 - Evening Chapel (a three-hour look at Deuteronomy, Chapter 1: Verse 2)
10:15 - Silent Prayer
10:30 - Lights Out

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a perfect day to me. The group shower is the only thing that might potentially be fun, but in Heaven I have a feeling things regress back to pre-snake days where being naked around each other is in no way erotic.

But hell, that's got to be bad, right? Actually all anyone says about hell is that you're away from God.

I've been away from God all my life and it hasn't been all bad. In fact, my existence is actually pleasurable. So basically I wouldn't mind going to hell if it were like my current routine. Sure my boss is kind of a d*ck and I can't afford my dream home, but it is hell after all, it can't all be peaches and cream.

Let's All Give Our Money to Things That Don't Exist

2009-01-23T18:23:00.000-08:00

As I was walking through a Southern mall on Sunday I saw one of those Christian bookstores that sell Bible's and bookmarks with cute little religious phrases. Of course it was closed on Sunday, which prevented me from entering the establishment and rolling my eyes as I perused the material while making a few "Yeah, right" and "I'd like to see them prove that," comments.

It was then I realized that if this place was closed on Sunday they must be doing a huge business. Then I realized that in order for this business to do well, thousands of people must be paying lots of money to further their faith in something that doesn't exist.

In fact religious propaganda is a billion dollar industry. People pay a large percentage of their annual incomes to show the love they feel for their imaginary friend. You know what; I developed an imaginary friend in third grade. Her name is Prudence and she graduated with honors from Columbia University. If you give me some money I will make sure Prudence gets it.

Should I set up a Pay Pal account to make donating convenient for you? To think what my psychiatrist used to refer to as, "a potentially devastating long term mentally instability" could turn into a money making endeavor! That's what America is all about!

I am of course being sarcastic, but I just hate to see sheep-like-people give their money away to figments of their brainwashed imaginations. I don't have a problem with buying a Bible or a daily affirmation calendar, which I can see being somewhat inspirational and perhaps motivational, but I do have a problem with families sacrificing happiness for the hope that when they die they will go to a "happy place."

Would you really rather have four closets full of religious paraphernalia or that boat you've dreamed about since you were twelve? I doubt it was your life long dream to collect all 15,000 editions of Chicken Soup for the Soul and one can only own so many Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith albums.

Just go ahead and buy the boat. Buy the boat along with the Bible and read the Bible on the boat. You could cast your fishing pole, read Ecclesiastes 4:3, water ski, read Ecclesiastes 4:4, apply sunscreen, read Ecclesiastes 4:5....

There's no reason you can't have both a normal life and a few religious knickknacks to make yourself feel better as well as impress your churchgoing friends.