A few quotes...

"The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors.... For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by these Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke put together have done!"

-Frederick Douglas

"I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

-Gallileo

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issueOne man's religion is another man's belly laugh. but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."

-Mark Twain

"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."

-Robert Heinlein

"Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms."

-Robert Green Ingersoll

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

-Thomas Jefferson

Gorrillas

This does not have anything to do with religion, but interesting nonetheless...

Researchers have discovered an estimated 125,000 lowland gorillas living in a swamp in equatorial Africa. That is double the number of the endangered species thought to survive worldwide. The swamp is about eighty miles from the nearest road.

I'm all for more monkeys.

All Roads Lead To Hitler and Kaiser Soze

I have determined that any religious discussion will inevitibly turn to Adolf Hitler. As far as that goes, just about any other subject will eventually get there also. I will have to come up with some type of Hitler Law for that.

Oh...here's something interesting...

While looking up a pronuciation for the latin term "hoc est enim corpus meum", I ran across the latin pronunciation for Caesar, which is pronounced kaizer. I then decided to look up the meaning for soze. In Turkish, it means "verbalization".
That then got me thinking about Verbal Kint, so I looked up Kint, which in Turkish means King...so Verbal Kint (Verbal King ) is Keyser Soze (Caesar Verbalization). Those "Usual Suspects" dudes were very tricky.

PZ Meyers and the Body of Christ

Listen to this....here.

Excommunicated

I think I am going to attempt to get excommunicated by the Catholic Church-

here's how you can too-

The Roman Catholic church apparently does not excommunicate its members easily. They say that the reason for this is to leave the way open for reconciliation. However, their thinking is based on irrational belief and is motivated by fear, and they assume that you are the same. They believe that you will react as they do to the fear of death, and wish to deny reality and embrace an illusion. Even more importantly, by never giving up a member, the church is able to claim millions as members, who do not accept its doctrines, who never attend, who never contribute money or time and who are, in fact, opposed to what it stands for. This greatly enhances its power. If you were ever baptized a Roman Catholic, and have not been excommunicated, you are still being counted. If you do not wish to contribute to the power of the Roman Catholic church, you may want to get yourself excommunicated.

Why should I get excommunicated? Three good reasons.

The Roman Catholic church is misogynistic.

Although they may talk about 'cherishing' or 'adoring' womanhood, they mean a master's appreciation of an obedient and docile servant. They do not believe that women are the equals of men. The church funds and works for anti-woman legislation around the world. The Roman Catholics and the Mormons were the primary sources of the funds and lobbying which helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the United States. The church has crippled international development, especially in the neediest countries, by refusing to allow any form of birth control to be discussed. Ireland and other Catholic countries have done the church's dirty work by blocking international meetings unless all countries submit to Catholic doctrine in matters of birth control.

Historically, the church has fostered wife abuse by promoting cultures where any marriage, no matter how bad, was better for a woman than living alone. The Pope has just issued a statement that the Church will never ordain women as priests.

The Roman Catholic church is homophobic.

In fact, it's worse than that, the proper description of its position is 'pro-natalist'. Any form of sexual behavior that doesn't raise the birth rate is forbidden. Sex as an expression of love and sexual activity for simple pleasure are prohibited or subordinated to the production of little Catholics. Even within marriage the loving exchange of pleasure is a sin. The church will also refuse to marry couples if the union cannot be fertile, which has caused untold anguish to couples wherein one partner was handicapped or otherwise infertile. Through the ages, of course, men have had little trouble getting their pleasure from sex. The burden of this policy falls on women, whose bodies and health are destroyed by endless childbearing. Homosexuality is completely prohibited and is condemned with unusually intense loathing and disgust. (Although priestly pedophilia was very lightly punished, if at all, until recently.) The church has never objected to any punishments, up to and including death, which a society has wished to impose on homosexuals, quite the opposite. the Church is lobbying against civil rights legislation for homosexuals, and is attempting to influence its congregations to deny homosexuals equal human rights with other citizens.

The Roman Catholic Church is antidemocratic, authoritarian and intolerant.

Americans may refuse to believe this. However, like every religion, the Catholic church, when it is in a minority position, is all in favor of tolerance and democracy. However, when it is in control, as in Ireland or Poland, it shows its true colors. The church is much more comfortable with authoritarian right-wing governments and has historically allied itself with them. If the people in so-called 'Catholic' countries who do not accept the homophobic, misogynistic and intolerant doctrines of Catholicism would take the step of leaving the church, especially in a positive direction towards humanism, the church's power to do harm would be greatly lessened. Historically, the church saw Mussolini and Hitler as bulwarks against atheistic communism and actively supported the fascist Spanish dictator Franco against the democratic republic. Hitler, although a Catholic, never committed a grave enough sin to merit excommunication. Such an action on the church's part might have saved millions of lives (I said might).

I don't accept the church's position on birth control, or on abortion, I don't believe in the prayers, the miracles or the theology, and I haven't been to church in ages except for weddings and funerals. I am no longer a Roman Catholic. I don't want to be counted as a Catholic. How do I get excommunicated?

As of 1983 there are nine canons under which excommunication can take place. Five of them only apply to priests or bishops. One of the others is physically attacking the pope, and criminal acts can hardly be recommended. Another is 'violation of sacred species', normally called desecrating a consecrated host. It would certainly offend almost everybody (good!). Next to last is 'procuring of abortion'. Excommunication for this is supposed to be automatic, but it only applies to the doctor and the woman involved. I am told the church does not seek out such cases. In any case one would hardly choose an abortion solely for the sake of excommunication. It may pay to mention any active work you have done on behalf of making access to abortion safe and legal, and any work you have done help women procure abortions. Recently, the church mentioned that it does consider such work to be and excommunicatable offense, but that it will not seek offenders out. Thus, by contributing a small amount to an organization, like Planned Parenthood, or Global Population Concern, or helping out at any women's medical clinic which offers contraceptive and abortion services, you can easily make yourself eligible for excommunication. Otherwise, there is canon 1364, ©1 Apostasy, heresy, or schism. This involves automatic excommunication, if you can convince the church that it applies to you. The most common usage of this canon is when a former Catholic embraces another religion. Obviously, if you are now a Muslim, a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness, you are automatically no longer a Catholic. It is your task to convince the church that you, as an atheistic secular humanist, (or whatever) are in the same 'non-Catholic' category as a Muslim or Buddhist. In your favor is a nineteenth century ruling which stated that ":those who make a public renunciation of all religion may be subsumed under this category [apostates]." You will need to write a letter to your current parish. It should include the necessary information to meet all of the criteria for deserving to be excommunicated. You may also present this to your birth parish, if this is convenient.

---

The church is patronizing to atheists. They can easily recognize another superstition, but, being unfamiliar with rationality, they have difficulty accepting the decision to renounce all mumbo jumbo. They have, however, officially established these criteria for judging all cases of excommunication: You must ACT. Mere thought is not enough. You should be able to cite memberships in freethought and humanist groups. You should be able to cite actions you have taken, such as, letters written, demonstrations attended, meetings attended, magazine subscriptions, etc. As well as negative actions, like not attending church, not giving them any money, time or thought for years. You must be PERSISTENT. This must take place over a long period of time. If at first you don't succeed...Cite long commitment, and keep trying and keep writing. You must be CONTUMACIOUS. As in: I am firm, you are contumacious, he is pig-headed. Do not waver or indicate any hesitation. It is not necessary to be impolite, but do not be unclear in your condemnation of Catholicism in order to avoid offence. You must be AWARE that this involves excommunication. For them, ignorance of canon law is an excuse. State in your letter that you are aware of this, that you know what the consequences are and that this is what you wish to happen. You have to be a Roman Catholic. Obviously. In your letter, make them aware of this by telling them the parish where you were baptised and the date. Many people, hoping for some kind of heresy cachet, have inquired about getting excommunciated, even though they are not currently memebers of a church. No, you can't.

Your mental state is something that no one knows except you. You are the only expert on your own non-religious status. They have a duty to inform other Roman Catholics about this change in you so that they do not mishandle their dealings with you. In terms of marriage, communion, death and so on, you should be treated as a non-Catholic. If they fail to do this, they are not dealing fairly with the Catholics in their charge. So far, most cases have gone smoothly. Using the citations in this article seems to impress them with the idea that you are serious, you know what you are talking about, and that this is not a "spur or the moment" whim. If, however, you meet resistance, there is some heavier ammunition below. Fill out the handy form below and send it in to your local priest. This may only get things started. Be prepared to continue for a long time. Remember: each person who does this makes it easier for the next person.

---

I am an atheist.

I hereby renounce all the trappings of religion.

I renounce all blessings, benefits, graces, sanctifications, and advantages supposedly conferred on me by any religion or by any religious act done by me or on my behalf in the past, present or future.

I condemn as monstrous the idea of original sin, and renounce any baptism done on my behalf to wash it away.

I reject as ridiculous the idea of an atoning sacrifice and spurn its presumed benefits.

I do not believe that any god, supernatural realm or afterlife exists, and will not act as if they did.

I do not believe that any book, building, place, person, thing or action is holy and will not pretend that they are.

I do not think that praying is anything more than talking to oneself and will not make believe that it is.

I do not believe that any person is more sanctified than any other, or that any human being should be elevated above another in any way, due to ancestry, race, gender, occupation, belief or for any other reason and will not feign that I do.

As a principled and rational person, it pains me that someone, somewhere may be counting me as an adherent of an irrational superstition which has done and is doing irreparable harm to humanity and with which I profoundly disagree. Please remove my name from the records of the church, and record that I am no longer a Roman Catholic. Please send me confirmation of this action. Please do this as soon as possible.


Signature___________________________

---

The Body of Christ

It is permissible in the Catholic Church to take communion twice in one day, thereby enabling you to make a sandwich.

The penalty for desecration of the host?- here.

The penalty for raping young boys? Apparently if you are a priest...you get a pass.

Our Christian Military

Read this Federal Lawsuit....here.

It's a fucking cracker, for christsakes....

The Eucharist Story....here

Religious Test

Take my religious test...here.

Watch Christopher Hitchins Get Waterboarded

George Carlin

George Carlin, fellow Atheist, died of a heart attack on Sunday. Oddly, Fitz and I saw him last weekend at The Orleans in Las Vegas, which, as it turned out was his last performance. His show was very good, much better than the last time I saw him at MGM. Of course, he said a lot of funny things, but much of the show was George pointing out the unreasonable nature of religion. He did a bit on hats that showed how silly religions can be. I admired him very much.

My Op-Ed

My op-ed piece in the Peoria Journal Star...here.

Who do you trust?

Scenario...
Tomorrow, several top scientists inform the world that a 60 mile long meteor is headed straight for the earth. It will be here in 7 days. There is no defense against it, as it is large enough to completely wipe out everything on the face of the earth.

OR

Tomorrow, several top religious leaders inform the world that God is going to destroy the earth in 7 days, because of the rampant homosexuality and prolific abortions that are occurring. he is going to destroy the earth by releasing a gigantic seven headed monster that breathes fire.

Who would you believe?

Latest Letter-to-the-Editor

In response to all the letters about God and prayer that I read in the Journal Star:

I read these impassioned letters from the religious, trying to convince us through faulty circular logic, and despite the evidence, that prayer does indeed work. Instead of convincing me of anything, they only show me a startling portrait of self-contradiction.

Prayers of Petition contradict the very idea of an omniscient god. The “free will” argument that the religious then invoke in defense of prayer, further contradicts their very own description of God. No being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

As we now know about Mother Theresa, whose deeds seemed inextricably linked to her closeness to God, she was actually living her life in the absence of belief. In a letter to a spiritual confidant, she remarked, “the tongue moves in prayer, but does not speak.”

We know that the multitudes of pedophile priests, being protected by the Catholic Church as they raped our children, could not possibly believe in the god of the Bible and still perform the deeds that they did.

The books of the Bible are themselves walking and talking self-contradictions. It is not possible for God to give Moses the Sixth Commandment- “Thou shalt not kill”, and then continue to order genocide, murder, a scorched earth policy, ethnic cleansing, rape, and slavery on all his enemies, all with his blessing.

Self-contradictions seem to be the hallmark of religious belief.

Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

After watching the Phoenix land on mars, I watched this.

Very entertaining.

Thanks God

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

The Ten Commandments

The Biblical account of the Ten Commandments:

1) The first time Moses came down from Mount Sinai with commandments, he merely recited a list (Exodus 20:2-17), which is the version most churches today erroneously call the "Ten Commandments," although they were not engraved on stone tablets and not called "the ten commandments."

2) The first set of stone tablets was given to Moses at a subsequent trip up the mountain (Exodus 31:18). In this farcical story, Moses petulantly destroyed those tablets when he saw the people worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:19).

3) So he went back for a replacement. God told Moses: "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." (Exodus 34:1) Here is what was on the replacement tablets (from Exodus 34:14-26):

1) Thou shalt worship no other God. 2) Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. 3) The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. 4) Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest. 5) Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks. 6) Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God. 7) Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven. 8) Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning. 9) The first of the firstfruits of thy land shalt thou bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. 10) Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Keep this in mind next time you are tempted to boil a goat. This list differs, obviously, from the one in Exodus 20 (was God's memory faulty?), but it is only this list that is called the "Ten Commandments": "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exodus 34:28)

Stuff God Hates

Here is a link to The Stuff God Hates

American Atheists

American Atheists (the organization) seems to be lost right now. The Board of Directors fired Ellen Johnson because they think she has gotten too big for her britches. Apparently she doesn't really listen to them, as shown by her "Freedom Walk" which was not sanctioned by the Board. I'm finding that as far as the organization goes, I don't really care. There are quite a few other Atheist organizations doing good work. I am becoming more impressed with The Atheist Alliance.

Pity

Right now I'm feeling sad and lonely (feeling sorry for myself).
It's always upsetting to lose a friend. But, I am reminded of theTom Hank's movie, Castaway. There is a poignant scene where he's talking to his buddy, and he says he is so grateful that he had his girlfriend on that island with him. He says he’s so sad that shegot married while he was gone, and that he’s lost her all over again.

But, he says he knows what he has to do...keep on breathing. You never know what tomorrow will bring.

Obama and Religion

I saw Senator Obama yesterday in front of a huge cross touting "faith and morals" .
I am disappointed that here is yet another politician promoting prejudice by linking religion and morality. I am offended when Jesus gets pushed down my throat by politicians wanting to get elected.

Now, having said that, he is probably the better choice over the other candidates, because he does believe in the separation of church and state.

But, for Christ's sake, get off the Jesus bandwagon.

What does this show you?

In reading about more pedophile priests, I am struck with this thought...

If these priests TRULY believed in an all knowing god, they would not, they could not, abuse children (and when I say abuse, I really mean "rape"). We now know that Mother Theresa could not bring herself to truly believe in God, and so I have to conclude that these priests do not really believe.
Religion continues to be a scam, and in the case of the Catholic Church, provides cover for men who want to have sex with children.

Read the next story...

More Pedophile Priests

Here is a story about why the Catholic Church will never learn...

A Burlington jury issued a landmark verdict against the state's Roman Catholic diocese Tuesday, ordering it to pay $8.7 million in damages to a former Burlington altar boy fondled multiple times by a priest the church knew was a child molester.

It's a harsh penalty, but warranted by the way the church turned a blind eye to outrageously criminal behavior. I'd like to say that they'll learn a lesson from it, but the comments from Catholic officials suggest that no, they won't.

A grim Bishop Salvatore Matano, who attended the six-day trial, said in a brief, separate interview that the size of the verdict could pose serious problems for the diocese. He called the looming predicament a "sad and tragic moment in our history."

Wrong! The sad and tragic moment occurred in 1972, when they hired the child molesting priest while fully knowledgeable about his prior history. The legal damages aren't the problem, it's what these people did to children.

"I have to look very seriously at what this verdict means as it impacts on our services and the activities of the diocese," Matano said. "I have to be very conscious that the verdict as it stands will have a very serious impact on a rural diocese; a small, rural diocese."

The diocese? What about the people? Where was your concern for the diocese when the church set a child predator loose upon them?

"I do not want in any way to inflict any suffering or any pain upon the faithful in this diocese because of what happened in the past," Matano said. "That is certainly not appropriate, and I am conscious of the universal needs of the diocese."

Diocesan lawyer Tom McCormick said he was taken aback by the jury's decision and would likely appeal.

"Clearly, in hindsight we should have, could have looked at things differently," McCormick said. "We expected that a Vermont jury would not unleash a number of this sort for behavior that took place 35 years ago."

Idiots. When you've defined yourself as a moral authority (often, the sole moral authority) you don't get to back away from the consequences of your actions because time has passed or because the consequences are severe. Perhaps they ought to look at this expression of tangible outrage by a community as a not-so-subtle signal that they have not and are not supporting the actual behaviors that community considers important, and regards as part of the church's trust.

Personally, I think bankrupting the gilded monstrosity of Catholicism is an eminently desirable goal in itself.

Einstein's Letter

An Einstein letter is going up for auction, one in which he makes his views on religion, very clear.

For example: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

And: "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Read more...here

Another one bites the dust...

And so another one of my relationships ends. Further proof that I am incompatible with most human beings. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Boy Scout Bigotry

The Boy Scouts of America continue to have the position that private bigotry and discrimination shouldn't justifiably come with any social or political costs. They further insist that by discriminating against gays and atheists and by depicting them as morally inferior, they continue to serve the public good.

If the Boy Scouts engaged in similar bigotry and discrimination against other groups like Jews, Hispanics, Catholics, or liberals, there's no way that public agencies or charitable organizations would continue to support or help them. This is because it's generally accepted that discrimination against those groups is harmful; people don't yet quite understand that the same is true about discrimination against gays and atheists.

The Boy Scouts of Religious America, promoting bigotry in a school near you.

Dumbass Floridians

Wake up Florida....here

Pray for me

Religious people say that prayers work, yet when you question them and ask why, like when they prayed for a specific something ("Father, please don't let my father die of cancer"), they say that they're prayers were not answered because it was God's will.
I point out that, if there is a god, and he knew everything in advance, what is the point in begging him to change his mind? The results of prayer are exactly that of random chance.
Look at the story of Jesus Christ, who prayed in the garden that he would be spared, yet this wonderful, forgiving god ignored him. Of course, Jesus Christ, according to the Church, is God (one of The Trinity)...so that makes it even more confusing and illogical.
Jesus Christ, or so we are told, also asked God why he had been forsaken, while he was being crucified. So, God is questioning God...and God couldn't get God to change his mind...but I digress.
The act of praying, although it has a psychological element, makes absolutely no sense. Christians cannot explain it, because it is basically impossible to explain.

I Agree with Mr. Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens

Belief in Belief

A question that interests me very much (and always has) is this: I know that I do not believe in either any god or any religion, and I can give my reasons in a manner that the other side can at least understand, but can the same be said for those who claim that they do believe? A shorter way of putting this is to ask whether our antagonists in this ancient argument truly mean what they appear to say.

The recent disclosure that Mother Teresa had for almost half a century been unable to feel the presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the ear of God listening to her prayers, is of great im­portance here. (See the recent book of her despairing letters, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light.) Not even her most fervent admirers regarded this woman in any sense as an intellectual, and she evidently struggled to combat her doubts in a highly traditional way—namely, by making ever-more extravagant and even masochistic professions of “faith.” This would be superb confirmation of Daniel Dennett’s hypothesis about "belief in belief"— the strange idea that, though faith itself may be ludicrous and incoherent, the mere assertion of it may possess some virtues of its own.

Even though I have sometimes described her as a fraud (for her collusion with rich oppressors of the poor like the Duvalier family in Haiti and for her other corrupt dealings), I would now hesitate to put Mother Teresa in the same category as a Falwell, a Haggard, a Sharpton, or a Robertson. These men have never done a day’s real work in their lives and are or were simple parasites who pinch themselves every morning at their good fortune at living the easy life of exploiting the gullible. For them, religion is nothing more than a trade, or a racket.

The same, I think, can be said of the numberless clerics convicted of child-rape (why on earth do we allow ourselves the silly euphemism of “abuse”?). Their foul crime is not one of hypocrisy. No priest who sincerely believed even for ten seconds in divine judgment could conceivably endanger his immortal soul in this way, and those in the hierarchy who helped protect such men from punishment in this world are equally and obviously guilty of a hardened and ob­scene cynicism.

But the racketeering and exploitative side of religion, as with its no-less-mark­ed tendency to generate wars, atro­cities, and repressions, isn’t the whole story. What of those who try their best to help others and lead a decent life, attributing this conduct to their belief in a Virgin, a Prophet, or to the story of Exodus, or any other such fabrication? I never cease to wonder, in dialogues with such people, whether they are really saying what they mean or meaning what they say.

To any humanist, for example, it’s perfectly obvious that the city of Cal­cutta would benefit from an influx of volunteer nurses, doctors, inoculators, sewage experts, and others, just as it would not benefit from the attentions of people who regard poverty and death as a secondhand share in the "mystery" of the Crucifixion. There are actually quite a good number of activists of the first type (I spent some time there once, watch­ing the great Brazilian photographer Sebastiao Salgado do his work for UNICEF documenting the massive campaign for vaccination against polio), but for some weird reason the only person anyone can name is a woman who spent her entire life campaigning against birth control—a stupid campaign that Bengal most definitely did not and does not need.

Is it not possible that the missionaries of "faith" regard the objects of their charity as mere raw material—human subjects for a tortured experiment in their own psyches? It seems that, the more Mother Teresa lost conviction in the teachings of her religion, the more energetically she silenced her doubts by ostentatious crusades against divorce, abortion, and contraception using "the poorest of the poor" as her backdrop and her excuse. And does this not degrade such work as she actually did? For her, the helpless beggar was just that—helpless, to be sure, yet for that reason easily available for her own exhausting propaganda. The case for assisting starving Bengalis is complete on its own terms, but most of the money raised for the "Missionaries of Charity" went—as Mother Teresa herself happily admitted—to the building of convents that were consecrated, in effect, to her own ambition and her own very extreme teaching of Catholic dogma. These preach­ings went dead against the only certain cure for poverty—the emancipation of women from the status and condition of breeding machines—that the human race has ever discovered.

In other words, "faith" is at its most toxic and dangerous point not when it is insincere and hypocritical and corrupt but when it is genuine. At that point, its energy of certainty and self-righteousness can be used, not only to reinforce the Church but also (as Mother Teresa’s continuing reputation demonstrates) to impress even the secular. The evidence now is that this is how she and her confessors squared the circle. Repress your misgivings, overcome your de­spair, re­double your efforts, and we will make you a saint and later claim that you cured the sick even after your death. It’s at this point that the cynical loops round to meet the naïve and say in effect that anything is permissible as long as it keeps the illusion alive. Again, one has to stand amazed before a clergy who can use, as a recruiting sergeant, a wretched old lady whose own faith, as they well knew, had worn to a husk.

Only God can make a tree

Someone once said that only God can make a tree. Probably because it's so hard to get the bark on.

But...what about the dog?

Getting religion...here

7th Commandment

THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" Ex. 20, 14.

The so called 'sexual' commandments had absolutely nothing to do with sexual morality. They were taboos based on the rights of property. Women in this day were owned possessions. Men could sell them or divorce them at will, and this was ok with God. God must have a penis. He was and is not an equal opportunity Supreme Being. I say we vote for a female God the next time.

Ben Stein's Intelligent Design (yes, it rhymes)

In a nutshell, this is why ID should not be considered as anything but religious...

If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government officials they elect.

Period.

Thank The Lord and Pass The Tornado

Once again, tragedy strikes and people thank the Lord (in Virginia)...

"Brenda Williams, 43, returned Tuesday to the shopping center where she was buried beneath a collapsed ceiling in a manicure shop during the storm. She was pulled to safety by a stranger, she said. “I’m not lucky, I’m blessed,” said Williams, who had a 2-inch gash stitched above her left eyebrow and stitches on her right forearm. “I’m fine. I’m here. I’m in the land of the living.”


If I believed in a god, I would wonder why he was fucking with me, not thanking him for dumping a house on me.

I'll (not) Take the Fifth

THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

"Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." Ex. 20, 12.

'Honor your father and mother', you bet, or else be killed by your Hebrew dad. "for every child who curses his father or mother shall be killed" and with God's blessing. (Leviticus 20:9) Post that in schools and government buildings- that will make your kids behave.

Pat Condell

If you have never seen Pat Condell, check him out on Youtube and/or buy his DVD...here

Without God

“Without God, there would be no reason for people to be good. Where do you think morality and ethics come from? What’s to stop you from going on a rape and killing spree if you don’t believe in God?”

Someone actually said that to me recently, despite my claim that both morality and ethical behavior stem from a shared cultural and intuitive reality. Simply put- right and wrong exist in the nature of things. Certain actions can preserve or increase the happiness of man, while other actions cause sorrow and misery. Right and wrong are not revelations from some supernatural being, but have been learned through the experience and intelligence of man. There is nothing unworldly about morality; nothing magical about ethics. The effect of our conduct on others, as well as ourselves, is what determines its nature.

Throughout history, human beings have naturally objected to being maimed or killed, and so at all times they tried to protect themselves. It required no revelation from a god to make murder unpopular. The concept of self-preservation is in all of nature.

It is in our nature to know that torture is wrong. We don’t want to be tortured. We intuitively know that rape is wrong. We don’t want to be raped. We know that slavery is wrong. We don’t want to be slaves. Although these are three subjects of which the Bible is embarrassingly silent, except to occasionally advocate in the name of God, we still intuitively know that these things are wrong.

If there is an infinite god, he cannot make that wrong which in the nature of human experience is right. He cannot make ingratitude a virtue any more than he could make a round triangle. The foundation of morality is in the nature of actions and consequences, in the necessary relation between conduct and well-being, and an infinite god cannot increase or diminish the natural consequences of actions.

Even the Catholic Church teaches that human reason inclines people to seek the good and avoid sin, and that people would therefore still be prone to moral behavior even without knowledge of a revealed divine law. This natural law provides the foundation on which humans can build moral rules to guide its choices and regulate society. Other religious groups have adopted similar reasoning.

Morality can be seen in nature, and is not necessarily limited to humans. In a recent experiment, a pair of monkeys was placed in a situation where one monkey would receive a pellet of food when he pulled a chain. However, it would also deliver an electrical shock to the monkey’s companion. The result of the experiment was that the monkey who had access to the chain, starved himself for several days rather then see his companion shocked. This clearly demonstrates compassion and empathy. This clearly demonstrates ethical behavior from an animal quite like us that has no connection to religion.

Some people expect to make this world good by destroying desire, reasoning that if you don’t want anything, you won’t want anything bad. This is a kind of pious petrification that turns all energies towards the direction of repression, and away from growth. Nothing can be more immoral than to waste your own life, and sour that of others with this type of thinking.

In my mind, anything that wipes away a tear from the face of pain is moral. Anything that bursts into blossom, bearing the fruit of joy, is moral. Anything that gives good natured laughter to the world is moral, and is surely the most wonderful music that has ever enriched the ears of man.

Prayer Can Kill

In Wisconsin, an 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday.

Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said Madeline Neumann died Sunday.

"She got sicker and sicker until she was dead," he said.

Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.

The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said.

They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said. The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said.

But wait! That isn't the punchline…. read this...

The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.

"They are still in the home," he said. "There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."

Their sister is dead of stupidity and neglect; she died painfully with their dumbass parents hovering over her, chanting to their sky fairy. And this brain dead cop sees no sign of abuse?

Expelled- the Ben Stein movie

My review of this piece of trash....

Nazis? It’s all about Nazis? Did Stein get his ideas from Raiders of the Lost Ark?

In a parallel universe even crazier than our own, Ben Stein, former Nixon speechwriter turned ironic symbol of the anti-hip, may as well be making a documentary about how the Nazis used the “controversial” theory of gravity to make bombs fall to earth.

His idea is that, because the Nazi's thought it would be a good idea to breed people like animals, the theory of evolution must be wrong.

It’s nuttiness right from the opening moments. Images of Nazi atrocities and the terrors of life behind the Berlin Wall are smugly deployed in an attempt to editorialize away basic scientific fact.

Expelled isn’t about “intelligent design,” about an alternative scientific theory, or even about academic freedom. It’s about Stein believing he has proven that acceptance of evolution leads to atheism (and also, we’re told, to such horrors as birth control). Hence, evolution cannot be allowed to be true.

I know that Ben Stein is not stupid, but like many intelligent people that are raised in a religious environment, he just can't let go of iron-age ideas.

I have lost all respect for Ben Stein.

Vicarious Expiation

The Christian religion is based upon vicarious expiation.

It is taught that the very first man committed a crime in the eyes of God for which all of humanity was then held responsible. All men, throughout all time, were then proclaimed guilty of a sin for which they had no personal involvement. God essentially damned the entire human race for the actions of the first single human being.

God, in his wisdom, then devised a scheme to let man atone for the sins of another. This scheme allowed for the suffering of the innocent (in this case the Son of God) - in an extreme fashion, to pay for the perceived sins of the many.

To carry out his plan, God was himself born as a human being called Jesus Christ. God lived out this human life filled with kindness and mercy, and after 33 years, was sacrificed, taking the place of man- bearing his guilt and sin. In that way, God was then satisfied that the death of his own human persona would justify to himself that this sacrifice would allow him to forgive the sins of all who might believe in this action.

God justified the killing of himself in human form (Jesus Christ) as a means of transferring the sins of the sinners (all humans).

It is apparent that in the entire scheme of things, man is simply a bystander. God made the rules: he alone perceived the breaking of those rules as criminal- he alone decided that in order for man to atone for the perceived offenses, he must come to earth as a man and be killed, so that he can forgive mankind.

Aside from its closed-loop absurdity, and from a humanistic standpoint, the transference of guilt is simply not logical, moral, ethical, or humane. In human nature, and in what I like to call the “real world”, is it possible that civilized society would enforce a law that would require an innocent man pay for the crimes of another? Would we knowingly execute an innocent man in place of a criminal? Would we hold generational grudges and punish the sons for the crimes of the fathers? What purpose could that possibly serve? It simply makes no sense- yet, we have a religion based on those very precepts.

Let us pretend that a man who we will call Paul (who happens to be a Christian) killed his wife and children. The police had an airtight case against Paul. Even though Paul was guilty, a police officer (Jack) stepped forward and was willing to go to the electric chair in place of Paul. In that way, the police, the courts, and society as a whole, could forgive Paul because Jack took his place. Jack suffered and died for the sins of Paul. The police should be praised, as well as Jack for transferring the sins of Paul to Jack. In this way, Paul’s sins were forgiven. Does this seem logical to you?

To make innocence suffer is the greatest sin. To find logic and reason in the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible is impossible.

The 6th Commandment

In the Bible, the Ten Commandments are mentioned three times. The first time, God simply told Moses the commandments. The second time, God wrote the commandments on stone...and the third time God gave Moses some replacement commandment stones for the ones he (Moses) broke when he got pissed off at his tribe. It is very odd that these commandments are different from one moment to another...for instance, in the third and final set of commandments, the tenth commandment is actually "Though shalt not seethe a kid in it's mother's milk." You would think God could keep things straight, given the apparent importance. In any case, this is what the sixth commandment really means-

"Thou shalt not kill." Ex. 20, 13.

All 'thou shall not kill' meant is that thou shall not kill another Hebrew. The giver of the commandment, Moses, continued to order genocide, murder, a scorched earth policy and 'ethnic cleansing' on all of his enemies, and all with God's blessing. 'Thou shall not kill' was not understood by Moses, or the Israelites, or 'God' to be any kind of a moral or ethical prohibition of killing.

Baby Bible Thumpers

Prepare to be sickened by this video....Preaching Babies

Heywood Banks Big Butter Jesus

see Big Butter Jesus....Big Butter Jesus

Yippee

Anyone of you dumbasses know who Yip Harburg is? Anyone....anyone?
He was a lyricist who wrote all the words for all the songs in the Wizard of Oz. He also wrote many poems (and also happened to be an Atheist). Here is one that I liked-

Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree;

And only God who makes the tree
Also makes the fools like me.

But only fools like me, you see,
Can make a God, who makes a tree.

Read more about Yip at Yip Harburg

Pounds of Jesus

Given that there are over 1 billion Catholics in the world, and that the Catholic Church literally believes that the sacrament of communion transforms the eucharist wafer into the body of Christ through transubstiation, I estimate that over the course of 1 year, people eat over 14.5 million pounds of Jesus.
I am calculating that each wafer weighs 1/1000th of a pound, and assuming that 28% of Catholics are churchgoers....that then equates to 39.5 Boeing 747's which weigh in at 184 tons each. That's a lot of Jesus.

The Pope

Pope Benedict has left the country. One thing that he admitted is the fact that more than 5000 pedophile priests were involved over the years in the scandals that cost the church over $2 billion dollars. Of course he said he was ashamed, and that the Catholic Church has taken steps to alleviate of the problem. He has not said much about that subject, publicly, until now. I wonder why.

Meanwhile, looking at the black-collar crime blotter in "Freethought Today", it still continues...and is in fact flourishing. The rape of innocent children by these god-fearing men of the cloth will go on.
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be Catholics. Don't let em take communion or ride them popemobiles. Make em be atheists and agnostics and such.

My Exquiste Corpse Op-Ed

Surrealism began as a 20^th century movement of artists and writers who used fantastic images and incongruous juxtapositions in order to represent unconscious thoughts and dreams.

In 1928, a few early surrealists such as Joan Miro and Man Ray, played a parlor game known as “cadaver exquis” (exquisite corpse). This parlor game exploited the mystique of accident to form a collective collage of words or images. The game was played by several people, each of whom would write a phrase or draw an image on a piece of paper. Each person was only allowed to see the end of what the previous person wrote, as the paper was folded to only reveal a part of it to the next person. The next person would make his contribution and pass it along to the next player. At the end, the paper was then unfolded to reveal what was created. The game got its name from the initial phrase created, "Le cadavre exquis boira le vin nouveau" (The exquisite corpse will drink the young wine). These poetic fragments and images were thought to reveal an unconscious reality in the personality of the group, resulting from a process known as mental contagion. Mental contagion can be said to be a form of involuntary imitation, with the final product being an object of art created by the group consciousness…a surreal compilation.

With that in mind, and in investigating the origins of the Holy Bible, we know that the New Testament is not a single book, but a compilation of many books by various authors. Indeed, many of the books were initially circulated independently or in collections smaller than the New Testament. These books, whose attributed authorship has not been questioned for almost two millennia, have recently been subjected to critical historical research which has shown that all the books in the Bible are no longer held to be written by the people tradition has thought them to be. This discovery is not often communicated to the lay public, and as a result, most Christians and all fundamentalists still strongly believe in the traditional attribution of authorship.

The majority of Christians have only a vague idea about how the collection of these books was achieved. History shows the method was haphazard and was not carried out with the unanimous consent of early Christendom. The canonization process was a hodgepodge of mistaken authorship, faulty logic, and the politics of heresy. From the disputed authors to Marcion and Irenaeus, from Eusebius to Athanasius, from Constantine and the Council of Nicaea to the Council at Carthage, to all the various councils, popes, translators, and decision-makers throughout the years…the road to canonization was a rocky one….with the final authority being this entity called “The Church”.

In researching the authorship and the compilation of the books of the Bible, I am struck with how a form of mental contagion may have played a larger role in what would eventually become the Holy Bible as it exists today. This blend of history, myth, and folklore was pieced together in many forms from oral and written testimony and passed from one generation to another before it was eventually unfolded to reveal this strangely surreal object created by the church consciousness. This compilation, full of failed prophecies, internal contradictions, and scientific errors, could not have been inspired by an all-powerful god…a god who commanded the Israelites to enslave the cities which made peace with them, kill all male inhabitants, and to completely wipe out all the inhabitants of the cities in their inheritance…this god who commanded enslavement, murder, rape, and pillage. It is indeed surreal to think that Christians could reconcile this same god, through Jesus, saying "love your enemies" and yet know that he commanded these atrocities. This compilation is the work of men…only men.

In 325 A.D., three hundred men at Constantine’s insistence made a pivotal decision in the history of Christian theology…by popular vote and under threat from Constantine, they came to the conclusion that God and Jesus were of the same substance. In 333 A.D. Constantine decreed Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and ordered the closing of all Egyptian temples in an attempt to eradicate any and all competing religious systems.

Due to the power of the church, and Constantine in particular, a new testament was created and a Galilean Jew who died three centuries before the fateful Council of Nicaea, was put on the path to deification…thus becoming the world’s first “exquisite corpse”.

Op-Ed piece that I wrote for the Peoria Journal Star

There is a form of child abuse that is pervasive in our society, and condoned by the majority. It preys upon the ignorance of the young. It damages the minds of those that are too young to understand what is happening to them. It is permeated with superstition and relies upon subtle forces to subvert the minds of children.

It is religious indoctrination.

Children do not come out of the womb with a supernatural belief. They happen to be born into a family with a particular religion. And although it is often said that they have religious needs, it actually refers to their parent’s need to indoctrinate their own children. Religious teaching to children, like the exposure to any ideology where critical examination is discouraged, and despite its negative connotation, is still indoctrination.

We try and protect our children from the physical abuse of pedophile priests, yet we consent to the priestly subversion of children’s minds. We violate their basic rights, and take away their innocence. We discriminate against a section of society by not giving them the information they need in order to make an intellectual choice at some point in their future. It is not that we need to withhold information, bur rather to provide an abundance of unbiased equal access to all of the information available on the world’s religions.

Daniel Dennett, Co-Director for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, suggests that there should be compulsory education on world religions in all of our public and private schools. He says we should teach our children religion in a matter-of-fact, historically, and biologically informed way- the same way we teach them about geography and history and arithmetic. “Let’s get more education about religion in our schools, not less. We should teach them creeds and customs, prohibitions and rituals, the texts and the music, and include the positive- the role of the churches in the civil rights movement, the role of Black Muslims in bringing hope to many inmates in our prison, the flourishing of science and art in early Islam…and we should teach them the negative- the Inquisition, anti-Semitism, and the role of the Catholic Church in spreading AIDS in Africa. No religion should be favored, and none ignored.”

All major religious and non-religious groups would be invited to create self-portraits, in effect, of their traditions, including all the material they would want others to know about them, within agreed-upon limits. It might be a political hot potato, but who today does not see the importance of shining the light of reason on the claims made by various religions? We can add another R to the three R’s. In this new century, is it any less important?

Of course there would be objections from all fronts. There would be disagreements on the facts. Teachers might object that there isn’t enough time in their day. Parents might object that only they have the right to teach their children about religion.

These objections can be answered…

The self-portraits could be subject to challenge on grounds of factual inaccuracy, and groups of representatives would have an opportunity to propose important facts left out of the self-portraits. There would be plenty of checks and balances available to prevent religions from censoring shameful but undeniable truths on the one hand, and to prevent religions from ganging up to vilify minority religions on the other hand.

Given the state of the world and our widespread ignorance about religion, as well as the emotional power behind that ignorance, it is dangerous to let that ignorance continue unabated. We must make it fit into the curriculum.

Parents do not own their children, and have no right to treat them as slaves. They have no right to disable them with ignorance. As a normal part of any free society, there should be access to the same knowledge that is readily available to everyone.

By teaching our children the facts of religion, and only the facts, we can defend against the future excesses of it. We can provide them with both religious and non-religious worldviews so that they may learn to think, to investigate, and to use their own senses to develop their minds and live useful and happy lives.