Spoon-fed propaganda

"She had not a thought in her head that was not a slogan, and there was no imbecility, absolutely none, that she was not capable of swallowing if the Party handed it out to her." – George Orwell – 1984

It’s amazing how good quotes, like wine, just get better with time! I wonder if George knew just how close he would get to describing the flock in the 21st century? The thought probably didn’t cross his mind, as I’m sure he had his own group to contend with back in his day.

I was following a thread this evening, reading a discussion between two people regarding evolution. The antagonist (obviously the Christian) was ranting about how Evolution is not a fact, it is only a theory, and theories are not facts. And yes, it was a rant, because he required 5 of the 500-character-limit-reply windows to complete a single rebuttal! When clarification was made that there is a difference between “layman theories” and “scientific theories” the tone turned to indignation and the conversation was over.

Now, to be fair to this poor bastard, I doubt very seriously that the diatribe he was spewing was of his own thought. It was yet another regurgitation of the same sermon that’s been spoon-fed to the flock by people like Hovind, Ham, Comfort and the lot. Discussing matters with this type of believer is the truest definition of sado-masochism. It’s hard to describe whether the pain is worth the pleasure.

There is nothing wrong with using something that someone else said, but the problem is that after they say it, they can’t support it (unless they were fed the response as well). One of the signs to watch out for is when they use another of these spoon-fed statements to support another.

“He’s the immovable mover” – What’s that mean?

“It means He’s the Alpha and the Omega” – ORLY?

And when you keep on them, you’ll sometimes even get “he’s the beginning and the end” like it’s something different than the alpha/omega… LOL

Some of the others that I find humorous (and painful) are:

“you’ll burn in a lake of fire and with the gnashing of teeth” – Sometimes I think I would prefer hell to the void of nothingness that death represents. At least hell would be something. Samuel Clemens said that he didn’t worry about death, because it would be like billions of years before he was born. The difference is that once one’s experienced life, the scenario does change. It’s kind of like sex. You don’t know what you’re missing until you’ve had it!

“Jesus defeated death” – Um, 1) if you feel he’s god, then he couldn’t die, so there was no defeat. 2) if he resurrected, then he had to die, which means he did not defeat death. Face it, he died!

“Jesus paid your debt for you, so you could have eternal life” – Ok, so you’re telling me that I should feel guilty over a presumed design flaw, perpetuated by negligence on the part of the designer by leaving a toy in reach of the child, who then is damned (as well as all descendents) for playing with said toy? All things considered, paying for that debt is the least he could do, right?

“I’ll pray for you” – Two hands working accomplish more than 1,000,000 hands clasped together in prayer, but the two hands won’t fill the coffers like the 1,000,000 hands will.

“The lord works in mysterious ways” – Yep, because if he didn’t, it would likely bust your faith to shreds. After all, what other explanation could there be for bad things happening to ‘good’ people, and good things happening to ‘bad’ people?

“Only good comes from god” – This seems to ignore that, as the creator, ALL things would be the result of him, not just the good stuff.

“All the glory goes to god” – Watch a sporting event, or an awards presentation and you’ll see at least one person praising the almighty in thanks for the blessing bestowed. This seems self-indulgent. By letting you win, does that mean that god took his blessing from your opponent? If god helps the alcoholic stop drinking, is he not also to blame when the person goes back to drinking, because he didn’t help him quite enough?

“Atheists are baby-eaters” – HAHAHAHAHA. Yes, and I prefer mine extra-rare, with a side of mashed-believers, please. Seriously, where the hell do they come up with this shit?

“If it wasn’t for god, there’d be nothing to keep me from killing everyone” – Whoa, tiger! This really says a lot about the character of the person making this claim. First, it seems like the ONLY reason keeping them from doing that is the fear of punishment, which doesn’t seem like a good reason to me. A good reason would be that it is WRONG! Second, what the hell are these people being brain-washed into believing?

“More people have been killed in the name of atheism than religion” – This is just utter nonsense, and a strawman to remove the focus from all the blood that has been (and still is being) spilled in god’s name. Hitler was not an atheist. He’s one of those ‘Not a Real Christian’ people. He was raised Roman Catholic, he wrote about his religious beliefs in Mein Kampf and his diaries, he followed the centuries old anti-Semitism practices (to the extreme) and was NEVER excommunicated from the Catholic church (which means that at least SOME other Christians viewed him as a real Christian). Stalin’s genocide was not really done in the name of his atheistic-communistic belief, as much as it was a control issue. Mao and Pol-Pot I haven’t read up on, but I’d be willing to bet that the lack of belief in god was the reason that all those people died.

I may not believe what you believe, or agree with what you believe, but for your god's sake, at least believe in something for your own sake, and not because of something that someone told you...

Christians Say The Darnedest Things

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” – The Princess Bride

Every time I watch that movie, that line makes me laugh my ass off. I think it is because it’s delivered with honest sincerity. I just wish that I could have the same honest sincerity when I want to quote it in real life. Over about the last 3 years, I have spent some time discussing, debating, and/or arguing religious topics with friends and strangers, alike. In many of these little discussions, the person I’m speaking to will use a word, or phrase, in such a way that it is almost painful.

“Since evolution is only a theory, the bible must be right” – This is wrong on so many levels. First, even if evolution was ever proved to be wrong, that doesn’t mean the bible is, by default, correct. This would be a false dichotomy. The second problem is with the definition of the word ‘theory’. In scientific studies, it does not mean a guess, like it would mean to a layman. It’s funny how none of the other scientific theories (special relativity, gravity, music, quantum mechanics, etc) are disputed as invalid. Only evolution is given that prestigious position, but then again, music theory has never really threatened their fragile belief system, has it?

“God sacrificed his only son for you” – I love it when they leave out ‘begotten’ until you remind them that the OT says that the angels were also the ‘sons of god’. They also get pissed off when you question them on what exactly was the sacrifice? If jesus was god (as Christians claim), he knew he was coming back after a long weekend. So, again I ask, where was the sacrifice in his actions?

“Noah took 2 of each animal on the ark with him, one male and one female” – Ut oh… Someone hasn’t really read the bible now, have they? This is another gripe of mine. It seems that many believers are only regurgitating scripture that has been spoon-fed to them, but that’s another topic for another time!

“The devil tempted Eve” – What??? Those that don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. (If you wonder where the geniuses at the TX board of Education got the idea to change history, just remember that the Christians have been doing it for centuries). When you read the Hebrew bible, the only thing special about the serpent was it talked! When you read the Hebrew commentary, it is just a talking snake! It takes a special type of arrogance to change someone else’s history, and an even bigger ignorance to think that no one will call bullshit on you in the process.

“Jesus never tells people to kill or condones killing” – This is one of my favorites. If this isn’t special pleading, I don’t know what the hell is. Once you remind them of their own teachings, the silence is truly deafening. The father and the son are one. So, according to their beliefs, Jesus (as the father) DID condone and, in many cases, command his people to kill other people.

“He/she wasn’t a REAL Christian” – Yet another wonderful gem of hypocrisy. Who is the judge of this? I bet if you asked Jim Jones or David Koresh (or any of their followers) if they were real Christians, I doubt any one of them would deny it. What is a REAL Christian? It seems that any time someone that represents Christianity in a bad light are ostracized like a red-headed step child.

“Jesus came to save us all” – Again, I would suggest actually reading the bible. Jesus was not here for anyone except for the Hebrews. The bible only mentions him helping 2 non-jewish people, the roman soldier and the gentile woman that taught the teacher (telling jesus that even the dog gets the scraps from the master’s table). It wasn’t until he was taking the “cloud-evator to heaven”, after realizing that the Hebrews weren’t ready, that he tells his merry men to go out into the world. Nobody likes to be an after-thought, which is why this doesn’t get discussed much.

Art Linkletter used to have a show called “Children say the darnedest things”. I think we know where he got the inspiration for that show now, don’t we???

Moral, Immoral or Amoral…

I was watching one of my *favorite* fundamentalists on YouTube. As painful as it is to watch his videos, it’s still refreshing to see that his view is still protected under the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion. He’s a geo-centrist, a fundamentalist, and the up-coming poster child for the Texas Department of (mis)Education.

On one of his recent videos, he was trying to breakdown certain words, to show that we atheists are not using the right word to describe ourselves. One of the words he chose as an example was ‘amoral’. He gave the definition of it from Merriam-Webster:

1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply

I know this wasn’t his intention, but his rambling made me stop the video and consider this point: Am I a moral person?

I like to think that I know the difference between right and wrong. But that still doesn’t answer the question of whether I am what a religious person would consider ‘moral’.

Reading through the bible, I see many things that I personally consider immoral being praised as moral, and many things I see no problem with being condemned as immoral and abominations.

Here are just a few examples of what I mean:

Gen 19:8
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

(It is apparent that women have no significance in their culture, and their strong family values are really lacking as well)

Deut 20:12-14
12And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

(When you invade and they don’t surrender, Your God commands you to murder all the men. No, it’s not killing. YOU are the aggressor. It is MURDER! Then, after that, you can rape their women and take their children as slaves. And why you ask? Because your lord has given them to you, that’s why!)


Gen 6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

(Global genocide. Nothing else to say about this one, it’s pretty obvious my objections here.)

I find it offensive to be judged for telling a ‘little-white-lie’ as being immoral, by the same person of faith that reads and believes it is required to stone your children to death for disobedience. Or that people of the same sex will destroy the sanctity of marriage while Christians still lead the statistics in domestic violence and divorce.

If you define ‘morality’ as a set of societal guidelines of what is right and wrong, based upon what is good for the whole without being discriminating against the individual, then I would consider myself a morally sound person. But if you insist on making outrageous claims that morality can only come from the God of the Bible, then not only do I consider myself to be a proud atheist, but I now consider myself to be a very proud amoral atheist.

A Christian Nation?

If the US was actually founded on christian beliefs, and if our founding fathers were such spiritual and religious men, then why are we a democratic republic, instead of a theocracy?

I have heard from everyone of my christian friends that the US is a christian nation, and how George, Thomas, Ben and friends were all very devout christian men who wanted god in every aspect of our government. But when you start questioning them, not one answer is available...

- Which sect of christianity were the founding fathers?
- Which of the dozen's of sects would be our national religion?
- Why would the founding fathers specifically make the first amendment to the bill of rights contrary to this position?

I have read from various sources that our founding fathers ranged from atheists to deists to theists. The exact numbers are always in dispute, but I don't think their beliefs or their numbers are of importance and I'll tell you why. Most of the founding fathers were educated men. They knew the history of religion in Europe and they knew the short history of their new homeland.

Many of the early settlers were people that were escaping religious persecution by the Church of England. (Imagine that, christians fighting against christians!). You would think that their past would make them more tolerant of other religions in the New World, but sadly that wasn't the case. Once again, the different sects of christ followers would persecute and, in many cases, kill each other for no other reason than being of a different variation of the faith.

The founding fathers knew that allowing religious beliefs to become part of the government would propogate these actions. The government would promote their religion and disregard everyone of contrary beliefs.

The only way to provide religious freedom for all citizens was to ensure that the government was void of any religious allegiance. If an Anglican was president, the Baptists needn't fear being outcast because their dogma differed from the establishment. Many people refer to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment as the 'atheist loophole'. It seems more to be something that was placed in motion for the protection of believers, to guarantee that regardless of their beliefs, they have the right to practice.

When I asked my christian friend how you can tell if someone is a true christian? Is it by their professing to be a christian, or is it by their actions? He said that many will profess to be christian but in reality are not. A more accurate method would be by their actions. I think that the same measuring stick should apply to our founding fathers and our Constitution/government.



You can yell and scream at the top of your lungs (professing) that the founding fathers and the government are christian, but the actions (the Constitution and Bill of Rights) speak louder than all of your yelling! We were born a secular nation, for the prosperity of all citizens, not just the ones that share the current administrations beliefs, and we are STILL a secular nation!

Empire State & Mother Teresa

I was looking through today's Google News Alerts and there was an article about The Empire State Building getting into hot water with the Catholic League, other christian groups, and the New York City Council. The problem is that they have declined the request to honor the celebration of Mother Teresa's 100th birthday.

I don't see the problem here at all. The Empire State Building is owned by a private company, Malkin Holdings. Much like every frigging church in America, they can decide what to do with their property.

If a religious organization has the right, based upon their beliefs, to deny performing marriages to same-sex couples, or fire a teacher at a private christian school for pre-marital sex, then I say that the owners of the privately held Empire State Building can decide exactly whom they wish to honor and whom they wish not to honor.

My stance would be completely different if the building was in the hands of the people and the government. In that case, the policy would have to be all or none. If we do it for Mother Teresa, then you'd better be prepared to do it for Joseph Smith (LDS), Mohammed (Just don't draw a picture of him), Vishnu, etc...

So, calling all catholic leaders... Open up the churches for gay marriage, or how about stopping the bullshit about condoms helping spread AIDS/HIV and then we'll talk about helping you fight for Mother Teresa's honor.

The Ten Commandments?

A coworker of mine and I were talking one day about religion and we got on the topic of the 10 Commandments. He said that even I had to agree that all of our laws in America were based upon them, and the reason our laws are based upon them is they came from god.

First, a little background on my coworker. He was a minister at his church, and attending school to become a pastor. He is very devout in his beliefs, and even though he and I disagree on spiritual matters, I respect the hell out of him. He is the type of Christian that is open-minded enough to answer your questions without getting butt-hurt in the process.

Now, back to his statement regarding the 10 Commandments. I asked him what he meant by that. He said that without the 10 Commandments, we would have no authority to determine what good and bad is, and society would be evil and chaotic.

I asked him if he felt that people didn't realize that it was wrong to kill before the supposed divine revelation from god? He said that they couldn't have known it was wrong. I chuckled a little at his reply. He asked what I thought was funny, and I asked him if he remembered why Moses fled from Egypt at the age of 40? He thought for a second, and said it was because he had killed an Egyptian that was beating a slave. I let that sink in a little and then said, was it because he killed someone, or was it because he was going to be punished (put to death himself) for commiting murder?

Apparently, the Egyptian culture had a series of laws in place regarding morality and civil conduct. Genesis 39-42 talk about Joseph's stay in the Egyptian penal system (BTW, his crime was apparently forcing himself on another man's woman). I'm not sure what the other criminals were incarcerated for, but it would seem like there were laws that required obedience in common practice prior to the Exodus.

Such reverence is given to Moses in the bible (both the old and new testaments) and even in the qu'ran. But I find him to be more of an enigma. Let's look at what the bible says about him. He was born a slave and placed in an arc and set adrift on the Nile. The Pharoah's daughter finds him and claims him as her son. He is raised as Egyptian royalty, and is heir to the throne of Egypt. Then, at the age of 40 he kills an Eqyptian who is beating a slave. He then flees to save his own life.

The puzzling part of this to me is the whole 'prince of egypt' thing. If he was heir to be Pharoah, would he really be punished for killing anyone? I would say no, unless the Egyptians had very strict laws.

Exactly when the Exodus occurred has been up for debate, and probably always will be, but it seems to be a window from about 1200 BCE to 1500 BCE. So, even giving them the benefit of the doubt by using the older date, than means that the Sumerian "Code of Ur-Nammu" predates the commandments by over 600 years. Hell, that means that those laws were being practiced even before the Hebrews were supposedly enslaved. And more to the point, the codes of the Sumerian culture seem to be much less about gods and more about what the consequences are for your actions.

I can't really argue against the statement that our laws today are modeled after the 10 Commandments (at least the "Don't Kill, Don't Steal" ones), but that really isn't the point of my banter there. My point is that those Commandments didn't come from god, but instead from the steady cultural evolution of society itself.

Do as I say, Not as I do...

I saw a funny window sticker on the back of a couple of cars on my way home from today. The cars were parked in the driveway of one of my neighbors. The stickers said "Future Quest - 2010". For those not familiar with Future Quest, it is a 3-day youth conference at a nearby church. The goal of the conference is "... to train up young people to be bold disciples of Jesus."

It wasn't the stickers that made me laugh, it was the owners of the cars. This neighbor that has had the police called many times for domestic violence disturbances... Husband beating wife, wife beating husband, husband beating children, etc... The last time that I'm aware of it happening, I had his son knocking on my front door, hiding in the shadows of my driveway from the police. His father was beating his mother, and the boy had had enough of it. He sucker punched his old man and knocked him out cold. When he came to, he chased the boy out of the house and called the cops on him. (And sadly, the mom was completely supportive of the dad!).

I kept the boy safe that night, and made sure he had a place to go the next day. Hopefully the talk I gave him helped him out (he returned home about a week later and is living at home again).

I've talked to the parents many times, both before and after that particular incident, and can't believe their utterly disgusting elitest attitude towards everyone else. To use an expression I heard a lot growing up "They feel their shit doesn't stink!". They used to invite my family to their church a couple of times a month, telling us that it would be good to be saved and to put our trust in Jesus. After months of this, I finally told them that I was an atheist. They couldn't have looked more shocked if I had pulled Jesus out of my ass! They gave up on me (thank god - pun intended!) and doubled-up on my wife. They told her that for the children's sake, she needed to get them baptized and into church. Their immortal souls were in danger living with the enemy!

Now, I've read the bible several times, cover to cover, and I guess I've missed the parts that talk about it being moral to beat your wife and children. It does say you can kill your children if they are disrespectful, but nothing about beating the shit out of them. So where do these people get off thinking that they are living a 'moral' life? Could it be the very same church that is sponsoring this Future Quest?

Do these people really feel they are a bold disciple of Jesus?

If that's the case, then I will have to live, and eventually die, with my eternal thankfulness that I'm free from that type of moral teaching!

Welcome to my thoughts

A hearty welcome to you.

I am an atheist!

Regardless of what believers will tell you, in today's American society, that is a difficult statement to make. I have lost family and friends because of my (lack of) belief. Some of my daughters' friends are no longer allowed to play or visit with them.

But is living a lie, just for social acceptance, really worth it?

I don't share the same past of many atheists. I wasn't raised in an overly religous home. My parents are more spiritual than religous. They gave us the freedom to find our own way and choose our own beliefs. There was never a lack of love in our household. And even without the church, they raised 3 morally responsible children. (Thanks Mom and Dad, I love you!)

Growing up, I tried to become one of the flock several times, but the more I learned, the less I wanted to become part of it. None of it made any sense. I didn't see "God's Love" anywhere in the teachings. I think it's possible that I didn't see it because I didn't need it. I was raised with an abundance of love, and really didn't feel the need to look for more.

After years of avoiding the topic, I grew weary of listening to people preach their beliefs without even really knowing what they believed. I have these 'spoon-fed-Christians' to thank for my coming out of the closet! I felt a little sad for them that I knew more about their religion than they did.

I want to use this blog as a place to put my thoughts down.