Suffer Little Children... Sickening Creationist Indoctrination

This made me sad beyond belief.

Singing songs to impressionable minds to convince them that dinosaurs and man enjoyed a happy existence together a few thousand years ago!!! This should be a criminal offence.

What chance do children indoctrinated with creationist bullshit have of becoming scientists, doctors, geologists, etc? The only career paths open to these poor kids are preachers or politicians.

Watch and weep at the incredulity of the mother of one child, "When you look at the Bible it just makes sense, it's easier to teach your children".

I am reminded of Luke 18:16 "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."

Okay So This Is What We are Dealing With...

This is from "The Atheist Experience" with Matt Dillahunty.

The caller asks the reasonable question "How do you know God isn't real?"

The descent into total ignorance is beyond belief.& It seems that our caller feels equipped to argue even though he does not know what "physics" is!

Enjoy, or more likely suffer and cringe...

Evidence for the Resurrection - Well I Know 500 People Who Saw It...

What is is about a Christian's inability to critically examine a claim? Is it an inability, or rather an unwillingness, just in case the claim turns out to be bogus?

Without the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the tenets of Christianity are without substance. A Christian believes (faithfully) that Jesus was the divine son of God, that he was sacrificed to save us from our sins, and that he rose from the dead in a miraculous event. Never mind for a moment that any of that does not make a jot of sense, even if it were true.

The paucity of evidence for this claim seems not to worry your average Christian. Outside of the Bible, there are no contemporary accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Even the Gospels were written some 70 - 140 years after the supposed resurrection of Christ.

A claim often touted by Christian supporting the historicity of the resurrection is the number of witnesses to the sight of Christ after the crucifixion. Paul the Apostle appeals to his audience that there were over 500 people witness to Christ's resurrection, many of whom were alive at the time of Paul's appeal.

1 Corinthians 15:6 "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."

Over 500 eye-witness accounts testifying that they saw the living body of Christ. Who can possibly doubt this claim?

Nothing has been found in the historical record substantiating ANY of these eye-witness accounts, other than Paul's appeal to his audience that these people existed. He's actually saying "If you don't believe me, go ask them for yourself."

Well for a start, can anyone name any of them or where they lived?

Secondly, why did not one of them run home and write about it? Or tell a contemporary about the event, who then might have put the story to paper?

This seems to settle the matter for your average Christian. Paul says there were eye-witnesses, and that's good enough "evidence" for me.

Sorry but it's not good enough. It's not even close.

Imagine you were testifying at a murder trial and under cross examination you told judge and jury that you knew of eye-witnesses who actually saw the murder take place.

"Fantastic, case proven beyond reasonable doubt" says the prosecutor.

The defense attorney might be tempted to ask "Can you name any of these eye-witnesses so we can call them to testify?"

"Well no I can't name any of them, but believe me they saw it happen." you reply.

You've heard the expression "laughed out of court" before I take it?

Were every single one of these alleged 500 eye-witnesses illiterate and/or mute? Why did not one of them write an account of this miraculous event?

Surely some would have run home and said "You'll never believe what I saw this morning honey..."

If 500 eye-witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, surely someone, somewhere would have managed to record this event for posterity?

Clearly not. But to a Christian the simple claim by Paul the Apostle in a letter he wrote is enough evidence to support their fantasies.

The trouble is, a Christian wants it to be true. If it's not, then they have some issues to deal with. You want the truth? A Christian can't handle the truth... which is strange since they are always telling us about God's Truth.

I Didn't See God's Name on the Ballot Did You?

This is exactly the reason why I am a "militant atheist". I don't want to live in a theocracy thank you very much! I don't care which magical daddy in the sky you follow, I will not be an adherent of his or her rules.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has overturned a state legislation that previously extended benefits to domestic partners. For "domestic partner" read, "living in sin perverted Satanist's".

This law was on the state legislation for only a year before Brewer got her hands on it. Additionally Brewer has eliminated children of domestic partners, full-time students ages 23-24 and disabled adult dependents.

Surprise, surprise, would you believe it, she thinks she's on a mission from the Christian god, "God has placed me in this powerful position as Arizona's Governor to help the state weather its troubles".

In doing God's work Brewer is under the impression that she should enforce bigotry and hatred against those who do not conform to her religious beliefs. This is a sneaky backdoor attack on same sex domestic partners and those living together in "sin" without a god-sanctioned marriage certificate.

This is why only avowed atheists should be allowed to govern.

All elected officials sworn in must include a blasphemous statement about the Holy Spirit to demonstrate their atheist position. As we all know, according to Mark 3:29 "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." It is the only unforgivable "sin" and guarantees a place in the fires of Hell.

Only then can we be assured that decisions made about our lives are not based on Bronze Age superstition, but more likely to be based on reason, good judgment and fairness.

Deceptive "Rapture" Doctrine Dupes Millions - How's That News?

From Christian Newswire Monday April 26, 2010

Oh the irony is strong with this one.  Steve Wohlberg, TV producer, radio host and bestselling author explains, "Look carefully, all New Testament verses quoted to promote the secret rapture doctrine--1 Thess. 4:17; 1 Cor. 15:52; Matt. 24:40—don't teach it at all. They really apply to the highly visible, loud, earthshaking Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and not to the novel and unbiblical notion of 'disappearing Christians' seven years before the end."

The "The Rapture" is the concept where millions of Christians believe that they will fly up into the sky to be taken to heaven in Jesus' arms.  Wohlberg disputes this stating that it has no Biblical support and then explains the history of The Rapture and how it became a Christian meme.

Of course Wohlberg is absolutely correct on this matter.  Where Wohlberg is wrong, is that he doesn't seem to understand the the whole idea of a divine Jesus and his Second Coming (weather permitting) is also complete fantasy.

Wohlberg has written a book with words and everything, more details here.

National Day of Doing What The Hell You Want

Appropriately the National Day of Prayer has been ruled unconstitutional as the government has absolutely taken sides with a religious worldview. The fact that a government sponsored day of support for the Christian faith even happened in the first place is mind boggling. On reflection I think not, it was a Bush initiative after all.

What is it about the simple concept of the separation of church and state that people find so hard to understand? People may disagree with it and prefer a Theocracy in its stead, but we live in a democracy where the law is king. Fight the law if you feel justified, but do so through the proper channels.

The constitution is clear on this issue and trying to sneak exceptions through the back door is disingenuous. There is no case to reinstate the prayer day and arguing for it is going against the constitution as it stands. You may argue that the constitution requires amendment and that the separation of church and state should be dissolved. Argue that and I'll fight you tooth and nail, but you can and do have the right to argue your case. But you do not have the right to flip the bird at the constitution and go ahead with your plans regardless.

I may have a win-win suggestion. The National Day of Prayer could be replaced with a National Day of Reflection. If you want to pray you most certainly can, but if you want to actually do something useful, you can have a think about things and see what you come up with. This idea in no way lends credence to any specific religion, it just simply supports the notion that you take some time out to reflect. And we could all do with some of that, right?

Once Again, Women Responsible For Their Own Rapes

Blame the victim: Religious leaflet claims ‘ungodly’ dressed women provoke rape

By Claire Galofaro
| Police Beat Reporter - Bristol Herald Courier

Published: February 28, 2010

Updated: March 1, 2010

BRISTOL, Va. – Nineteen-year-old Keshia Canter handed three burgers, fries and milkshakes to a car-load of Tuesday afternoon customers at the Hi-Lo Burger’s drive-though window. A lady sitting in the backseat leaned forward, between the two men in front, and handed her a leaflet: “Women & Girls” it said across the top.

“Even though nothing is showing, you’re being ungodly,” Canter recalled the woman telling her. “You make men want to be sinful.”

Canter was wearing boots pulled up over jeans, a pink zebra-print shirt with a black jacket zipped up over it. She has blond hair, dark eye make-up and a little red lip ring. “I just asked if she needed any salt, pepper or ketchup,” Canter said. “I mean, how do I respond to that?”

Minutes later, Canter’s mother, Pam Yates, who owns the restaurant, returned from the bank. Canter handed her “Women & Girls” and Yates started reading.

“You may have been given this leaflet because of the way you are dressed,” it begins. “Have you thought about standing before the true and living God to be judged?”

It continues with one essential theme: The sins of men are, in part, the fault of women, specifically women in tight-fitting clothing. Yates was annoyed. Then she got to a section on page two:

“Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts a men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin,” the leaflet states. “By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?”

The hand-out is signed “anonymous.”

Yates was angry.

“What if my daughter had been a rape victim?” she said. “I hope that they never handed this to anyone, especially a young person, who’s been through that and struggles with that daily. And then they get handed something that says they are at fault. I cannot believe that a Christian, someone who walks in God’s shoes, would have made this.”

Leaflet in hand, Yates locked eyes with the old man driving the old white car, still parked in the lot, and stormed outside. The car quickly drove away.

Sandra G. Rasnake, the sexual assault program director at Bristol’s Crisis Center, had one eyebrow cocked as she read through the leaflet Thursday morning.

She cocked the other as she read aloud: “some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly.”

“Wow,” she said. “This idea that men don’t have enough self control – and evidently they shouldn’t have to – plays into all the old myths that we’ve tried for years to overcome: Rape happens to 2-year-olds and 92-year-olds, not just attractive young women. How about we hold the person doing the action accountable, whoever it is going against the will and consent of somebody else?”

Rasnake said she confronts similar ideas, although not generally printed and distributed in mass, from the women she talks with daily. Victim blaming, she said, is the most prominent reason rapes are so rarely reported and even more rarely taken to trial. Sexual assaults, she said, come in second for the country’s worst conviction rates.

Victims blaming themselves often comes from a religious place, but not always, Rasnake said. It’s become a societal defense mechanism for dealing with issues of sexual assault.

“Blaming victims is the way we who have not been victimized feel safer,” Rasnake said. “If it’s their fault then I’m safer because I wouldn’t do that. If someone steals your purse, can you imagine someone asking why you had a purse? If you are sexually assaulted, it is not because you come with breasts.”

The Rev. Bill Houck, pastor of Northstar Christian Church, shared Rasnake’s concerns about the leaflet.

“It is this type of thinking that would cause a woman not to report being raped and to somehow think it is her fault,” Houck wrote in an e-mail. “As a Christian, a father and a husband, that is a horrific statement. The rapist is wrong period.”

Houck also questioned the leaflet’s interpretation of its occasionally cited Bible passages.

“You must look at the cultural context,” he wrote. “I was surprised the article did not reference Peter 3. Many of the same ideas are put forth. Here, it gets to the crux of the issue where the Bible says that a lady’s lifestyle should be focused more on the inner person than the outward clothing. This is why, while I agree with ‘modest’ dress, there is so much more to this issue.”

Houck said his 19-year-old daughter, a student at King College, asked why the leaflet doesn’t mention how men should dress.

“If I choose to sin, that’s my choice,” Houck wrote.

Rasnake was similarly perplexed by the leaflet’s little faith in mankind.

“It’s insulting to men,” she said. “The men that I know and associate with are not so lust-driven that they cannot control their urges. By this person’s argument, everyone working at Hooters deserves to be raped.”

cgalofaro@bristolnews.com | (276) 645-2531

Source here.

I'll Believe What You Believe...

If religion was based on "truth" and not upbringing surely we would not see geographical cluster's of faiths.

A pantheistic approach might support this observation.  If each god has selected his or her own region and garnered followers there, it stands to reason that religions would be clustered.  But this logic fails for monotheistic faiths.  If there is one true god, why the clustering?

The answer is most likely as simple as you believe what your parents believe.  Your parents followed theirs and so on.  Cultures consolidate their beliefs and people herd towards the norm.

If people genuinely chose their own religion (or lack thereof), distribution would be random, with concentrated groups here and there.  However, to expect that entire countries and even continents follow a certain religion, strongly supports the notion that belief is passed from generation to generation.  My entire family is Catholic.  My parents, their parents etc.  Passing their beliefs on to their offspring was second nature.  As children we were dressed in our best and carted to church every Sunday.  Funerals, weddings, baptisms, all followed the cultural biases of my family.  There was not one single Muslim, Rastafarian, Zoroastrian, Mormon, Jew or Pastafarian among us.

Most people of a religious persuasion do not seem to question this lack of diversity of faith among their own.  Is cultural brainwashing is so subtle that the thought would not cross ones mind that perhaps they believed by rote?

Only by taking a step back and asking yourself why you believe, do you stand a chance of breaking free from the killing grip of dogma.

Experimental Support for The Unchanging Word of Yahweh?

This is for those of you who believe the Bible to be the inerrant literal Word of your god Yahweh.  Genesis 11: 1-9 (KJV) tells us the story of men collectively building a tower "whose top may reach unto heaven".

The attempt to erect the Tower angered Yahweh so much so that he intervened, and in a testable manner as stated in Genesis 11: 5 "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children built.".  This was a response of affirmative action in which Yahweh is evident in his intervention. Yahweh was displeased at his "children" acting together in such a manner as it would mean that if they were self sufficient, then they would not need God, in fact they would become as gods themselves.

Using the literal, unchanging Word of God as our guide, we can therefore draw the following conclusions:

1) It is possible to build a tower that reaches unto heaven, otherwise Yahweh would not have intervened;

2) Yahweh does not want mortal men building towers that can reach heaven;

3) The situation remains the same today; Yahweh still does not want people to build towers that can reach heaven (God's word is unchanging if you recall);

4) Translation of languages is an implied sin as Yahweh separated tongues with the intent that they could no longer communicate.  This would include translating the Bible from its original language as a sin.

Therefore, now we have a testable and falsifiable methodology for finding evidential support for the existence of Yahweh.  We simply need to erect a tower "whose top may reach unto heaven".  God will surely intervene as he did before, and prevent his children from achieving this aim.  If no intervention occurs we can conclude one of the following:

1) The Word of God has changed, or;

2) Yahweh does not exist;

If Yahweh does show up then we can of course conclude that the Word of God is constant and unchanging, and of course that Yahweh is not only real, but is the one true God.

This is the ultimate experiment that creation scientists can perform to test their hypothesis.  Once Yahweh pops in to smite us, you can write up your paper for peer review, and proudly (oops that's a sin) accept your Nobel Prize.

I therefore challenge any creationist to demonstrate scientifically (that's the "science" bit in your "creation science") that their biblical world-view holds water by performing the following testable, falsifiable experiment.

Creation science hypothesis:

1. Yahweh exists;

2. Yahweh is the one true God;

3. The Bible is the inerrant Word of Yahweh;

4. Yahweh will intervene if displeased (see Tower of Babel above).

Experiment:

1. Build a big fuck off tower to reach the heavens

Methodology:

1. Use bricks and shit and keep on going until Yahweh gets involved (this could take some time).

Conclusions:

1. This is the biggie - the conclusion occurs AFTER the experiment has been performed, not BEFORE.

 I look forward to seeing your results published in a recognized scientific journal.

The Holy Terror

Interesting, if frightening, article on the activities of some end-times Christian terror groups.

The Return of Christian Terrorism

By Mark Juergensmeyer

April 8, 2010

Last week when Scott Roeder, the murderer of Wichita Kansas abortion clinic provider Dr. George Tiller, had his day in court, he spent much of his rambling self-defense quoting the words of another abortion clinic assassin, Reverend Paul Hill. In the 1990s my own research had brought me into conversation with others in the inner circle in which Hill and Roeder were at that time involved. So it was a chilling experience for me to realize that this awful mood of American Christian terrorism—culminating in the catastrophic attack on the Oklahoma City Federal Building—has now returned.

Christian terrorism has returned to America with a vengeance. And it is not just Roeder. Last week, when members of the Hutaree militia in Michigan and Ohio recently were arrested with plans to kill a random policeman and then plant Improvised Explosive Devices in the area where the funeral would be held to kill hundreds more, this was a terrorist plot of the sort that would impress Shi’ite militia and al Qaeda activists in Iraq. The Southern Poverty Law Center, founded by Morris Dees, which has closely watched the rise of right-wing extremism in this country for many decades, declares that threats and incidents of right-wing violence have risen 200% in this past year—unfortunately coinciding with the tenure of the first African-American president in US history. When Chip Berlet, one of this country’s best monitors of right-wing extremism, warned in a perceptive essay last week on RD that the hostile right-wing political climate in this country has created the groundwork for a demonic new form of violence and terrorism, I fear that he is correct.

God: The Great Game of Hide-and-Seek

Science works and here's how.  A scientist will ask a simple question such as "how does 'x' work?".  Scientist will then form a hypothesis (educated guess) as to how "x" might work.  Scientist will then test hypothesis experimentally and the results (evidence) will either support or falsify the hypothesis.  Once scientist has evidence to support the hypothesis, scientist will publish findings and these will be reviewed and tested by other qualified scientists.  These scientists will attempt to find weaknesses in the hypothesis and replicate the evidence under their own controlled experiments.  If hypothesis is not falsified then the scientists will provisionally accept the hypothesis of how "x" works until such a time a new evidence, or more comprehensive hypothesis comes to light.

This process has been repeated many millions of times by qualified scientists, and this is why we have a longer life expectancy, why the internet works, why we understand how life evolves, why mothers usually survive childbirth and many, many more examples of the amazing benefits science has brought to humankind.

During these millions and millions of experiments and tests, not one time has it occurred that in order for "x" to work, god must have performed action "y".  Not once, never!  Scientists have explored and tested and hypothesized and theorized, and it has never been the case that a supernatural cause needed to be invoked.

And as these gaps in our knowledge shrink over time, religions constantly attempt to insert their gods into these holes in our current understanding.  Every single time that a scientist closes one of these holes, god vanishes almost as if he was never needed in the first place.  The holes are shrinking by the day as scientists resolve unknowns and improve our understanding of nature.  God is getting smaller and less necessary as an explanatory power for the mysteries of life.

The religious hold on to abiogenesis as the last bastion of god.  Science has not yet figured out how the first non-organic molecules evolved into self replicating organic life forms.  The religious see this as a massive hole and immediately insert their deity of choice into the gap.  Scientists would never show such hubris and claim knowledge of something that escapes explanation at that moment.  They say "I don't know, but I'm working on it".  The religious will say "god did it, and not only that, I know what this god looks like, what he wants, and that if you don't believe this too, you will suffer for eternity".  That is hubris and at a godlike scale.

The gaps are shrinking and god is neither required nor has a supernatural action ever been detected. God is hiding, but we have counted up to 10 and we are coming, ready or not.

Believers Do You Really, Really, Believe?

Well?  It's an honest question.  A believer is convinced that there is a supernatural creator who watches your every deed and is aware of your every thought.  Is that creepy or what?  But what is even creepier is that this peeping Tom is judging youand will decide to reward or punish you upon your expiration.  If you fail to obey the laws of this vicious dictator you will be punished with an eternity of torment in a lake of fire, and that has got to suck balls.

These are high stakes and make no mistake about it.  Your finite existence will be punished by infinite torture if you make just one decision that your creator does not like.  If you are male and you suck just one penis, you are going to go to Hell.  Just one, and even if you were drunk at the time!  Eternal damnation for having the temerity to enjoy a penis, that sounds a bit harsh to me.

There is no escape from this problem.  Your God knows what you have done, and also knows what you will do, so your fate is sealed even before birth.  You must act and think in a specified manner else you will suffer when you finally check out.  This must fill you with terror, creating a hell-on-earth for all true believers.  Even if you are "currently" saved, you don't know what the future holds and you still may end up in the underworld.

A person who genuinely believes that he or she is being constantly watched and judged would never digress.  It is basic economics, the price is too high.  Failure to observe instructions to the letter will result in a punishment that never, never ends.  Unless of course you don't really believe this shit.  For example, if I knew that my mother was watching me, I would not masturbate.  Nothing on earth could convince me to play "Mr. Wobbly Hides His Helmet" if I knew my mother was watching.  I reiterate, nothing!!!

But believers digress all the time.  Here is just a shortlist of high profile disgraced preachers;

Ted Haggard

Jim Bakker

Kent Hovind

Todd Bentley

Jimmy Swaggart

Tammy Bakker

Lonnie Frisbee

James Hargis

Marjoe Gortner

Peter Popoff

Morris Cerello

Mike Warnke

Robert Tilton

W.V. Grant

Roy Clements

John Paulk

Paul Crouch

Douglas Goodman

Paul Barnes

Lonnie Latham

Gilbert Deya

Richard Roberts

Earl Paulk

Coy Privette

Thomas Wesley Weeks III

Michael Reid

Tony Alamo

Homosexual sex, infidelity, bearing false witness, theft, so many commandments broken by these believers.  Why would these people break God's laws if they thought that in doing so they would suffer in Hell for all eternity without respite or the hope of redemption? I can hear you shouting, "but they were not true Christians", but please spare me the fallacy.  If you consider that the above were not really believers but were conmen, than how do you separate the conmen, sinners and criminals that preach to you BEFORE they are exposed?  Perhaps you are being conned in the first instance about the existence of a peeping Tom who will punish your indiscretions.

Live your life, be a human, fuck up from time-to-time, and don't worry about it because there probably isn't a god.

Pat Condell: What I know about Islam

It's what everyone knows.  Islamic "scholars" explain why they are such ignorant morons.  Pat's latest video on the religion of Islam, and he's even read the Qur'an.

Critical Thinking Theists - I Think Not

One of the problems frequently encountered with theists is that they just don't know how to think.  In a case of laughable irony I came across a Christian blog going by the name "Thinking In Christ".  I delved in looking for some examples of actual thinking, especially in the form of critical or skeptical thought.  Alas, I came up blank.  This this blog post regarding the Federal Court's decision to rule a National Day of Prayer as unconstitutional is a perfect example of the fuzzy thought processes of your average Christian believer.

"The atheist sneaks across the religious/nonreligious line, steals a bit of morality from the religions he doesn’t claim to believe in, and then sneaks back to bash those religions he doesn’t believe in with their own morals—in which he doesn’t believe. For if atheism is true, then there’s no reason for anyone to care about how you feel about anything. There’s no moral basis on which to stake your claim that I should respect your feelings."

Atheism is not a statement of belief, it's a lack of belief in a deity or deities, so it does not claim to be true or false.  It's not a position that makes claims, an atheist will simply request evidence to support the existence of a supernatural creator, and so far this evidence is embarrassingly (for theists) lacking.  But was irks most is the theistic assertion that morality is claimed by the domain of religion. The canard that atheists "sneak across" to steal morals from the religious and scamper back to the other side is fuzzy thinking at its finest.  Morality is a system of ethics that has evolved to enable societies to function, and morals (ethics) differ greatly from society to society.  No religion required.  Religion hijacks morality claiming that without God there can be no morals and it's every man for himself.  Every religion claims it is the moral religion and that it is its God that imparts morals and behavioral mores upon the innately sinful human being.

But the morals of religion are seriously flawed insomuch as they offer rewards and punishments based on the behavior and beliefs of the individual.  Atheists do not act morally in the hope of a reward and eternal life. or for fear of punishment and eternal torment.  This is the domain of the religious. Theists will argue that if there was no God then they would be free to rape. murder and pillage.  If ever there was an example of the weak morality of religions this is it.  An atheist will be moral because it is the right thing to do, the Golden Rule applies whether religious or not.

It is our evolved nature that imparts morality, not gods, else societies would not have got this far as we would have slaughtered the shit out of each other by now.

"If God doesn’t exist, then there’s no moral basis on which to base your bow to the community, for the community is no better than the individual. In fact, quite the opposite, if atheism is true, then the community is nothing more than one more system to be gamed where possible to get what you want, at the cost of others. The community is something to support as long as it supports you, and not one inch beyond that line."

Again with that "if atheism is true" canard!  The author answers the question himself in that the community must support itself or it will not survive.  God does not give troops of chimpanzees their morality, and yet they have evolved societies and morals that enable the troop to thrive.  I pick your nits, you pick mine.

"The truth underneath all the hubris is atheism comes down to a singular religion, the religion of the triune god me, myself, and I. My feelings are hurt. I feel left out. And if a national day of prayer hurts your feelings so much, why not go after “Earth Day,” which is a pagan ritual enshrined in public policy?"

The theist absolutely owns "hubris" claiming that in this vast universe of billions upon billions of galaxies, we are the special creations of a benevolent god who loves us.  That is the very definition of hubris.  The case against the National Day of Prayer has nothing to do with hubris or hurt feelings, it is simply defending the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.  The government cannot and should not favor one religious faith over another.  The Christians would be the first to complain if the US institute a national Praise Thor, or Fall to Your Knees to Allah Day - and that would be about hurt feelings and a persecution complex.

"I must say that I actually do believe in a rather limited form of evolution. There is one specific species on the face of the Earth that actually can “evolve” into something other than what it started as: Man. For only man has the capability to evolve from being a higher order spirit filled being to a lower order animal, living his live based on emotion and anger. That our courts would sanction and approve of such nonsense as “atheism isn’t a religion,” and “my feelings are hurt,” just shows how awry our entire social structure has gone."

What the fuck is a "limited form of evolution'?  And evolution is not something you take on faith and believe, it's a scientific theory with abundant evidence.  The Theory of Evolution is possibly the most robustly supported scientific theory that there is, with millions of peer reviewed papers, and new supporting evidence coming to light daily.  It is not a matter of belief, and you don't get to pick and choose which parts you believe in "limiting" evolution to the parts that do not contradict your religion inspired dogma.  That is not how reality works.  The authors understanding of evolution clearly requires some work, how does one "evolve" to a higher order spirit?

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.  One more time, and I'll say it very slowly, atheism-is-the-lack-of-belief-in-a-deity-or-deities, that's it.  Would the author claim that a-santa-ism, or a-tooth-fairy-ism is a religion?  I thought not.

My Prayers Have Been Answered...

"Dear Lord
I know that we don't exactly see eye-to-eye,
Given that I don't believe that you exist and all that,
But I would like to ask you for something if i may?
It's something that's been irking me for some while now
Although I guess that you already know that
You being all-knowing and stuff
So I'm not really sure why I am asking you this
Because you already know what I want from you
Or do you?
Are you just pretending to be an all-knowing god?
Because if you did already know, then praying to you would be a waste of time
Wouldn't it?
Anyway, just in case you don't know I'm going to ask you anyhow
Actually that brings me to another point.
I was under the impression that you had a big plan
If I am asking you for something that is not in your plan then what happens?
Will you change your plan to suit me?
Or will you just continue with your plan?
If the latter, then what is the point of me praying to you?
If the former, then thanks a lot, but what if someone else prays for your plan to stay the same?
Who wins then?
I think you can see that I am confused about this prayer thing, so any help you can give me to understand better would be appreciated.
But I digress dear Lord.
What I would like is for you to make it that the National Day of Prayer is ruled unconstitutional.
If you could to that for me (even if it's not in your plan) I would be very grateful.
I know your Christian followers will be mightily pissed, but come on, separation of church and state and all that.
Unless you don't think that's correct and that government should follow your Word
In which case I'm fucked then.
But please, if you could see your way to granting my prayer I'll owe you a pint when I get to heaven.
I am going to heaven am I not?
If you could let me know about that in advance I can make sure that I enjoy it down here while I have the chance.
Well that's about it from me, talking to myself like this feels quite weird
But cheers for listening mate
Er, I think I'm supposed to sign off with some kind of ritual phrase like "I pray in Jesus' name" or something like that
I hope I got that right
If I got it wrong, will it invalidate my prayer?
Oh, and if you are Allah, not the one I think I'm praying to, can you just grant my prayer request anyway?
It was an honest mistake
I mean, it's not as if there is any evidence for any of you anyway
Cheers dude"

I must have been praying to the correct god, because he answered my prayers.  Yay the lord.

Catholic Church Must Do Penance Says Man In Big Hat

A man in a very big hat has said that Catholics should do penance for their unspecified sins.  He said Catholics were;

"under attack from the world which talks to us of our sins" and should see the necessity "to recognise what is wrong in our lives".

Despite it being quite tricky to think of any specific sins committed by Catholics a special "Come up with some Sins Committee" has so far agreed on the following tentative list of "sins"

• Not loving god quite enough;
• Hats not quite big enough to reach heaven;
• Not having enough gold with which to praise god;
• A Catholic might have been quite rude to his/her mother one time;
• Once stole a cookie from a jar when no one was looking;

The Sin Committee has acknowledged that this might not be a comprehensive list and that if anyone can "think of any other sins" then they are free to make suggestions.  I'm going to have a good long think about this and see if I can come up with anything that the Catholic church has done wrong.

 <<< A man in a big hat earlier today.

Pope Benedict XVI Innocent Until Proven Guilty

There appears to be abundant evidence that the Holy See was fully aware of endemic, systematic and institutionalized rape of minors by representatives of its organization. Daily new evidence of abuse and cover-ups emerge, and the leader of the church, Pope Benedict XVI seems to be implicated in the cover-up, at the very least demonstrating criminal negligence on his part.

With mounting evidence, a case for prosecution evolves. However, at this point we must stop short at calling for Benedict’s head on a plate as his culpability is yet to be proven in an international court of law.

Much of the disgust and backlash has resulted from the appalling handling of the scandal by the leadership in the “Holy City”. The child rape issue has been top of mind for a number of years now with many cases coming to light. The deflection by the Vatican of the horrors of the perpetrators of the crimes, trivializing the issues with comments such as “petty gossip” and comparing the call for justice to “anti-semitism” has understandably created outrage. The bishop of Tenerife went so far as to blatantly claim that many of the victims were “asking for it” by their behavior and demeanor.

As far as the Vatican and the pope are concerned, however, we have but evidence against them that they were indeed complicit with the cover-up, fully aware of the crimes committed and their inaction, or action to relocate offenders demonstrates culpability. But only after the case is proven or otherwise in a court of law.

The only moral action that the Vatican can perform is to surrender all documentation to the authorities, allow questioning under legal interrogation, and submit those of accused into the hands of the justice system. If they have nothing to fear, they will not even reach a court of law. If they are hiding their guilt under the cover of their religion or status as a state, then the moral bankruptcy of the institution is without question.

The Vatican has the following choices:

1) Claim immunity and ignore or deflect the accusations
2) Claim they have nothing to answer and ignore or deflect the accusations
3) Offer full co-operation to the justice system

The final option is the only moral action that the Vatican can perform. I call on Pope Benedict XVI as the leader of the Universal Church to contact the authorities and offer his full co-operation for an investigation in clear daylight. Any other action would be immoral and demonstrate the implicit guilt felt by the Holy See in this matter, and therefore justice should be sought through coercion.

I Will Arrest the Pope - Dawkins Clarifies What He Actually Said

Dawkins chimes in on his website @ richarddawkins.net

Dawkins clarifies on what actually happened saying, "Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article."

The original article referenced by Dawkins can be found here.

Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

From the Sunday Times writer Marc Horne RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”. Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church. The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998. The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases. Benedict will be in Britain between September 16 and 19, visiting London, Glasgow and Coventry, where he will beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, the 19th-century theologian.

Follow Your Biblical Laws

Pat Roberston et al would be in full agreement with this methinks: