Category Archives: Blog

An atheist life: Jeff’s story

Posted on by

I’ve been getting a lot of emails with people wanting to share their stories of atheism. I want to make sure every single one of them gets enough time and exposure for people to really sink their teeth into. I am amazed at just how open, trusting, and honest all of you have been while telling us about your lives. It is this kind of attitude and behavior that makes me truly believe human beings look to connect with others. Here is Jeff’s story:

I was raised in Arkansas, where we have just as many churches as liquor stores. I went to a private school, and grew up learning about the Bible. I learned Bible verses in school, and got taught Bible stories every morning. But, there was something different about me. The school I went to had kindergarten through 12th grade. Every once in a while, the older kids would come do stuff with us younger ones. I didn’t mind talking to girls, but I was really shy around the older boys.

Well, eventually, I left the private school, and went to public school, where I had to toughen up. Still went to church, because that’s what you do. I knew most of the Bible stories already. Well, this continued until about 9th grade. Then, I had a realization. Yes, growing up, I did have crushes on girls, because they were pretty, and I hung out with the boys my age, but certain boys I couldn’t talk to. I finally realized I was gay. Well, being Christian, that shouldn’t have happened. I tried fighting it, denying it, and covering it. Then, I realized, how could I be given this curse by a god who loved me. Over time, my faith started to wane, and before too long, I realized what religion is….nice stories you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, and mind control.

Well, eventually, I came out to everyone, my friends and my family. Mom said I was confused. They don’t make gay people. Well, Mom and I have an unspoken agreement not talk about it. Eventually, I came out as an atheist…but just to my friends. I still haven’t told my Mom. I don’t mind her knowing I’m gay, but please don’t tell her I’m atheist.

After moving up here in Virginia, I started looking for other atheists, and soon got disenchanted. While they claim to be atheist, they really just seem anti-christian. I’ve come to realization that religion is very hard to change, and not something a simple discussion can do. You’ll stay in your corner, and them in theirs. However, most atheists I’ve met like to tear into Christians specifically. I think that’s pretty simple-minded, because while the majority of the US is christian, they are just annoying. Other religions will kill you for not being part of them.

Well, now I stand alone. A gay atheist, who respects your religion, but wants nothing to do with. And I’ve moved to the point to where now, I’ll tear into a religious bully, whether christian or atheist. I know enough about both sides to smack both people down, although fighting for Christians is much harder. Voltaire once said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” and if I have to defend people’s right to say “I’m a Christian”, then so be it.

An atheist life: Jack’s story

Posted on by

As some of you may know, I decided to invite all of you to share your stories about being an atheist. I hate to admit it, but my own story is just not that interesting. Atheist parents and their wisdom to let me chose for myself what I would believe made me the man I am today. But not every atheist life is as plain. I think there are compelling stories that have yet to be told, and this new section is intended to help you connect with others who have had similar experiences. Here is Jack’s story:

My story may be unique in its particulars, but is quite similar to how most atheists experience their religious acquaintances. My first experience with Christian Evangelicals who vigorously proselytize was my freshman year in college attending Elon University. I am a senior at the moment. At the time I was an apathetic Catholic and had little interest in pursuing my faith, but I was quite interested in making friends and not feeling lonely.

One day I was playing volleyball with some random people and a girl came up to me and extended an invitation to attend “Intervarsity.” She said “it was a lot of fun.” I naturally agreed because well, who doesn’t like to play sports and socialize? Mistakenly, I interpreted “Intervarsity” to mean sports due to the “varsity.” O, how naïve and malleable I was then. I arrived at the building, winded my way through the hallways and eventually arrived at the destination, and to my surprise it was not a sports club, but rather a time in which people could worship Christ…..Needless to say, I was rather surprised and felt rather sheepish. I said to myself, “It’s ok, this is not a foreign environment to me, I am a Christian.” Despite me saying this to myself, I quickly found out that these people were not like me. They enjoyed watching homemade videos they made about Bible quotes and loved to sing weird songs they made up about Christ. At Catholic mass there was none of this. Afterwards, one of my acquaintances came up to me and asked if I wanted to participate and join them on their beach retreat. At this time, I wanted to expand my borders and consented. I consented in part to my latter reason but also to certain extent peer pressure. To a lonely or semi-isolated freshman at college, it is a nice feeling to be accepted and have “friends.” Christian groups take advantage and manipulate these feeling and give freshmen a “friendly” environment but then mold and “brainwash” them. It is malicious, malignant practice and does violence upon impressionable and vulnerable people.

Fast forward to the beach retreat, and before leaving I was conflicted on how I felt. At first I was looking forward to it, I might be able to rekindle my faith as a Catholic despite their very Protestant practices and worship, but I could not help a feeling that this group was different in some way. They acted bizarrely that I couldn’t put my finger on. It was soon revealed to me at the retreat. After the excruciatingly 4 hour ride to the beach, we made presentations that somehow exalted Christ. Some made raps, others did a play, etc. Afterwards, I had an interesting conversation with one of the student leaders. After graduation, he intended on traveling to Eastern Europe to convert people there because they held mystical beliefs such as black magic. It was his job to help them apparently. I remember that many of the people there fawned after him, flattering him that he was such a good Christian as if he was a celebrity. Silly indeed. The next day we played what amounted to random silly games that had nothing to do with religion. For instance, we cross dressed and did relay games on the beach. (On a side note, I refused to do so and was looked down upon. Why would I want to wear women’s clothing in front of people I do not know?) We were broken into teams of 10, there were over 70 people at the retreat! We competed against each other, and did pointless things like carrying eggs with a spoon to the finish line. Furthermore, we had to run and carry a balloon without using our arms. I will spare the reader the rest of the inane details, but the point has been made. These Christians were little toddlers that enjoyed puerile fun.

Obviously the real Christianity part came when we went into our little groups and talked about our Christian faith. I said that I was trying to rekindle it, as I really was, but this retreat in fact retarded its growth. Yet I will never forget what one girl said as it struck me as fundamental and scary. She stated that she could not wait to reach heaven’s doorstep to worship and pray in front of God for eternity and that this retreat helped her realize that. Wow….Just let that sink in, simmer a bit, ponder it, and then shake your head in disgust. It’s ok, I did that as well.

Finally as the weekend was coming to a close, all the people went onto the beach for a service and prayer. Some went into the water with friends to have a special prayer session, as if they were going to get closer to god. Others listened to the pastor and received communion, the little meaningless wafer. I abstained because as of then, I knew I did not believe in the same god as them and this experience would begin my ascent to atheism and my rejection of faith.

Afterward, I stopped going to the meetings. My “friends” I had made there started to call me or stop by to see if I was “ok” and why I was not going to Intervaristy. I told them it wasn’t for me, and that their practices and ways of worship were not mine. I wish I could of have told them in a stronger tone, but as of then I was not a confrontationist (pardon my neologism). Little by little my faith dwindled away to be only supplanted by my interest in philosophy and history. Only then did I actively begin to reject the idea of god and believe in humanity rather than some metaphysical being to tell me how to act. I am a slave to no one, and certainly not to a god that can be called loving and damn people to hell. I will dictate how I act. A god can’t ride my back unless it’s bent and I have damn good posture. (I couldn’t resist the opportunity to make a bad joke)

The Catholic Church needs to be abandoned

Posted on by

I want to send out a clear message today about the Catholic Church. I know many Catholics are feeling persecuted, brow beaten, and tired of all of the bad press they’ve been getting recently. It doesn’t help matters when your Pope quotes a Byzantine Emperor who claimed that Islam was spread by holy war. If you think that’s bad, you need to sit down to hear this staggeringly horrible piece of news: Pope Benedict XVI was one of the masterminds behind the effort to cover up sex abuse scandals from priests. The BBC is airing a documentary tonight which clarifies this damning allegation, by pointing to an ultra secret document composed by Ratzinger calling for an abuse case to be buried, and for witnesses, victims, and any one else involved to be threatened with excommunication if they talked about it.

I want to make something very clear to Catholics at this moment: your institution is corrupt, evil, broken, and unworthy of affiliation. There is no reason to trust what the Pope does is guided by God; that such a despicable human being should hold the most holy office demonstrates just how vile your institution really is. Every single Catholic needs to abandon this system, stop going to church, and most definitely stop giving these fuckheads any money. I am not saying this in a glib way. If you want to know what a fatal blow to any institution looks like, this is it.

Imagine you are a fan of the store “Bed, Bath and Beyond”. You love the selection of home furnishings, and you’ve been a customer for years. One day, you are told that a significant proportion of store employees were secretly molesting your kids, and store managers were covering up these scandals and transferring these offenders to different locations throughout the country. Worse still, the president of the company had written a super secretive memo that stated all of these abuses needed to be silenced and that all victims had to be threatened in order to ensure they did not go to authorities. Would you continue to give this store your money? Would you tell your friends about how wonderful this store was, and recommend it to your family?

If this was happening in any other powerful institution, then trust in the organization would be shattered, and everyone would abandon it. However, because this is religion, we’re giving this one a “get out of jail free card”. Well, I say enough. I accuse any individual who still swears allegiance to Catholicism of being part of the mechanism that has led to child abuse. If you’ve ever given the Church even one dime, that is some of the money they have been using to continue to abuse little kids. Each person that trusts this institution needs to take a hard look at themselves. Is it really worth even one child suffering? Can you honestly tell me this vile, corrupt, and sick institution is worthy of being saved? The corruption and stink of evil can never be cleaned. There will always remain a secret fraternity of corrupt men with power who do as they please, content in their belief their actions are divinely ordained, and therefore acceptable. Ratzinger did what he did because he believes the Institution is more important than the countless children who have been raped over the centuries (don’t suddenly think child abuse is anything new for the church).

I don’t care if people believe in Jesus; I honestly don’t. But this is a belief that does not require a gigantic, sick, twisted organization like the Roman Catholic Church to exist. You can have Jesus in your heart and mind without the need for Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes. So long as you abandon your allegiance to this institution, I have no beef with you. Any minute you give these people money, you are allowing this to go on. No amount of ‘cleanup’ will ever expose the people involved, nor will it ever completely stop the abuse that is happening, and that will happen in the future. This institution needs to go the way of the dodo bird, and with this final revelation of just how high the corruption extends, you now have final proof of just how rotten the Catholic Church truly is. I personally feel sick to my stomach, and any mild amount of tolerance or even respect that I may have had is eroded. These monsters have declared war on our children, our laws, and our morality with impunity. We should not let this go unpunished.

The real naughty list

Posted on by

here’s a secretive branch of the Catholic church’s court called the Apostolic Penitentiary that has everyone talking these days. It dates back to the 11th century, and oversees issues involving the forgiveness of serious sin. Since Catholicism places so much importance on the forgiveness of sin, there had to be a list of the worst ones, and who could forgive them.

Since this is a fairly ancient organization, the crimes we now view as horrible in today’s society just aren’t considered very important. The sins of murder and even genocide don’t even make the cut, so they can be handled by regular priests and bishops. It’s the sins of taking part in an abortion, abusing the confidentiality of confession, a priest having sex with someone and then offering forgiveness for the act, and the desecrating the Eucharist are the most serious offenses imaginable.

This list is so fucking weak it’s hard to believe it’s not some April Fool’s joke or something. The fact they consider spitting on a tiny piece of bread worst than the killing of an entire people literally enrages me. If your religion can’t even put its priorities straight, what the hell kind of belief system do you have here? Quaint little rituals and myths have no business being considered more egregious than murder, genocide, rape, or torture. I think it’s time these guys stopped running around playing dress up and started focusing on the real problems in the world. A blogger putting a rusty nail through a holy cracker seems like hardly something worth making much of a fuss over. Did they suddenly forget there are all kinds of atrocities going on in different parts of the globe?

Collect call to the dead

Posted on by

Here is an interesting article over at sciam (Scientific American) about a telephone that can apparently communicate with the dead. Well, by apparently, I mean ‘not fucking likely’, but hey, I’m just one of those annoying skeptics who just tries to ruin everything, aren’t I? It was featured at a Paranormal conference held by Ryan Buell. If that name sounds familiar, it’s because I ripped him a new one in one of my podcasts for his pathetic Paranormal State TV show on A&E.

The telephone is your classic piece of paranormal junk: an interpreter is needed to attempt to decipher what the ghosts are saying, since they have a great deal of trouble communicating with the other side (apparently). They also seem unable to offer more information than what a typical mentalist would be able to conjure, so it’s fairly unimpressive by any standard.

I’m personally embarrassed by paranormal ‘investigators’ who run around with video cameras and other scientific looking devices thinking they are seriously helping

advance our understanding of the world with their little field trips. There is never any attempt to question their own assumptions. Is this cold breeze really the result of an undead presence, or is it possibly because the old creepy house you are in is drafty? Why not bring a building contractor just to make sure? Oh, you’d rather bring in a psychic? Yeah, that’s fair.

What would Jesus eat?

Posted on by

Well, it turns out a biblical scholar wrote a book trying to answer this pointless question, and concluded the diet expounded in the Bible isn’t a very healthy one. He argues that although the Israelites did not consume much meat, they didn’t eat a lot of vegetables and fruit either, and their diet lacked essential vitamins and minerals.

It seems silly to us anyone should really care about this, but his book, What Did the Ancient Israelites Eat? was partially written as a response to some fad diets using the Bible as their primary reference. Those are for the special Christians who really want to believe the ‘Good Book’ gives them a complete guide for every aspect of their lives. So far, it looks like it also fails miserably at educating you about the right foods to eat. What a great guide, eh?

Mississippi wants to be mocked, too

Posted on by

If you live in Mississippi and you care whether or not your kids grow up to be smart and well educated, you should be outraged by House Bill 25, which aims to introduce this disclaimer on all biology textbooks:

The word “theory” has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered a theory.

Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.

I always liked this “no one was present when life first appeared on Earth” business. It sounds so ridiculous as a way of discounting evolution I am embarrassed by it. Yeah, no one was around when the planet was formed, but you don’t see many Geology textbooks with a silly disclaimer, do you? Does someone need to be there to witness something in order for it to be considered true?

Also of note is their use of the words ‘unproven belief’ when referring to evolution. I’m not sure what they constitute proof. Apparently, all the millions of fossils, including transitional ones, DNA, and geological evidence all pointing to the soundness of evolution by natural selection is being debated! Yes, gravity is also being debated, as in no one can actually see it. It must therefore be an invention by Newton meant to make us question the notion that God is simply pushing us down on Earth because He ‘wills’ it so! Scientists and their theories, eh?

Why do religious people hate atheists?

Posted on by

According to a 1999 Gallop poll, half of the electorate automatically would vote against a political candidate if he was an atheist. That’s roughly the same percentage of people in 1958 who would have voted against a black candidate. There’s obviously a great deal of mistrust, hate, and bigotry going on here. It’s so carefully masked and seemingly invisible most people don’t think about it. Still, one has to wonder why do religious people hate us so much?

To answer this, we need to return to the 1970s during a time of great political and social upheaval. During that time, many powerful movements were beginning to take shape, notably anti war protesters and black activists. One group in particular was known as the Weathermen, and felt radical action was needed in order to reform society. They believed if they could show how weak and corrupt the system had become, the population would turn against that system and have a revolution.

Despite the fact the population was indeed experiencing a great deal of civil unrest, the truth was the majority of Americans were still comfortable and happy enough with the system that they did not feel the need to abandon it. The Weathermen felt as though their noble ambitions would be enough to convince the populace there needed to be drastic reform. However, the campaign of violence and destruction worked to further alienate them from the mainstream. During the 1970s, people were tired of fighting the government, and simply wanted life to return to a quietly predictable monotony. They feared and hated the Weatherman, for they represented the very dissent they now wanted to avoid.

There are countless examples of failed revolutions throughout history. These failures were generally met with swift and powerful retribution. In the case of the Weathermen, however, their punishment was not as severe as some might have thought. Intelligence agencies did not want their own illegal and shameful tactics exposed, and they handed out sentences we would consider light today. This is a relatively rare moment for governments, who usually take the opportunity to make an example of people who wish the destruction of their authority (one needs to look back to Tiananmen Square for a proper example of how rebellions are crushed).

What few people are willing to admit is their level of complacency in the face of this type of brutal punishment. People who have something to lose if a system is dismantled are just as blood thirsty as those controlling it. There is ultimately a need people have to protect themselves and their families from uncertainty. This can often lead people to behave in strange and savage ways if their security is threatened. They would view any individual or movement that could dismantle it as the embodiment of everything wrong, evil, and corrupt that their own systems fight against. The more they love their system, the more powerful the feeling of hate.

Atheism represents a revolution in the religious sense. It is the rejection of the divine; of values and ethics derived from the concept of a supreme being. To those who have a strong vested interest in this system of belief, atheism represents as powerful a danger as any revolution. It does not concern them that our actions are intended to help free mankind of the sick and diseased idea of religion. For them, they will continue to despise anything threatening the safety and certainty of their ideas. Although religions often fight amongst each other, they view these conflicts as merely growing pains of faith. The complete abandonment of religion, however, represents the greatest threat to their values, especially considering the power of the arguments against them. The more atheism gains acceptance, the more they see the erosion of their belief structure.

In a sense, I can understand their position. They are trying hard to maintain a system they believe is important. At the end of the day, their hatred is not a product of bigotry but rather a product of protectionism. Atheism is not seen as civil rights issue, because the values and ideas it espouses are incompatible with the paradigm of religion, which our current society feels is more important than individual liberty. We will continue to feel the force of their assault as religious people become increasingly desperate. This is why the percentage of people who would vote against an atheist candidate are likely to rise instead of fall. For them, accepting the idea of atheism is akin to abandoning their religion.

I am not defending hate here, but I am trying to make people see it is based on fear, not bigotry. People who hate atheists are not bad people; they are, however, terribly misguided. If they really wish to examine the worthiness of their ideas, they must consider how their belief system effects those who do not share their views. So far, it doesn’t look too good.

Don’t believe in magic: believe in miracles, dummies!

Posted on by

As many of you know, I’m a staunch supporter of the science of evolution. Although it’s a powerful yet simple idea, for many religious people, it’s simply the most damning and damaging idea ever conceived. Despite the fact even the Papacy has finally and reluctantly agreed it does indeed exist, it doesn’t stop people who have zero idea about how evolution works to deny it.

I’ve read many articles and blogs of these ‘deniers’, but today I had the pleasure of finding a rather eloquent and educated creationist living only a few hours from me here in good old Montreal (she is from the place all Montrealers disdain: Toronto). She’s apparently a journalist, and from her style of writing, I can tell she’s competent. However, it is obvious her field of expertise is not science, as she proclaims natural selection is akin to some form of magic; magic she says she simply refuses to believe in.

Now, people who live in glass houses should not be playing with bricks, and if anyone who claims to believe water can be turned into wine, or the blind healed, or a virgin give birth, then there is obviously an innate part of her that actually CAN believe in magic. Luckily, even this is not needed to trust that evolution is in fact a sound theory.

Her biggest pet peeve is of course the peppered moth. Yes, this old chestnut always comes to bite us in the ass, but it seems men and women looking for proof science is fraudulent can find only a few examples to cherish. The only actual controversy regarding the peppered moth involved pictures that were unfortunately staged. However, the underlying theory, that darker moths had a selective advantage during the Industrial Revolution due mostly to the soot in the air , is still sound. Ironically, as England has cleaned up their emissions, the instances of completely black peppered moths have drastically reduced, showing once again the theory itself is sound.

Of course, that’s simply not enough for some people. They want more. They want the smoking gun, the final proof that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt evolution is true. But is this really genuine effort on their part, or will they be unsatisfied no matter how many converging lines of evidence they are shown? People who deny evolution seem uninterested in genetics, one of the biggest proofs evolution does indeed happen. Geological records also support evolution, as older species are found in successive layers of the earth’s crust. So gargantuan is this evidence that any reasonably open minded and educated individual can easily make the necessary connection and trust the information they are receiving is genuine.

This is what most creationists seem unable to do. They simply do not trust that the millions of people working to refine the Theory of Evolution are being truthful. They assume a giant fraud is taking place, and every individual who believes this is misguided. However, if they simply put themselves in the shoes of other human beings, they would realize a fraud of this magnitude is impossible. We are skeptical by nature. For so many individuals, each with different beliefs and backgrounds, to come to understand and uncover the mystery of evolution is an indication of the power and logic of the idea. Unlike other ‘belief systems’, science places rigorous focus on evidence rather than faith. Any individual is invited to try and disprove even the soundest theories. There is much to gain from being able to produce a consistent and truer explanation on the diversity of life on the planet. Yet, the evidence continues to support an idea that seems almost too simple to be true: that organisms change due to selective pressures of the environment, and isolated groups changed so drastically over a large period of time that they lost the ability to breed with their organisms that shared a common ancestor.

If this person is sincerely interested in learning more about how evolution works, then there are a number of books I could recommend. However, I am under the impression her conclusions have already been decided. It is this level of close mindedness that reminds me not every human being is interested in the truth, but rather in simple platitudes that give them a sense of purpose. If evolution seems cold and cruel to you, then you are not wrong in your assumption. Nature is indeed these things. But human beings, themselves part of that process, are able to move beyond it. Agriculture, domesticated animals, and antibiotics are all inventions that stem from our ability to manipulate and change the rules of the game. We are a product of the cruel forces of nature, but it does not mean we cannot rise above them.

Annoying proselytizer is canned, involves courts

Posted on by

Penn Jillette said something I liked; he said he doesn’t respect anyone who isn’t proselytizing. He feels there is something genuinely good about it, and I generally agree: if you have an idea you think is great, tell people about it. There is, however, a limit to how much preaching is acceptable. You should not, like this man, do it to coworkers trying to get their jobs done without you bothering them every minute.

Seann Friesen wanted to involve the courts after he was fired when he refused to stop proselytizing during regular work hours. The BC Human Rights Tribunal turned down his request, actually pointing out that his former employer went above and beyond to accommodate Mr. Friesen’s need to tell people about his religion.

If you’re interested in telling people your point of view, there are a few things you should remember. The first is the workplace involves many people of different beliefs and values trying to work together towards a common goal. The last thing they need in this tenuous connection is you making their lives miserable by constantly bugging them with religion. The second is that from my own experience, emotional passions are bound to spring up anytime you bring up religion, and if your safety requires the trust of other human beings, it’s best not to piss them off. And finally, and most importantly, if work is the only place these people hang out with you, there might be a reason for it; odds are they are not your biggest fans.

You like proselytizing? Do what I do: blog about it. It’s a lot easier, and you’ll find most of the people who come on your site will actually enjoy what you have to say. That way, you can keep your job, and fulfill that strange need you have to tell others about ‘the good news’

Understanding the reasons for religious arguments

Posted on by

I’m beginning to understand intellectually debating religion is a giant waste of time. The blog Atheist Revolution has an interesting article on the types of ‘religious trolls’ who frequently comment in atheist’s sites and the tactics they use. However, there’s something important here that is not being mentioned: what exactly is their motivation?

It’s easy to dismiss trolls as simple troublemakers who want to start flame wars with atheists, but that’s not the whole answer. Sure, there are bound to be a few shit disturbers, but for the most part, I’ve always found that although these religious ‘trolls’ were unusually insistent and persistent, the motivation behind their actions are, to them at least, genuine and pure.

Imagine I want to convince you my favorite restaurant is simply the best place to get fried noodles with chicken (it is, but that’s not the point). I would try any tactic available to convince you. Did you know they make their own noodles there? That the business is owned by a small family who lives in the same building as their restaurant, and work 15 hour days? Sure, their cooking equipment is primitive and the service is slow, but I promise you the chicken is the tastiest around!

Ultimately, there’s an element of personal taste that enters the equation I cannot account for. Maybe you don’t like chicken. Maybe you prefer fancy places with lounge music. Whatever the reason, the reason behind me telling you about my restaurant are genuinely kind; I want you to experience the same pleasure and satisfaction I do. Religious people share this same need to proselytize; many feel their lives are richer for believing, and cannot understand why anyone would choose to live a life without God. The details of how the arguments unfold masks a far more primitive need every human being shares: the need to tell others about something good. I personally love my favorite restaurant specifically because I share it with others. This need is part of the reason we are a social species. Like the lion’s pride that learns to share for the good of the group, so have we learned to share those experiences that make us more healthy, and more happy. Whether or not religion does this is irrelevant; it’s important only that some people FEEL it is in order for it to be true to them. Everything they do can be explained from that one simple need.

So rather than worry about the kinds of arguments I can use to convince them on the logical truth of my ideas, I have come to see the reason I am an active atheist is I want to share how profound and incredible the realization of a godless universe is. In that sense, I am no different from my Christian counterpart, with the exception I have perhaps the stronger arguments. Ultimately though, if I am blinded by my emotional attachment to an idea, I may be unable to see why it may not be universally appealing to others. The only value I can hope to instill on others, therefore, is that one always has to be willing to question their assumptions. This is something very few religious people do, and the vindication I have in my unbelief is I will always try and maintain an open mind.

Religious people better at self control

Posted on by

Here’s an interesting article in the New York Times about how religion seems to help people have more self control. Normally, I would try and tear apart these kinds of articles, but in this case I don’t necessarily disagree with the findings. Intuitively, it seems right to me; I don’t know many people who could fight off the impulse of sex in favor of a relationship with God (I’m talking about Nuns and Catholic priests of course).

I’m curious as to how most people view these studies anyways. Do religious people feel uplifted by the results? Do atheists generally care? I would describe myself as having moderate self control (at least when it comes to matters of pleasure), and I don’t see any reason why I would need more. It certainly doesn’t seem to stop kids from having premature sex, or even experiment with drugs, unless of course their level of devotion is slavish. Even then, it’s fairly suspect.

Imagine I gave you a pill to help you with your impulse control. The side effects included occasional hallucinations, close mindedness, bigotry, intolerance and had a tendency in some patients to cause massive psychotic breakdowns. Would it be worth it?

Sure, when you don’t have a strict guidebook to live your life, you are more susceptible to some of life’s temptations. But so what? I don’t want to spend my life in a coma, content with thinking all the mysteries of the universe are solved, or it’s impossible to attain any higher morality than what we have now. Self control is exactly what I WANT to avoid. It’s the same impulse that make us complacent and sheepish in the face of so many of life’s important challenges. Keep your damn pill. I want to see life through sober eyes.

Article on abstinence teaches nothing new

Posted on by

I hate articles that regurgitate news anyone with half a brain already knows. Is it surprising study after study of teen sex always comes up with statistics showing there is no difference in premarital found between kids who are taught sex ed and those who are taught abstinence? No, of course not. Is it shocking kids without sex-ed are less likely to use any form of birth control or protection? Nope. And yet, they still ‘teach’ this garbage in schools hoping somehow kids will abstain from having sexual relations, completely ignoring the fact these raging bags of hormones find it difficult to avoid the temptation to play with themselves several times a day, let alone invite anyone to the fun.

Kids like sex. They want it. They crave it. Everything about their biology is inclined to try and get it. Yet somehow, a religiously motivated cretin thinks a promise and a shitty ring is enough to keep their hands off each other. It’s time we stopped living in fantasy land and take a pragmatic approach to the issue. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent teens from having sex. Most of the Western World has already acknowledged this. But the US is a special place; they fight wars against windmills, believing prohibitionism in all forms is the only way of curbing the natural vices of people. The problem is, of course, that morality is a private thing, and cannot be policed.

Guys, get real about teaching sex-ed in high school. Abstinence is nothing more than religiously mandated classes, and any country that takes the separation of church and state seriously would make mincemeat out of it. The US has a shamefully high rate of teen pregnancies and drop out rates shared only by developing nations. Let’s get real here, shall we?

Things are heating up in Iraq

Posted on by

It’s never good news when Iraq makes the front page of the news. That’s usually because we’ve become so accustomed to tragedy, that daily events, bombings, and massacres are casually relegated to a dark and lonely corner of most mainstream media sites.

Thursday was particularly brutal, as a female rights activist was beheaded in her home. Violence against women has been escalating, and is unlikely to stop. It was obviously intended to discourage other women from speaking out, and my guess is it may well have that consequence.

All of this comes a little over a month before their general elections, which the US hopes will help stabilize the country and give the population incentive to get involved in their government. Is it just me, or is this a fundamentally bad idea? The country is in no shape to vote, and their priorities should be focused on bringing order and peace to the region. Setting up a fragile government composed of warring groups will only further exacerbate the situation. Order in a country is the result of trust in government. It is unlikely this will occur. If anything, these elections will prove just how the Sunni, Shi’ite, and Kurds are unwilling to negotiate with one another. I predict more disaster, and far more politically motivated violence.

The real definition of marriage

Posted on by

There’s been a lot of debate concerning the definition of marriage. I know many conservatives are offended guys like me call them on the fact that the real reason they dislike gays marrying is because they are homophobic. I’m accused of making blanket statements about conservatives, and of labeling people.

Now, I want to make it clear to everyone that I’m not trying to make a person feel inferior for being a homophobe. Homosexuality is only now becoming more accepted, and I know of many friends and family members who have a certain degree of prejudice against them. But that’s the thing; it’s a controllable degree, and the trick is to try and rise above your upbringing to overcome some of our less noble emotions.

Even so, there’s still a large segment of the religious right who will tell you they want the definition to stay the same for religious reasons, not because of any real homophobia. Fine. If you want it that way, however, you’re going to have to follow it to the letter and stop choosing only the stuff you like. Here are some of the rules courtesy of Daily Kos:

  • Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
  • Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in
    addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
  • Marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
    virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
  • Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.
    (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
  • Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
  • If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
  • In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required  you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Any takers?