Comment Is Free / By Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 290

Atheists, It's Time to Stand Up to Jesus

Civility has its uses, but atheists should not be afraid to mock faith to undermine religious power.
November 9, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

Religious teachings promise us much — eternal life, spiritual salvation, moral direction, and a deeper understanding of reality. It all sounds good, but these teachings are also onerous in their demands. If they can't deliver on what they promise, it would be well to clear that up. Put bluntly, are the teachings of any religion actually true or not? Do they have any rational support? It's hard to see what questions could be more important. Surely the claims of religion — of all religions — merit scrutiny from every angle, whether historical, philosophical, scientific, or any other.

Contrary to many expectations in the 1970s, or even the 1990s, religion has not faded away, even in the Western democracies, and we still see intense activism from religious lobbies. Even now, one religion or another opposes abortion rights, most contraceptive technologies, and therapeutic cloning research. Various churches and sects condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy. As a result, these are frowned upon, if not prohibited outright, in many parts of the world, indeed people lose their lives because of them. Most religious organisations reject dying patients' requests to end their lives as they see fit. Even in relatively secular countries, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, governments pander blatantly to Christian moral concerns as the protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services demonstrates.

In a different world, the merits, or otherwise, of religious teachings might be discussed more dispassionately. In that world, some of us who criticise religion itself might be content to argue that the church (and the mosque, and all the other religious architecture that sprouts across the landscape) should be kept separate from the state. Unfortunately, however, we don't live in that world.

When religion claims authority in the political sphere, it is unsurprising — and totally justifiable — that atheists and skeptics question the source of this authority. If religious organisations or their leaders claim to speak on behalf of a god, it is fair to ask whether the god concerned really makes the claims that are communicated on its behalf. Does this god even exist? Where is the evidence? And even if this being does exist, why, exactly, should its wishes be translated into law?

In many situations, it is better to be civil, as Paul Kurtz has pointed out, but satire and  mockery have traditionally had a legitimate place whenever absurd ideas are joined to power and privilege. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire often used mockery to show the absurdity of  ideological stances — including religious ones — that were considered sacrosanct. Mockery is one way of saying that a view does not deserve to be taken seriously. Religious views are fair game if one can also show, on a more serious level, why the view in question does indeed not deserve serious respect.


View as a single page
 
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: religion, satire, christianity, atheism

comments COMMENTS ( 290 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

Religion: Not a Monolith
[Report this comment]
Posted by: servetus on Nov 9, 2009 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is worth highlighting those religious groups which are working for GLBT equality, for science, for human rights, for economic justice. Simply going after the religious right keeps with the frame that the religious right would love to have; that somehow they define what is properly religious.

That doesn't mean that religious groups shouldn't be critiqued as much as anyone else involved in the public square. They should not be treated either as the enemy or given undue deference. Nor are they a monolith. They have as much right as anyone to be involved in the process. And we'll likely find allies in the mix as well as folks who are not.

Religion could be thought of as a certain set of communities with a set of concepts, practices, ways of life. Instead of asking are they true, we might ask how do they help or prevent us from being humanized, how are they contributing to or hurting well being? But either an uncritical embrace or an uncritical condemnation is not likely to help much.

I suppose folks, religious or not, need stock caricatures to fear and loathe. And that might be cathartic. But it isn't serious politics and in the end it's not good for democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion: Not a Monolith Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: eligion: Not a Monolith Posted by: anotherplayaguy
» RE: eligion: Not a Monolith Posted by: Bibsisis
» RE: for example Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Salvation Army Posted by: IntlDad
» Just out of the public square Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Religion: Still a pack of lies Posted by: souffrantfleur
» Secular Philosophies? Posted by: Karlh
» RE: eligion: Not a Monolith Posted by: Balance40

Comments are closed-

brainwashed zombies put Paul ahead of Jesus
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 1:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christians argue they are no longer under Mosaic Law, because Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage."

Nothing in the synoptic gospels suggests a break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. Jesus' ministry was a rabbinic one. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).

Jesus himself said, "Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)

Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. Jesus never says anywhere in the entire New Testament that the Law is abolished; this was Paul's theology.

Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?

If Jesus really came to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and they were worried because they heard rumors Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21). None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets.

Paul says if anyone has confidence in the Law, "I am ahead of him."

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the Law's demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)?

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?

Paul may have regarded the Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!

Christians believe in Paul, not Jesus. Bertrand Russell called Paul the "inventor" of Christianity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You said it, Plexius2 Posted by: Cathyc
» brainwashed zombie! Posted by: frankly1
» RE: historical jesus Posted by: vasumurti
» Messiahs a dime a dozen Posted by: Hiroak
» battle of the network b$%%&*it Posted by: wwittman

Comments are closed-

Amen to this, bro
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nvannes on Nov 9, 2009 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No argument here.
The scriptures tell us, "Blessed is he who believes but more blessed is he who believes without questioning." Now there're some words of indoctrination....er, wisdom. You gotta love it. If God didn't want us to question, why did he give us the capacity to do so?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amen to this, bro Posted by: kiel
» Unclear on the concept Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Amen to this, bro Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

religion and ideology
[Report this comment]
Posted by: isafakir on Nov 9, 2009 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
author states that some religions, cults and sects promote bad things. the same is true of non-religious ideologies cults and sects. the twentieth century saw the most horrible actions conceivable in the promotion of atheism and intolerance of religion. Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, the Castro brothers, Hitler, Enver Hoxha, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot: nothing done in the name of religion in the 20th century comes close to what was done to erase religion from people's lives.

bad people use religion to do bad things. bad people use any ideology available to do bad things. Spanish Catholicism in South America was an excuse to massacre tens of millions. Anglicanism was an excuse to commit genocide in Tasmania.

Jesus clearly unequivocably condemns intolerance hatred and violence according to everything we can see in his record. That's even recognized by the worst of the most racist intolerant "christianists" so arguing over religion is simply another form of intolerance.

dogmatic ideologies exist in every system of thought and there are bad, evil, hateful scientists, democrats, communists, cowboys, gay people, cooks or english teachers. in rwanda it didn't matter what your ideology was. it only mattered who got more support from those international colonial powers who profit from war.

hatred intolerance evil are profitable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: religion and ideology Posted by: Spiritgirl
» RE: religion and ideology Posted by: Timba
» RE: religion and ideology Posted by: red porch
» Castro Brothers... Posted by: jlowelld

Comments are closed-

Why just Christianity?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Julian on Nov 9, 2009 2:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is understandable that when saying “religion” Americans mean Christianity. After all, they are getting it rammed down their throats every day and quite rightly react against it. However, the extreme intolerance of another religion is being rammed down European and British throats (to say nothing of North African, Middle Eastern and Pakistani) while its standard-bearers demand persistently that this intolerant creed be respected and tolerated while it calls for death to those who reject it (anyone remember Salman Rushdie?). Its own “holy book” is a living threat to human rights, especially the rights of women (in Europe, commonly seen clad in body bags) and the right of free speech (and I don’t mean free lies and racist speech). Every adherent is as bound to every anti-human clause in that book as every Christian a couple of millennia ago was bound to every anti-human sentence in the Bible.

But to attack this modern militant assault on human rights and on democracy is excoriated by many aghast atheists (who rightly recognise that Christianity should not be immune from criticism and even ridicule) as “bigotry”. They’ve even coined a word for it: “Islamophobia” (how about Naziphobia?). See a point by point comparison of the Koran with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by Koranic scholar Ibn Warraq. It’s at
http://www.rationalist.com.au/
archive/83/32-34%20Human%20Rights%
20Ibn.pdf (join it up in a single URL).

As for choosing to leave this cult, the penalties are roughly the same as they were for trying to leave Jonestown.

One must also remember that the bigoted intolerance of some life choices (such as same-sex relationships) displayed in Christianity and Islam doesn’t need religion to sustain it. It was the same in atheist USSR and still is in atheist China. (Though euthanasia is available in China if you go about it the right way - try to spread democracy and they’ll do it for you). The real enemy of reason isn’t religion, it’s faith, drummed into the public daily in the USSR and China. Religion is only one form of it. The Enlightenment was the start of a world battle for evidence-based reason that will persist for centuries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sorry - sort of typo Posted by: Julian
» Your definition is rather thin Posted by: SayBlade
» WTF. Posted by: Karlh

Comments are closed-

Belief...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: The Old Hippie on Nov 9, 2009 2:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
 
[Part I]

Atheists Do Believe, Just, (Obviously,) Not What “Believers” Believe.
by An American Atheist Because The Ideology Of The Believers Is Destroying My Nation.

Being an atheist does not mean one does not believe in anything, nor does it mean that one is above, and/or better than, and/or that there isn’t the possibility of a higher intelligence within, or without, the universe.  It simply means one does not believe in a “God” or “Gods” as defined by almost all human religious “faiths.”

Atheists do believe in good and evil, particularly concerning human endeavors and intent.  But most definitely not in a good or evil directed by an outside entity or entities with seemingly mysterious magical powers that respond to “prayers,” intra-personal thoughts, etc.

Even though it is possible that life on earth may have been created, started, or initiated by a being, maybe or maybe not, more advanced than ourselves, not unlike humans going to another planet and terraforming it for our future use, (pretty much a given in our future,) or to stimulate the growth/creation of “intelligence” as displayed in Arthur C. Clarke’s “2001 A Space Odyssey” series of stories concerning aliens that did just that.  Atheists do not “believe” any such entity, if one did start our evolution, is invisibly hanging around and magically responding to billions of “prayers” from earth’s multitudes, much less directing any cause and effect situations whatsoever here on the planet, much less doing so for the entire incomprehensible universe, or even much less that an entity created the universe.

Atheists do believe in the reality of reality, i.e. most all atheists are realists, more to the point, that to believe something true without any known possible reason for believing such to be true, or “faith” which is defined as; belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, is simply a form of insanity, particularly in regards to religious faith.

The big problem with human religious faith is that if reality conflicts with faith belief, then reality is rejected.  Rejected even to the point of allowing that murder of those not rejecting the reality, in “God’s” name, as demanded by most religious faith.  And if one believes in the same “God,” but in an even slightly different way, as most of the monotheistic beliefs do today, (i.e. Islam, Christianity, Judaism to name the big three, ) then the “faithful” are assured that they should die, and that it’s okay with their “God.”

The “certainty” of unrealistic religious faith belief, and its justifications for destroying any who disagree, is certainly destroying us.  But as history has proven, (many times over,) it can not be suppressed without almost just as disastrous results.
 

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Belief... Posted by: Doubtom43
» Umm. . . Posted by: The Old Hippie
» RE: Umm. . . Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Belief, Thanx For This... Posted by: red porch

Comments are closed-

Belief...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: The Old Hippie on Nov 9, 2009 2:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
 
[Part II]

The founders of this nation understood this well, having come from state religion controlled societies. It is why they created the demand for Separation of Church and State within the Construction - That law does not suppress religion, but it did create a wall of protection from this nation becoming a theocracy, controlled by one religion, that would not be able to stop itself from eventually becoming more fundamentalistic, and eventually attempting to suppress all other religions, and finally to the point that murder of non-believers, or believers in the same God, but just not in the same proscribed way... will be justified.

I just had to get it off my chest. I know it has been said many times, and in many different ways, but it makes my feel better to simply express my frustration with the insanity of human religious faith belief.

One must keep in mind that well over half of this planet’s population, (approximately 6.7 billion and counting,) have “below average” IQs. That is a mathematical fact, and it will never change, even with optimal education planetwide. It is that fact, along with the fact that “evil” people will always take advantage of that fact for sociopathic personal profit, whether that profit be money, power, fame, or a combination of all the possibilities of “profit.”

Sorry for the downer posting - But I just felt a need to spew it out.

-------------------------

Ignorance is curable, stupidity is forever.

Fight the stupid - Educate the ignorant.

Or stupidly pay the price.

Oh, wait... We already are. . .

Right?
 

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Downer posting? Posted by: sirios
» RE: Belief... Posted by: Doubtom43
» Construction... Posted by: The Old Hippie
» RE: Construction... Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Construction, plse stop this... Posted by: The Old Hippie
» RE: Construction... Posted by: The Old Hippie

Comments are closed-

Heavens forbid
[Report this comment]
Posted by: yusandnick on Nov 9, 2009 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like just another meatless article pushing one of Alternet's recent hobbyhorses: atheism, vegetarianism, and TV.

*As atheists, we should state clearly that...many churches and sects promote cruelty, ignorance, and civil rights abuses.*

Why do you have to be an atheist to do this? Why not just a sentient human being?

*protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services*

I assume this refers to abortion. But many people are opposed to abortion as a matter of conscience rather than religion. It is valid to require that abortion services be readily available to all, but it's inhuman to force individuals to commit acts that they feel are morally wrong.

*"condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy"*

Don't forget that some sects even condemn R-rated movies!!! And "reasonably enjoyable" books, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Heavens forbid Posted by: LightningJoe
» Medical professional services Posted by: BlueTigress

Comments are closed-

Atheist complacency
[Report this comment]
Posted by: peter193710 on Nov 9, 2009 3:01 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have repeatedly asserted that the strategy of the atheists is completely flawed- all they do is to affirm that NO God exists and they think that atheism is actually the ende of the development of religion-
and the end of religions too.
However religion has started when men have created a lot of imaginary supernatural beings- a lot of them-
polytheism was the start of the triumphal march of religions. Later it was recognized that there are too many gods and so their number has ben reduced till we have arrived to the present monotheisms- actually they are mainly pseudomonotheism- see Trinity etc. OK, the atheists
have gone only one step farther. But this does not the problem, people need religion - genetically, culturally and - let's say it, the existence of the majority is quite horrible and they need mental tranquilizers, lies, stories and hope.
The initial process of religionizing
has to be reverted, as Arthur Clarke
said it our mission is not to adore the Gods but to create them- from humans.
And this is the way to negatheism, the religion with a NEGATIVE number of Gods.
The basic equation and principle of negatheism is: RELIGION = EDUCATION.
The atheists have to understand a simple truth : Religion cannot be displaced, it has to be replaced.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Leave Jesus out of this please
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ProgGrandma on Nov 9, 2009 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus isn't the problem here--evangelical right-wing ultraconservative "Chrisians" are--they are NOT followers of Jesus or his teachings--they have perverted them, actually ignored them, for their own ends.

So don't "attack Jesus"--that only gives them a red herring to derail attention from their own misbegotten beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Go after Muhammad
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tlwinslow on Nov 9, 2009 3:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus and Christianity have been relentlessly slammed by rationalists in the West for hundreds of years, but Islam has been some kind of sacred cow, leaving radical jihadists a blank check to recruit mass murders such as Maj. Hasan of the Ft. Hood Massacre. Why? It's time rationalists went after Muhammad, Allah and the Quran and got to the 1.5 billion Muslims and made some gains before it's too late.

Too bad, Westerners in general are history ignoramuses when it comes to Islam, and their govts. have even been allowing mass Muslim immigration, heedless of the sure consequences. So, the first step is to catch up on the key facts of the rise, spread and doctrines of Islam before diving into the Quran and other main writings. Where is the best place to do this for free online? Try the Historyscoper at http://go.to/islamhistory

While Christianity was dangerous when its organized churches ran the govt., those days are behind us, yet Islam from day one united mosque and state and commanded true believers to increase the territory ruled by its horrible Sharia by force, killing all who resist, which includes atheists and freethinkers. So get off your duffs, okay?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another durned typo Posted by: Julian
» RE: Go after Muhammad Posted by: vasumurti
» Those day are behind us? Posted by: chaoslegs

Comments are closed-

Atheist IS Standing Ground
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Atheistno1 on Nov 9, 2009 4:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Atheist's are expected to be controlled by an environment of what they are & are not allowed to say. The religious psychological grooming of controlled environments so they may maintain domination of power & damage control of the religious & bogus belief in their imaginary man called 'GOD'. They argue that Atheist's are 'cry babies' because we have some nasty thing's to say about their religion but in fact the truth always hurts & the nasty comments come from the religious fanatics because they can't stand our remarks being based on fact's. One can't help (RMI) Religious Mental Illness!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Atheist IS Standing Ground Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Atheist IS Standing Ground Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Atheist IS Standing Ground Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

Fine, just don't expect results
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beck on Nov 9, 2009 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mock away, but that won't undermine anything. It makes you look like lumpers-together with no ability or willingness to bother discerning. Isn't the point supposed to be no Ten Commandments in public or prayer in schools? Those have already been won. We may have to keep up the battle, even forever, but Christian fundamentalists lost those battles.

Mocking will undermine nothing. It's no one's business what anyone else believes. Stick to official business, and stop thinking anyone has any more right to attempt to shift beliefs in anyone else's head than you have the right to come into my living room and move my furniture. I'd rather have you try to move my furniture than sneeringly think you belong in my head. Gotta show at least a little wisdom and compassion and ability to look beyond your own experience before you think you should tamper with others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Condemn the sin not the sinner? Posted by: Sojourner

Comments are closed-

karlo
[Report this comment]
Posted by: banger on Nov 9, 2009 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last real christian died 2000 years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Niezsche said Posted by: Changling

Comments are closed-

why mock when simple comparisons
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aislinnluv on Nov 9, 2009 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
show the lack of merit in religious beliefs? take actions and behaviors of "god" and compare them with the same actions and behaviors in a common man or woman. would we accept or reject the person behaving this way? "god" is capricious, jealous, overbearing, demanding, bigoted, misogynistic. he is an instigator of child murder - oh, wait, just kidding! that was merely a "test of faith"! if your father or husband or brother behaved in the same way, would you be looking for a safe shelter, calling the cops, asking for him to be committed? "god" allegedly created humans in his own image; if this is so, why is it considered an offense for women to go bareheaded? orthodox jewish women must wear a head covering of some sort to appear in public, just as muslim women are required to do. are women inherently unclean or is "god" a dirty old man? if he gave us free will, why does he punish people who use it (consider masturbation - pleasurable, hurts nobody, so why would using your free will to enjoy it be a sin?) too much about religion of most sorts is illogical and contradictory. pah! forget mockery, go straight to derision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Singing in my key
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DennisNYC on Nov 9, 2009 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is not only singing my song, it's singing it in my key! Thank you for this excellent, well-written piece!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

You can't mock belief away
[Report this comment]
Posted by: teenabooth on Nov 9, 2009 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This essay is too simplistic. If it was possible to mock belief out of existence, then athiests would have disappeared long ago.

Religious faith is not something you can talk someone out of -- either with joking or mockery, or with facts. The mockery only makes the person more defensive, so they hunker down and constantly justify their position to themselves. And to say that you are in possession of the only "rational" argument is irrationality itself. We don't get to define what's rational to other people. Many, myself included, think that assuming the world and all it's complicated life evolved by some lucky accident is not rational at all.

The only way that fundamentalist belief can be transcended -- whether in Christianity or Islam or athiesm -- is by growing out of it. If we are given room to grow instead of being forced to constantly defend and justify ourselves, we can move from childish insistence to a mature spiritual questioning.

Attacking Christians is counterproductive. It's like attacking a first grade child for not having a fifth grade understanding of life. I think what we need to do is make sure that more people understand there are more mature stages of spiritual understanding, then let them grow up at their own pace. True, a lot of them won't ever grow, but I think most people are doing the best they can with what they've got to work with.

See the Map of Spiritual Growth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well said! Posted by: harryf200
» RE: You can't mock belief away Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

As well as those who should be standing up For Jeusus and God
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 9, 2009 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christ was not a soldier for God. He never weilded a weapon and slaughtered his adversaries. He merely asked them to see the errors of their ways. Not condemning them, but convincing them by his words and good deeds.
"Guns and God" is Blashphemy when spoken in the majority of religions that is if they are being practiced correctly. Heretical when acted upon.
Far worse for a Chrisitian to tout such a credo. How can you be devoted to the Life of Christ, yet your behavior and attitudes are in direct contradiction to it and his teachings.
They are fixated on the one portayl of Jesus when he returns. A speculative delusion by a man possibly living in exile in a cave. One that is so far away from the Life stories, that one's attention is rightly captured, by the shock.Come on who wasn't shocked once they were no longer spared the nightmare called 'Revelations' in their Chrisitan education? Not everyone was taught 'Christ the Avenger' version.Nor God the Destroyer
Worse yet is the idea that a All powerful Creator who be so petty as to torture all of humanity (along with all other living things on the planet) in Seven Sadist Acts of Revenge.
Funnier yet is that this Almighty must waste time and energy on duking it out with an underling. They're say 'One and Only One' can't dispense with Satan at will. He requires the aid of mere mortals with their AK47s or shoulder rocket launchers. Oh Yea Of Little Faith.
Besides when you actually get to the end of the Story you John tells you Christ Defeats Satan with just "The Word". The 'Armegeddon' part is only a means to highlight the fact that in the end "The Truth" (whatever it is) will ring True to all. It will be Undeniable.
These self prophesizing cults of 'apocalypse' have been around as long as man has philsosphized about existence.They were run out of town because to be successful in a confined society the ideas of death and destruction are best Rules for communal living. The aim is not that they remain commandments but become standards.
So these Apocalypters disregard about the first 3 commandments by making Satan a admirable foe to the Almighty. Please.
They portray Jesus as if he wore a Roman Toga and armorment.
And basically create an image of both God and Jesus as some Sadistic bastards. That is not Chrisitianity.
My Jesus is a man of Peace.
My "God" is not afraid their Satan, so neither am I.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Horror...The Horror...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jmmartin on Nov 9, 2009 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kurtz? Wasn't he that guy who went up the jungle river and lived with pirates and waged war on the powers that be? I love Paul Kurtz, but I profoundly disagree with him in being civil to people like the ReverEND John Hagee (who thinks Katrina was "God's" punishment on New Orleans for hosting a gay pride event), or the ReverEND Pat Robber'sson (who scares children into thinking their Halloween candy was cursed by witches), or Tony (the PAC man, not the actor) Perkins (who thinks gays can be "cured" and who almost singlehandedly spearheaded the repeal of same sex marriage in California).

No, these people do not deserve civility. They are uncivil themsleves and I believe in fighting fire with fire. Most of them are bull moose loonies with messianic complexes. We should give them what they really want. I will supply the railroad nails (three each). You bring the telephone poles with crossbeams. We'll nail 'em up and put "Ecce Homo" signs on top of the poles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

All Opinions Are Fair Game
[Report this comment]
Posted by: akarr1953 on Nov 9, 2009 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberals, religious or not, tend to support tolerance for all opinions as equally valid, given that all knowledge is tentative. But while we know what we know only until proven wrong, there is a difference between public and private knowledge.
Public knowledge is that which can be presented to any competent and reasonable person for examination and critique and, as long as it withstands reasonable public scrutiny, can be considered true for all. "Two plus two equals four," and "Petroleum is a finite resource," are two such bits of public knowledge. That all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor is also public, though the proof requires more time to develop and satisfactorily present.
All religions, however benign they may seem, rest on claims that cannot withstand the above test of public scrutiny. One cannot demonstrate, to the satisfaction of all (or even most) reasonable persons, that Jesus paid for the sins of humanity, the existence of chakras, or the linguistic perfection of the Quran -- despite the possibility, however remote, that all three beliefs are correct. Therefore, in a pluralistic society, these and other statements of faith should carry no weight in the making of public policy. Reasonable persons, even those with a particular religious faith, should oppose any effort to give insulate religious dogma from public criticism when its adherents seek to impose their views on unbelievers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All Opinions Are Fair Game Posted by: harryf200
» RE: All Opinions Are Fair Game Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

Lol, right. It's all the "do unto others" morons that are the problem with this country.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 9, 2009 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good grief, have fun with your mocking, social fanatics because, as your ideological role model said, 'If you ain't wif us, partner, yer agin' us*.'

*GWB circa 2002

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Standing Up to Jesus
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 9, 2009 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have probably read that conservatives are rewriting the bible to exclude all of those pesky liberal passages.

No doubt this will require them to eliminate all of the New Testament except, perhaps, the Book of Revelations. Jesus was such a liberal, you know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Have you forgotten Jesus?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: advancedatheist on Nov 9, 2009 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it about time you did?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why? Posted by: SayBlade
» RE: Why? Posted by: jaded
» RE: Why? Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Why? Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

Matthew 10:34
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Nov 9, 2009 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Matthew 10:34, Jesus says, "Don't imagine that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Let's say that this is entirely symbolic of Jesus's mission on Earth, rather than a call to arms (which he didn't do). Then, it stands to reason that his mission was to bring disruption to families, which, according to the Family Values Crowd (TM), is the foundational unit of all cultures. Imagine that. Jesus rending the family unit apart... Hmmm. Seems I've heard that one before.

This type of teaching is indeed doing its work. Families all across America regularly kick their gay kids out. Joel O. teaches that fabulous wealth will get you to heaven - basically the religious version of hyper, unrelenting, unrepentant capitalism that brought the entire world to a meltdown in 2008. Pat Robertson uses his sword each and every day when he opens his mouth on his TV network. The list is practically endless.

Fundamentalists and zealots are the product of bad brain chemistry. You may not be able to see the lesions in their brains but the scars are there. We are all witness to the scabs they leave when they wield their swords indiscriminately across this nation.

So what if they have soup kitchens, used clothing shops, and if they minister to the poor. The VAST MAJORITY of their work is to cut you off at the knees. With their sword.

The metaphorical one that Jesus told them about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Fear and Ignorance: Religious Recruiter
[Report this comment]
Posted by: freshlemon on Nov 9, 2009 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as people have fear and loneliness, there will be some form of religion and groups who exploit that fear and loneliness.

The religion one selects to alleviate that fear is determined by location, traditions and prevailing culture of our immediate environment. People migrate mentally and physically to what appears to be the religion with the most power to protect them from outside sources with a different perspective. This 'us against them' attitude seems to be more important to religious groups than their actual belief in their faith.

There is little agreement among the various sects of a religion. These sects are almost feudalistic and set up great castles to defend their particular brand. Dissent within the castles leads to new brands negating the concept of tolerance. Religious groups are constantly in conflict with each other.


The only true conqueror of religious control is knowledge. The more we know and experience, the less we have to fear. Mankind has been ridding itself of god's since the beginning of time as new knowledge trumped the old god's.

All people are entitled to their own personal standards, but they are not entitled to attempt to impose those standards on their government or on other people via their government.

Government is a business, not a religion. The attempt to make government toe the religious line threatens the safety and well-being of every citizen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Conqueror Posted by: LeaderofMen

Comments are closed-

It's finally OK to be less than civil-
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Doubtom43 on Nov 9, 2009 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to religionists? Nice to know that my method has finally achieved acceptance. I've never seen the need to pussyfoot around the sensibilities of the willfully ignorant. It's one thing to harbor unlikely views within the confines of your own mind, but when you profer them onto the general public, they should be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other contention, most especially when your ridiculous beliefs insist on intruding into our politics and laws. I will not be guided nor will I be constrained by ignorance.

A measure of the religionists' collective idiocy, is that they seem to be unaware of the fact that, were they were satisfied to keep their brand of insanity to themselves or their houses of "worship", they would be seen as acceptable by the rest of us--weird, to be sure, but acceptable under the principle of freedom to think as one might.

When the religionists start to push, they must expect the rest of us to be at least as rude and push back. We can live peacefully and we can be civil, the method for achieving this equilibrium is well known.

It is not the atheists who are assaulting the churches and pushing their views on the congregations! So, to mythical hell with your mythical god! Is that uncivil enough?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

are you kidding??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Nov 9, 2009 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that's all atheists/humanists do - mock religion (almost exclusively mocking fundamentalist christians)...i work for a humanist community and wish they'd stop acting like a bunch of 7-year-olds on the playground...honestly, i wish the atheists/humanists would just get on with the other stuff they CLAIM to be about rather then wasting their time being the "anti" group...most of 'em are just as "possessed" by their own beliefs, self-righteousness and dogmatic thinking as the fundy xtians anyway...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: are you kidding?? Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: are you kidding?? Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

Jesus Freaks
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Nov 9, 2009 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Belief in a conservative Jesus was once fostered by the wealthy to curb Atheists from coming to power, but their fear is now nonsense. 90% of the national household wealth is in the hands of a few, and they have the final say in matters of importance. It would be best for big business to nurture the Atheist mind and restore the nation to its number one scientific position. Jesus freaks are a drag on the economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Religion = control
[Report this comment]
Posted by: frankly1 on Nov 9, 2009 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is simply a control mechanism. That is why they start teaching it to you before you are capable of critical thinking. When you are old enough to reason the frame is already built and the fear of denial has been installed. Denial of the deities becomes more difficult than soiling yourself after you've been potty trained. If we could get rid of religion we could probably end war and many other horrors we credit to "Gods' Will". As Douglas Adams said find proof that God exists and he vanishes in a puff of logic as faith is the sole reason for a god.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Against my principle. Posted by: frankly1
» RE: THC Ministry Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Against my principle. Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» Gotta love it! Posted by: frankly1

Comments are closed-

The logic of religion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aussidawg on Nov 9, 2009 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Various churches and sects condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy. As a result, these are frowned upon, if not prohibited outright, in many parts of the world, indeed people lose their lives because of them."

This is one thing that kills me (no pun intended.) People are actually executed for using what god presumeably gave them to procreate. That is of course unless there is a silly ritual where a group of people gather to listen to some dude in a robe with a pile of laundry on his head* or a suit and stiff white collar (now that's kinky) read a few tales about what a collection of sheep herders from 2000+ years ago thought to be reality and then gives them the go ahead to do it to it (but of course not like Will and Sonny Pruitt used to do it...to it.)

Okay, now here's a tale for all you Bible thumpers out there. When God was giving out brains to Adam and Eve, they misunderstood and thought he said "trains." They then proceeded to miss it. This explains why to this date so much of mankind remains impervious to thought.

*I am not trying to isolate Islam in this instance. Look at the hat the Pope wears. It looks like a high dollar Burger King hat. There are many "Christians" in this country (R.J. Rushdoony comes to mind) that would love to have us under the same harsh religious laws as many middle eastern countries currently llive under. IMHO, many of these religious beliefs, be they Christian, Muslum, Judism, or Hinduism, are completely equal in their insanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The logic of religion Posted by: harryf200

Comments are closed-

Patriot Act
[Report this comment]
Posted by: littlepitcher on Nov 9, 2009 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Be darned careful where you do your mocking. Christians in this country run a de-facto union and hiring hall, and they are bullythugs who will gang up on you and keep you permanently in the unemployment line for y/our proud and infidel heresies.

They manage to evade right-to-work and open shop laws which should be utilized to break their hegemony. Now, with fundamentalists going half-crazy trying to control government, we, and not just the social pathology called Islam, could end up targets of wiretaps, investigations, and government sanctions.

Think I'm paranoid? Try living in a red-state small town and openly defying the local church-ocracy.

And, no, we don't need to be kid-gloving Islam and playing the PC tolerance game. They have no tolerance and their behaviors outside of common decency, courtesy, and American liberty and tolerance need not be tolerated by any.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Patriot Act Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Patriot Act Posted by: harryf200
» RE: Patriot Act Posted by: xtiml

Comments are closed-

MORE ENTITLEMENTS?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 9, 2009 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Atheism is legitimate and a free choice. It does not however bestow on its members the right to "mock" anyone for any reason. The absence of a belief in anyone or anything does not include the right to belittle people. It's not religion that causes most of us to be civil toward each other. It's common decency. The right not to believe has no privileges beyond that. Growing up would probably help. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MORE ENTITLEMENTS? Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: MORE ENTITLEMENTS? Posted by: VZEQICVA

Comments are closed-

RE: Leave Jesus out of this please
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree. Attacking Jesus will only backfire. Atheists, humanists, rationalists, secularists, etc. should attack Paul, not Jesus.

Christian theologian Dr. Upton Clary Ewing writes:

“With all due respect for the integrity of Paul, he was not one of the Twelve Apostles… Paul never knew Jesus in life. He never walked and prayed with Him as He went from place to place, teaching the word of God.”

In one of the finest books on early Christianity, Those Incredible Christians, Dr. Hugh Schonfield reports:

“For the Apostolic Church much that Paul taught was grievous error not at all in accord with the mind and message of the Messiah. The original Apostles could urge that the truth was known by them. But Paul had never companied with Jesus or heard what he said…”

The great theologian Soren Kirkegaard, writing in the Journals, echoes the above sentiment:

“In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ, The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely, turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ.”

The great American philosopher Will Durant, in his Caesar and Christ, wrote:

Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ…Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known…Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change.”

Martin Buber, the most respected Jewish philosopher of the 20th century, wrote in Two Types of Faith:

“The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul.”

When you read the epistles of Paul, all you get are Paul’s own ideas; he never quotes the sayings of Jesus, he never reports on the life of Jesus. That point is also made by the famous theologian Helmut Koester, in his The Theological Aspects of Primitive Christian Heresy:

“Paul himself stands in the twilight zone of heresy. In reading Paul, one immediately encounters a major difficulty. Whatever Jesus had preached did not become the content of the missionary proclamation of Paul…Sayings of Jesus do not play a role in Paul’s understanding of the event of salvation…Paul did not care at all what Jesus had said… Had Paul been completely successful, very little of the sayings of Jesus would have survived.”

Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States, wrote in a letter to William Short:

“Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”

George Bernard Shaw, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925, wrote:

“There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus…There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul’s soul upon the soul of Jesus…It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus…was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at the time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

RE: Leave Jesus out of this please (cont'd)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, wrote in his Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of Paul:

“Paul…did not desire to know Christ…Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded…What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?…The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority…The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.”

William Wrede, in his excellent book Paul, informs us:

“The obvious contradictions in the three accounts (given by Paul in regard to his conversion) are enough to arouse distrust…The moral majesty of Jesus, his purity and piety, his ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the whole concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life, signifies for Paul’s Christology nothing whatever…The name ‘disciple of Jesus’ has little applicability to Paul…Jesus or Paul: this alternative characterizes, at least in part, the religious and theological warfare of the present day.”

Rudolf Bultman, one of the most respected theologians of the 20th century, wrote in his Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul:

“It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his… views. When the essential Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus’ teaching is—to all intents and purposes—irrelevant for Paul.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Elmer Gantry
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gideon Planish on Nov 9, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In many situations, it is better to be civil, as Paul Kurtz has pointed out, but satire and mockery have traditionally had a legitimate place whenever absurd ideas are joined to power and privilege. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire often used mockery to show the absurdity of ideological stances — including religious ones — that were considered sacrosanct. Mockery is one way of saying that a view does not deserve to be taken seriously. Religious views are fair game if one can also show, on a more serious level, why the view in question does indeed not deserve serious respect.

Perhaps some rationalist or humanist organisations, such as Kurtz's venerable Center for Inquiry, do have good reason to maintain a scholarly and dignified brand image. But there is also room for the younger, brasher atheists whom Kurtz inaccurately brands as "fundamentalists", and, in any event, there is a world of difference between appropriate civility and keeping quiet."

Do you suppose that Kurtz has ever listened to the Chariots of Iron poscast?:

Apple iTunes Store> pod casts> religion> other> Chariots of Iron

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This is bollocks
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harryf200 on Nov 9, 2009 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mock and Satire? Oh yeah, that really will convince people ... I don't think!

Mocking and satire will only drive the religious into being even more defensive, and it won't persuade those who are in doubt. All it will do is amuse those who believe already religion is a load of crap .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Is Smoking In Church Still Allowed - Or Has It Been Banned?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 9, 2009 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to wear a long red gown called a cassock with a white top - in fact just like this

When it was a Benediction Service, I used to have one of these .

It was enormous fun, and what with the prayers and Latin and chanting and stuff, I used to get quite high.

Is it still legal?

I gave it up when I was 15, when I discovered God. She was beautiful, but the priest wanted to know all about her in confession. I thought it was none of his bloody business, so left the Church permanently with the priest all excited.

Not been back since except for funerals and stuff.

Bless Me Father For I have Sinned. How Come You Are Allowed To Smoke In Church?

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If there is one tyhing that is as boring and tedious is an evangelical Christian it's ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harryf200 on Nov 9, 2009 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... an evangelical atheist.

I don't care what Christians, other religious Atheist groups think; I wish they'd all just shut up, piss-off and preach somewhere I don't have to listen to their boring an tedious rants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You have a choice, Posted by: Karlh
» RE: You have a choice, Posted by: Fojie

Comments are closed-

A nautical analogy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: willymack on Nov 9, 2009 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Green to green, or red to red
Perfect safety; go ahead.
When in danger or in doubt
Port your helm, and come about
The colors here alude to the running lights on a boat or ship, and are lit at night so they can be seen by other mariners. Green is starboard (right), and red is port (left). Porting one's helm is turning around and going the opposite way, so if you see a green light on your starboard side, that's a vessel going the opposite way, and you can readily gauge if you can safely pass each other.
Porting one's helm and coming about often makes as much sense as its parody "Run in circles, scream and shout".
The ships at sea can be equated to REALITY, which is the world we live in, like it or not.
Take all those holy names thought up over the centuries, and substitute, them with names like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Beavis & Butt-Head, etc. and it changes NOTHING. It's STILL a scam, a cartoon for those with weak wills and middling minds. A PARODY.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A nautical analogy Posted by: MyLeftFoot

Comments are closed-

It is not religion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 9, 2009 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that creates such egregious activities mentioned in this article, it is the human practice of religion that always causes problems. This though is not to be laid at the feet of the religion itself but only at its practice. Many Christians for instance do not agree with or support the conservative Republican fringe religious right wing. Why is that? because they are picking one small part of a much larger picture to dwell on to the detriment of everything else. With respect to social and cultural amity, religion has supplied some basic requirements without which no normal society can exist. "Thou shalt not kill" for instance. Without that basic restriction that civilized societies live by, no one would want to leave their houses. It is a necessary requirement for our society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I'm not religious and I have no faith but ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harryf200 on Nov 9, 2009 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... I'd rather share the friendship of someone, religious or not, who is kind, considerate and compassionate than with someone who is not.

There is nothing considerate, compassionate or kind about mockery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What I have never understood
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chaoslegs on Nov 9, 2009 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is my attempt at mockery (or understanding):

If Jesus is the son of God. Why do Christian's pray to Jesus, not God. Now if they are one in the same, then why the distinction between the two?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

One day
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettyn on Nov 9, 2009 10:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
humanity get over this obsession with all these various "sky fairies". We will have truly evolved into a higher species when this happens. John Lennon was right in "Imagine".

Maybe then we can live in peace and accept others for who they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: One day, If Nothing Else... Posted by: red porch

Comments are closed-

when did mocking become an accpetable form
[Report this comment]
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Nov 9, 2009 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of social discourse? ESPECIALLY by those who claim superior intellect and intelligence....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Mocking vs. discourse
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Fojie on Nov 9, 2009 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When did mocking become an acceptable form of social discourse? ESPECIALLY by those who claim superior intellect and intelligence.... "

It hasn't.

Mockery is the tactic of people incapable or unwilling to use a reasoned and rational argument.

They mock the ideas they cannot refute or the people they hate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Committing Suicide For Allah
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Nov 9, 2009 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE WORD IS OUT: "The promise of a jet plane to paradise for believers that kill themselves, was a lie spread by Satan. He has a special reward for those that commit suicide for Allah. Their private parts will be set on fire to keep the furnaces of Hell burning for an eternity". SPREAD THE WORD.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

No, mockery has long been used
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pancakebunny on Nov 9, 2009 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to refute stupid ideas.

Religious teachings are largely without merit and should be ridiculed, especially when the religious are using their "faith" to undermine science and rationality.

The Christian religion, in its fundamentalist forms, is a great tool for the ruling class to keep the masses stupid since it requires rejection of all rational thought in many areas of your life. For example, You don't have to worry about global warming because 1) science is all lies and 2) Jesus will fly in on a cloud and save all the believers anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Religion is a lie
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leland61 on Nov 9, 2009 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when it teaches myths, superstition and nonsense as if they were "truths" that can be demonstrated using the scientific method.

When religions assert that there are gods - take your pick on the type - this lie needs to be shown for what it is - a baseless assertion that myth and folk tales are verities rather than legends and delusions.

I don't care how "moderate" religion is - if it is any sort of theism - it is a lie and deludes people into all sorts of nonsensical notions, practices, prejudices, hatreds and malevolent practices - from the murder of witches and gay people to jihadist suicide bombers - they are all born from the same set of theistic delusional beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion is a lie Posted by: Fojie
» If atheism is a religion... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: If atheism is a religion... Posted by: cats.anon

Comments are closed-

Thanks, Blackford and Schuklenk for the voice of reason
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 9, 2009 1:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading through the commentary to your salient piece is an exercise worthy of Joseph Conrad indeed.

As an atheist who came out of the fundie Xtian than Jewish fundie then Jewish progressive paths, I fully appreciate what you had to say. I agree that criticism is a must when we have fundie groups destroying policy efforts, like healthcare reform, for example, that should be made for the inclusive and broadest benefit of ALL not merely the special interest of a corporation, a private sector of the "market" or a group of people who believe that Jeebus says all women are the sum of their uterus and the quantity of viable ova (or would that be ovum...?).

Just like human rights, when Laws become the sledgehammer of the religious zealot, the religious zealot has just bought themselves an opt-out from participation. Law and the public sphere cannot never be permitted to be shanghai'd by the smallest, the most narrow POV and preference. It must always expand and include the broadest quotient. Otherwise it's no democracy.

I don't give a fuck what another believes, so long as that belief doesn't constrain, limit, exclude and exert violence and oppression against any other. Religious folk need to accept that bottom line. Otherwise they don't get to play. Period.

If that basic bottom line is offensive to a religious person, that speaks volumes about them, that they cannot accept human rights above their religious beliefs for the bottom line in a pluralistic democracy. The level of religious whining has to stop. It has to stop because it is materially HARMING others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

ummm good luck with that
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kenhymes on Nov 9, 2009 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yeah... insults and mockery are going to succeed where the renaissance, the industrial and scientific revolutions, and two major atheist powers (USSR and China) have failed.
Why do you guys persist in A: believing that all human failings are due to belief in invisible things, and B: being unable to recognize that this kind of belief is practically universal in human experience?
Who are you angry at exactly? The rest of the human race? Because if you think that religious belief is sustained by religious institutions, you obviously have not had a close look at the incompetence and hilariousness of these institutions. They couldn't manipulate their way out of a box. People KNOW all about the stupidity of their priests, and believe what they believe ANYWAY. I'm not interested in arguing with you about whether this makes them "mentally ill" or whatever Dawkins-ism you favor; but surely it is a kind of belief in the invisible to think that you are onto a vehicle for social or political change with this strategy.
It's called pluralism, and it has really worked pretty well in the US and Europe, at least as well as... well, what is it you are proposing? Not sure, really, are you, when it comes down to it? No, just a vague idea that science will be the standard. That's worked real well hasn't it? Are you going to blame nuclear weapons, eugenics, thalidomide, and Vietnam on religion? If so, you are more delusional than the fruitiest shaman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ummm good luck with that Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: ummm good luck with that Posted by: Balance40
» RE: ummm good luck with that Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: ummm good luck with that Posted by: Balance40

Comments are closed-

religion and animals
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 3:09 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to see organized religion take up the struggle for animal rights. Religion has been wrong before. It has been said that on issues such as women's rights and human slavery, religion has impeded social and moral progress. It was a Spanish Catholic priest, Bartolome de las Casas, who first proposed enslaving black Africans in place of the Native Americans who were dying off in great numbers.

The church of the past never considered human slavery to be a moral evil. The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern states actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.

Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a moral relation," "God's institution," "not immoral," but "founded in right." The slave trade was called "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."

New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of slaves (Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; I Peter 2:18-25) and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2; Ephesians 6:5-9) were often cited in order to justify human slavery. Some of Jesus' parables refer to human slaves. Paul's epistle to Philemon concerns a runaway slave returned to his master.

The Quakers were one of the earliest religious denominations to condemn human slavery. "Paul's outright endorsement of slavery should be an undying embarrassment to Christianity as long as they hold the entire New Testament to be the word of God," says contemporary Quaker physician Dr. Charles P. Vaclavik. "Without a doubt, the American slaveholders quoted Paul again and again to substantiate their right to hold slaves.

"The moralist movement to abolish slavery had to go to non-Biblical sources to demonstrate the immoral nature of slavery. The abolitionists could not turn to Christian sources to condemn slavery, for Christianity had become the bastion of the evil practice through its endorsement by the Apostle Paul. Only the Old Testament gave the abolitionist any Biblical support in his efforts to free the slaves. 'You shall not surrender to his master a slave who has taken refuge with you.' (Deuteronomy 23:15) What a pittance of material opposing slavery from a book supposedly representing the word of God."

In 1852, Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed blacks were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel," wrote in 1867: "the tempter in the Garden of Eden...was a beast, a talking beast...the negro." Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah's family, he must have been a beast. Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro must be a beast, and "consequently, he has no soul to be saved."

The status of animals in contemporary human society is like that of human slaves in centuries past. Quoting Luke 4:18, Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28 or any other biblical passages in favor of liberty, equality and an end to human slavery in the 18th or 19th century would have been met with the same kind of response animal rights activists receive today if they quote Bible verses in favor of ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.

Someone once pointed out that while Hitler may have claimed to be a Christian, he imprisoned Christian clergy who opposed the Nazi regime, and even Christian churches were subject to the terror of the Nazis. Thinking along these lines, I realize that while I would like to see organized religion support animal liberation (e.g., as was the case with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the American civil rights movement) rather than simply remain an obstacle to social and moral progress (e.g., 19th century southern churches in the U.S. upheld human slavery on biblical grounds), this support must come freely and voluntarily.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Buddha
[Report this comment]
Posted by: suprmark on Nov 9, 2009 4:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One day Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up and began insulting him. "You have no right teaching others," he shouted. "You are as stupid as everyone else. You are nothing but a fake."

Buddha was not upset by these insults. Instead he asked the young man "Tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong?"

The man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, "It would belong to me, because I bought the gift."

The Buddha smiled and said, "That is correct. And it is exactly the same with your anger. If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you. You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself."

"If you want to stop hurting yourself, you must get rid of your anger and become loving instead. When you hate others, you yourself become unhappy. But when you love others, everyone is happy."

from jokebest at tBlog

There is plenty to learn from every religion. Feel free to keep your mockery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Buddha Posted by: GEM-592
» RE: Buddha Posted by: willymack
» RE: Buddha Posted by: GEM-592
» RE: Buddha Posted by: GEM-592
» RE: Buddha Posted by: red porch
» RE: Buddha Posted by: Singe

Comments are closed-

xtiml
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xtiml on Nov 9, 2009 5:54 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only religoon mentioned is christian, and you styate the american and czanadian governments pander to christian morals. These reporters are obviously biased wigth an agenda. i would like to mock judaism how would tha go over ? since both governments pander to judaism , well pander is a bad word lets just say bow down and kiss their feet.this is an ingenous article and way behind the times . christian moral values i am not afraid of it is judaic moral values that will ruin us and are doing so as bush sihned noahide laws in 1992 so that is in place when the spring their new jew world order .since jewss own 96% of the WORLD's media I would say alter net is owned by them too,.articla is trying to drag up a lost cuase as no one thinks our governments push chritian values, I only with they did.I'll ask you a question why is our government os full of jews? why are all the south american and central american (mexico too) presidents jews? the one or 2 that are not have influential/powerfully connected jewish wives. why is that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Most Enduring Fallacy...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: L5 on Nov 9, 2009 6:04 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That "Religious teachings promise us much — eternal life, spiritual salvation, moral direction, and a deeper understanding of reality." is a fallacy.

What is wrong with religion is that it attempts to teach us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all and it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.

Thomas Paine understood this very well when he noted that, "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

xtiml
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xtiml on Nov 9, 2009 6:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as to standing up to soemthing i recommend standing up to the overwhelming jewish influence on our country that is sending it in to ruination as i write,probably beyond fixing. The jews run this country and many others, so why dont you stand up to judaism? there is no suchj thing as judeo-christianity, how can one who murdered the god of the other be linked with them besides the fact the talmus tells us jesus is boiling in feces foreever and his mother Mary was a whore.and it is ok to have sex with children and it is ok to steal/murder non jews but not jews and on and on and on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Agnostic Opinion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: GEM-592 on Nov 9, 2009 9:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand that identifying myself with the word agnostic will make me seem insufficiently militant, but as someone who has always had little use for religion, and has also been living long in a religious world, I don't think mocking helps.

The goal is power. Established religions have it, abuse it, and twist it to their own ends. Agreed. Reasonable people want it, and all people really need reasonable people to have it, whether they know it or not. We should be worried not in the beliefs themselves so much as applying ourselves to the task of removing those in power who exercise that power mainly on behalf of their religion; because that is wrong, the bottom line is that governance via established religious doctrine is out of line, those who do it need to be identified and defeated by any means available.

But they are now in power, at least in the U.S. of A. So I ask again, how does mocking belief systems which are clearly indefensible in the real world going to help? In doing this, you fight the battle on their terms, and even if you win, you lose. Most people who believe have little use or familiarity with reason, and when they hear it, it only sounds to them like somebody's trying to hurt them personally, or convince them that another religion is the correct one. Many atheists identify believers as being ignorant - the only way to combat this is not by mocking their doctrine, but by instead introducing and discussing reason and reality in a dispassionate, but compelling way. When they talk about god, talk about the scientific method. When they claim to have all the answers, say that you're more interested in the questions. If they ask you to prove that god doesn't exist, admit that you can't, but more to the point find the question irrelevant.

Religions aren't powerful because believers have carefully had it all explained to them, and have been convinced. No. They're powerful because they're easy, safe, familiar, and require little more than participation. A reasoned argument directed at a religious person or community is usually doomed from the start, and even if "won" is at best inefficient.

Believers largely respond to power, not to reason. The point to convey is that regardless what you believe, belief doesn't call the shots in government, period. You don't care what they believe, only about your right to absolutely choose not to live according to their beliefs without penalty.

Don't get caught up in a philosophical discussion with somebody who is almost certainly unreachable, and yes mocking is a tool of philosophical discussion, as the author admits, and thus by definition dignifies the other side and is therefore categorically beside the point. In short, don't waste time having a reasonable argument with an unequipped person. The best thing to do is state your own case, grow your own power, and call out those who openly govern according to their religion, whichever it may be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why is this titled as such?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aberdeen on Nov 9, 2009 9:39 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is nothing in this article that has anything remotely do do with Jesus, who very clearly is not the founder of Christianity. Why is this article entitled "standing up to Jesus"? Could it be that the authors have an obvious bias agains Jesus? Why isn't it entitled standing up to Muhammad, Buddha or the Great Boobie, Richard Dawkins, the supreme high priest of the narrow-minded conservative fundamentalist religion of atheism? What a crock of shit !!!

Who Would Jesus Bomb? - www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why is this titled as such? Posted by: Richardsievert

Comments are closed-

Evidence?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MJScott on Nov 10, 2009 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hear this question all the time from atheists - decrying the lack of evidence for the existence of God. I am curious:

What would constitute evidence?

In other words, what would an atheist consider valid proof of God's existence? Can you imagine a test case whereby the God-question could be satisfied in the affirmative?

I'm hoping you'll take this as an honest intellectual challenge, because I've never actually heard an answer to the question, only a lot of ad hominem attacks and snarky comments meant to sound clever, but which only serve to avoid the issue.

Please don't ask me what constitutes evidence for me. I just want to know what you consider satisfactory proof.

Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: vidence? Posted by: can-lizzy

Comments are closed-

Mock religion??????
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bigbrother on Nov 10, 2009 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
""Civility has its uses, but atheists should not be afraid to mock faith to undermine religious power""

Is that what America is about, mocking religion or any other belief or non belief systems?

Atheists are much more proactive in mocking religious beliefs than the religious groups are of mocking them. Maybe they should take a lesson in the teachings of Jesus or even Muhammad - they would be better people for it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Bill from AR.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: joQQeb on Nov 10, 2009 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Civility has its uses, but atheists should not be afraid to mock faith to undermine religious power."

Great idea guys! Why don't ya'll show us the true courage of your convictions and begin by mocking Allah & Islam?

You did say 'faith' didn't you? Or are you just against christian forms of 'faith'?

I understand that your chances of living until your next birthday would be slim and none; but you cannot expect to be taken seriously if you are going to be selective about the groups you take on.

Being against christianity doesn't take any courage. You just insult christians and receive the 'twofer'! You get to look like an enlightend person to all your friends, and at the same time the insulted christians pray for your soul, racking up some points with the Man just in case you are incorrect.

C'mon man! Be committed to the cause; insult Islam in your postings. What's the matter, afraid of a little fatwah? Worried that someone within Islam may take offense and slice your throat? A small price to pay to prove your point, eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Theism is not the only alternative to Materialism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bertvan on Nov 10, 2009 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some atheists seem to think they can promote their religion of Deterministic Materialism (the view that reality is a mechanical device, without meaning or purpose) by mocking monotheism. When will they notice that many sceptics of Materialism are not even theists? The most sacred text of Materialism is the notion that evolution is driven by “random mutation and natural selection” - premature death turning a collection of genetic accidents into complex, purposefully interacting biological systems. After over 150 year, RM&NS is still the only materialistic explanation for biodiversity that the materialists can come up with. All other explanations include some form of intelligent, purposeful organization. Many of us would not regard an organizing intelligence of nature as “supernatural” -- any more than we regard our own creative intelligences as anything outside of nature. Maybe we will never have a clear concept of how an organizing intelligence of nature might function, any more than we have a clear concept of how our own personal creative intelligences function. All we can do is examine all speculations. I do object to Materialists claiming their particular speculation is “science“ and criticism of it is not to be permitted.
Bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Religion is a scam
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mike_burns on Nov 10, 2009 4:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and with every scam, we have to make everyone we know what it is.
Religion supports inequality through the belief in an after life. People live in poverty in the hopes of going to a heaven. We do not seek justice from the wealthy swindlers, believing they will go to hell.
I say, get rid of religion today and create justice in the here and now.
Religion deserves no respect. Religion is a disrespect to thinking people, everywhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

God is not mocked.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Wheatfarmer on Nov 10, 2009 7:03 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please note the difference between "religion" and true faith and trust in Christ. Religion says to "do this, do that, do the other thing. In so doing you will find God, Nirvana, Paradise etc."

The New Testament says: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." Jesus the Christ declared "it is finished!" He did the work not us.

The word "dogma" simply means "to think." And since the atheist or whomever declares religious leaders not to be their moral leaders, well, where does the atheist "think" he gets his moral standard? How does he know his dogma is right? What if he is wrong? How does he know? This is the problem with man-made moral standards.

The Christian believes that morals are simply standards of behavior set by God, and they apply to everyone all the time. And that the standards are for our protection.

Anyway, mock away my friends, it may make you feel better in some way, but it goes nowhere. Voltaire indeed did mock, and after he died, his house was used as a depot for the Geneva Bible Society. "God is not mocked, as a man sows, so shall he reap."

One day death will come knocking at your door. What will you put your faith in when that day comes? Atheism? Or the gift of God?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Atheist and Atheism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: greenPuker on Nov 12, 2009 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear dipshits in Alternet Response Land!

An Atheist intensely believes and understands THERE IS NO GOD . Again, GOD does NOT EXIST. An Atheist is GODLESS! If we are GODLESS, then NO RELIGION EXIST. You cannot talk about religion and Atheist in the same breath. THERE IS NO GOD! GET IT?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Atheist and Atheism Posted by: can-lizzy
» RE: Atheist and Atheism Posted by: GEM-592

Comments are closed-

Enough is enough
[Report this comment]
Posted by: can-lizzy on Nov 12, 2009 11:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is something that will remain a mystery for all of us. There is nothing that can proof whether there is a God or not. To believe is just that a believe, and it is our right to make those believes heard. The problem that we are facing has nothing to do with this. It is the extreme parts of the different believes that are at the core of the problems we face today and that is what we should be fighting against; Islam, jewish or the religious right in the US.
Extreme Islam, jewish or the right have all the same thought and like to impose the same rules on people. From abortions to women's right to what we should wear to indoctrination camps for kids. But wars for religions have been going on ever since man/woman felt the need to admire some being so the fighting will go on until some human beings say enough is enough.` I hope that President Obama has the guts to go against all recommendations of his advisors and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he would be one of the first to say enough is enough.
PEACE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Jesus = "Yeshua Immanuel Hamashia" = Almighty God
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nobyjingo on Nov 14, 2009 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God is NOT the problem, and an atheist standing up to God would be like powder blowing in the wind, but atheists can stand up to the real problem: Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST demagogues of mankind and God, who are far worse than any disbelievers in God. All FAR RIGHT Conservative Republicans make the list which includes such names as:

Dick Armey,
John Ashcroft,
Michele Bachmann,
Glen Beck,
Roy Blunt,
John Boehner,
Pat Buchanan,
Dick Cheney,
Tom Coburn,
Ann Coulter,
Tom Delay,
James Dobson,
Bill Frist,
Newt Gingrich,
Phil Gramm,
Sean Hannity,
Dennis Hastert,
James Inhofe,
Bill Kristol,
Rush Limbaugh,
Trent Lott,
Rupert Murdoch,
Don Nichols,
Grover Norquist,
Bill O’Reilly,
Sarah Palin,
Ralph Reed,
Pat Robertson,
Ed Rollins,
Karl Rove,
Arlen Specter,
Bart Stupak,
Donald Rumsfeld,
Phyllis Shlafly,
George Will, and,
FOX NEWS & the FOX Television Network, to name but a few.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Atheists, It's Time to Stand Up to Jesus " No Athiests' Got caught arguing with a transexual hooker
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 14, 2009 5:23 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They need to Chang the heading to atheists are in bed with the trains gender hookers And That name they didn't used the proper name either
The son of "The Almighty I am That I am'
'Is See' The reason they call themselves atheists, Is so that they don't have to feel guilty about picking and choosing when to turn them off" There feelings And they wrote the book on how to judge your way out of hell' You no what the funniest thing to me is about and Atheist is and this is not a joke is there some that will find themselves in heaven and have to explain to the ones that new why.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Practice Lying! It's OK!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: greenPuker on Nov 23, 2009 6:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The god pushers claim life without god is wrong. On the contrary! Atheists do not have absolutes like "Thou Shall not Lie". In what situation would it be okay to lie? Religious people would say it is never right to lie. As an atheist I disagree. If you were living in Nazis Germany hiding Jews in your attic during the holocaust, and Hitler's Nazis knocked on your door and asked if you were hiding Jews, would it be okay to lie to save the lives of the Jews in your attic? An Atheist would lie to save those people and not worry about what is right for god. There is NO god! The concept of a god is meaningless and harmful!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

ugg boots sale
[Report this comment]
Posted by: evalin on Nov 27, 2009 5:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with you, your saying is so good and usful for me. Thanks. Are you also like
ugg boots sale
Straighteners
NFL jerseys
ugg australia
NFL jersey
uggs
ghd Hair Straighteners
Photoshop CS4
ghd
It’s a meaningful and interesting topic. Thanks. Want to know more about
UGG Bailey Button boots
UGG Classic Cardy
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Nightfall

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Religion: Not a Monolith
[Report this comment]
Posted by: servetus on Nov 9, 2009 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is worth highlighting those religious groups which are working for GLBT equality, for science, for human rights, for economic justice. Simply going after the religious right keeps with the frame that the religious right would love to have; that somehow they define what is properly religious.

That doesn't mean that religious groups shouldn't be critiqued as much as anyone else involved in the public square. They should not be treated either as the enemy or given undue deference. Nor are they a monolith. They have as much right as anyone to be involved in the process. And we'll likely find allies in the mix as well as folks who are not.

Religion could be thought of as a certain set of communities with a set of concepts, practices, ways of life. Instead of asking are they true, we might ask how do they help or prevent us from being humanized, how are they contributing to or hurting well being? But either an uncritical embrace or an uncritical condemnation is not likely to help much.

I suppose folks, religious or not, need stock caricatures to fear and loathe. And that might be cathartic. But it isn't serious politics and in the end it's not good for democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion: Not a Monolith Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: eligion: Not a Monolith Posted by: anotherplayaguy
» RE: eligion: Not a Monolith Posted by: Bibsisis
» RE: for example Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Salvation Army Posted by: IntlDad
» Just out of the public square Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Religion: Still a pack of lies Posted by: souffrantfleur
» Secular Philosophies? Posted by: Karlh
» RE: eligion: Not a Monolith Posted by: Balance40

Comments are closed-

brainwashed zombies put Paul ahead of Jesus
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 1:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christians argue they are no longer under Mosaic Law, because Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage."

Nothing in the synoptic gospels suggests a break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. Jesus' ministry was a rabbinic one. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).

Jesus himself said, "Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)

Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. Jesus never says anywhere in the entire New Testament that the Law is abolished; this was Paul's theology.

Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?

If Jesus really came to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and they were worried because they heard rumors Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21). None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets.

Paul says if anyone has confidence in the Law, "I am ahead of him."

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the Law's demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)?

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?

Paul may have regarded the Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!

Christians believe in Paul, not Jesus. Bertrand Russell called Paul the "inventor" of Christianity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You said it, Plexius2 Posted by: Cathyc
» brainwashed zombie! Posted by: frankly1
» RE: historical jesus Posted by: vasumurti
» Messiahs a dime a dozen Posted by: Hiroak
» battle of the network b$%%&*it Posted by: wwittman

Comments are closed-

Amen to this, bro
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nvannes on Nov 9, 2009 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No argument here.
The scriptures tell us, "Blessed is he who believes but more blessed is he who believes without questioning." Now there're some words of indoctrination....er, wisdom. You gotta love it. If God didn't want us to question, why did he give us the capacity to do so?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amen to this, bro Posted by: kiel
» Unclear on the concept Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Amen to this, bro Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

religion and ideology
[Report this comment]
Posted by: isafakir on Nov 9, 2009 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
author states that some religions, cults and sects promote bad things. the same is true of non-religious ideologies cults and sects. the twentieth century saw the most horrible actions conceivable in the promotion of atheism and intolerance of religion. Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, the Castro brothers, Hitler, Enver Hoxha, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot: nothing done in the name of religion in the 20th century comes close to what was done to erase religion from people's lives.

bad people use religion to do bad things. bad people use any ideology available to do bad things. Spanish Catholicism in South America was an excuse to massacre tens of millions. Anglicanism was an excuse to commit genocide in Tasmania.

Jesus clearly unequivocably condemns intolerance hatred and violence according to everything we can see in his record. That's even recognized by the worst of the most racist intolerant "christianists" so arguing over religion is simply another form of intolerance.

dogmatic ideologies exist in every system of thought and there are bad, evil, hateful scientists, democrats, communists, cowboys, gay people, cooks or english teachers. in rwanda it didn't matter what your ideology was. it only mattered who got more support from those international colonial powers who profit from war.

hatred intolerance evil are profitable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: religion and ideology Posted by: Spiritgirl
» RE: religion and ideology Posted by: Timba
» RE: religion and ideology Posted by: red porch
» Castro Brothers... Posted by: jlowelld

Comments are closed-

Why just Christianity?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Julian on Nov 9, 2009 2:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is understandable that when saying “religion” Americans mean Christianity. After all, they are getting it rammed down their throats every day and quite rightly react against it. However, the extreme intolerance of another religion is being rammed down European and British throats (to say nothing of North African, Middle Eastern and Pakistani) while its standard-bearers demand persistently that this intolerant creed be respected and tolerated while it calls for death to those who reject it (anyone remember Salman Rushdie?). Its own “holy book” is a living threat to human rights, especially the rights of women (in Europe, commonly seen clad in body bags) and the right of free speech (and I don’t mean free lies and racist speech). Every adherent is as bound to every anti-human clause in that book as every Christian a couple of millennia ago was bound to every anti-human sentence in the Bible.

But to attack this modern militant assault on human rights and on democracy is excoriated by many aghast atheists (who rightly recognise that Christianity should not be immune from criticism and even ridicule) as “bigotry”. They’ve even coined a word for it: “Islamophobia” (how about Naziphobia?). See a point by point comparison of the Koran with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by Koranic scholar Ibn Warraq. It’s at
http://www.rationalist.com.au/
archive/83/32-34%20Human%20Rights%
20Ibn.pdf (join it up in a single URL).

As for choosing to leave this cult, the penalties are roughly the same as they were for trying to leave Jonestown.

One must also remember that the bigoted intolerance of some life choices (such as same-sex relationships) displayed in Christianity and Islam doesn’t need religion to sustain it. It was the same in atheist USSR and still is in atheist China. (Though euthanasia is available in China if you go about it the right way - try to spread democracy and they’ll do it for you). The real enemy of reason isn’t religion, it’s faith, drummed into the public daily in the USSR and China. Religion is only one form of it. The Enlightenment was the start of a world battle for evidence-based reason that will persist for centuries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sorry - sort of typo Posted by: Julian
» Your definition is rather thin Posted by: SayBlade
» WTF. Posted by: Karlh

Comments are closed-

Belief...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: The Old Hippie on Nov 9, 2009 2:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
 
[Part I]

Atheists Do Believe, Just, (Obviously,) Not What “Believers” Believe.
by An American Atheist Because The Ideology Of The Believers Is Destroying My Nation.

Being an atheist does not mean one does not believe in anything, nor does it mean that one is above, and/or better than, and/or that there isn’t the possibility of a higher intelligence within, or without, the universe.  It simply means one does not believe in a “God” or “Gods” as defined by almost all human religious “faiths.”

Atheists do believe in good and evil, particularly concerning human endeavors and intent.  But most definitely not in a good or evil directed by an outside entity or entities with seemingly mysterious magical powers that respond to “prayers,” intra-personal thoughts, etc.

Even though it is possible that life on earth may have been created, started, or initiated by a being, maybe or maybe not, more advanced than ourselves, not unlike humans going to another planet and terraforming it for our future use, (pretty much a given in our future,) or to stimulate the growth/creation of “intelligence” as displayed in Arthur C. Clarke’s “2001 A Space Odyssey” series of stories concerning aliens that did just that.  Atheists do not “believe” any such entity, if one did start our evolution, is invisibly hanging around and magically responding to billions of “prayers” from earth’s multitudes, much less directing any cause and effect situations whatsoever here on the planet, much less doing so for the entire incomprehensible universe, or even much less that an entity created the universe.

Atheists do believe in the reality of reality, i.e. most all atheists are realists, more to the point, that to believe something true without any known possible reason for believing such to be true, or “faith” which is defined as; belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, is simply a form of insanity, particularly in regards to religious faith.

The big problem with human religious faith is that if reality conflicts with faith belief, then reality is rejected.  Rejected even to the point of allowing that murder of those not rejecting the reality, in “God’s” name, as demanded by most religious faith.  And if one believes in the same “God,” but in an even slightly different way, as most of the monotheistic beliefs do today, (i.e. Islam, Christianity, Judaism to name the big three, ) then the “faithful” are assured that they should die, and that it’s okay with their “God.”

The “certainty” of unrealistic religious faith belief, and its justifications for destroying any who disagree, is certainly destroying us.  But as history has proven, (many times over,) it can not be suppressed without almost just as disastrous results.
 

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Belief... Posted by: Doubtom43
» Umm. . . Posted by: The Old Hippie
» RE: Umm. . . Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Belief, Thanx For This... Posted by: red porch

Comments are closed-

Belief...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: The Old Hippie on Nov 9, 2009 2:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
 
[Part II]

The founders of this nation understood this well, having come from state religion controlled societies. It is why they created the demand for Separation of Church and State within the Construction - That law does not suppress religion, but it did create a wall of protection from this nation becoming a theocracy, controlled by one religion, that would not be able to stop itself from eventually becoming more fundamentalistic, and eventually attempting to suppress all other religions, and finally to the point that murder of non-believers, or believers in the same God, but just not in the same proscribed way... will be justified.

I just had to get it off my chest. I know it has been said many times, and in many different ways, but it makes my feel better to simply express my frustration with the insanity of human religious faith belief.

One must keep in mind that well over half of this planet’s population, (approximately 6.7 billion and counting,) have “below average” IQs. That is a mathematical fact, and it will never change, even with optimal education planetwide. It is that fact, along with the fact that “evil” people will always take advantage of that fact for sociopathic personal profit, whether that profit be money, power, fame, or a combination of all the possibilities of “profit.”

Sorry for the downer posting - But I just felt a need to spew it out.

-------------------------

Ignorance is curable, stupidity is forever.

Fight the stupid - Educate the ignorant.

Or stupidly pay the price.

Oh, wait... We already are. . .

Right?
 

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Downer posting? Posted by: sirios
» RE: Belief... Posted by: Doubtom43
» Construction... Posted by: The Old Hippie
» RE: Construction... Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Construction, plse stop this... Posted by: The Old Hippie
» RE: Construction... Posted by: The Old Hippie

Comments are closed-

Heavens forbid
[Report this comment]
Posted by: yusandnick on Nov 9, 2009 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like just another meatless article pushing one of Alternet's recent hobbyhorses: atheism, vegetarianism, and TV.

*As atheists, we should state clearly that...many churches and sects promote cruelty, ignorance, and civil rights abuses.*

Why do you have to be an atheist to do this? Why not just a sentient human being?

*protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services*

I assume this refers to abortion. But many people are opposed to abortion as a matter of conscience rather than religion. It is valid to require that abortion services be readily available to all, but it's inhuman to force individuals to commit acts that they feel are morally wrong.

*"condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy"*

Don't forget that some sects even condemn R-rated movies!!! And "reasonably enjoyable" books, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Heavens forbid Posted by: LightningJoe
» Medical professional services Posted by: BlueTigress

Comments are closed-

Atheist complacency
[Report this comment]
Posted by: peter193710 on Nov 9, 2009 3:01 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have repeatedly asserted that the strategy of the atheists is completely flawed- all they do is to affirm that NO God exists and they think that atheism is actually the ende of the development of religion-
and the end of religions too.
However religion has started when men have created a lot of imaginary supernatural beings- a lot of them-
polytheism was the start of the triumphal march of religions. Later it was recognized that there are too many gods and so their number has ben reduced till we have arrived to the present monotheisms- actually they are mainly pseudomonotheism- see Trinity etc. OK, the atheists
have gone only one step farther. But this does not the problem, people need religion - genetically, culturally and - let's say it, the existence of the majority is quite horrible and they need mental tranquilizers, lies, stories and hope.
The initial process of religionizing
has to be reverted, as Arthur Clarke
said it our mission is not to adore the Gods but to create them- from humans.
And this is the way to negatheism, the religion with a NEGATIVE number of Gods.
The basic equation and principle of negatheism is: RELIGION = EDUCATION.
The atheists have to understand a simple truth : Religion cannot be displaced, it has to be replaced.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Leave Jesus out of this please
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ProgGrandma on Nov 9, 2009 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus isn't the problem here--evangelical right-wing ultraconservative "Chrisians" are--they are NOT followers of Jesus or his teachings--they have perverted them, actually ignored them, for their own ends.

So don't "attack Jesus"--that only gives them a red herring to derail attention from their own misbegotten beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Go after Muhammad
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tlwinslow on Nov 9, 2009 3:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus and Christianity have been relentlessly slammed by rationalists in the West for hundreds of years, but Islam has been some kind of sacred cow, leaving radical jihadists a blank check to recruit mass murders such as Maj. Hasan of the Ft. Hood Massacre. Why? It's time rationalists went after Muhammad, Allah and the Quran and got to the 1.5 billion Muslims and made some gains before it's too late.

Too bad, Westerners in general are history ignoramuses when it comes to Islam, and their govts. have even been allowing mass Muslim immigration, heedless of the sure consequences. So, the first step is to catch up on the key facts of the rise, spread and doctrines of Islam before diving into the Quran and other main writings. Where is the best place to do this for free online? Try the Historyscoper at http://go.to/islamhistory

While Christianity was dangerous when its organized churches ran the govt., those days are behind us, yet Islam from day one united mosque and state and commanded true believers to increase the territory ruled by its horrible Sharia by force, killing all who resist, which includes atheists and freethinkers. So get off your duffs, okay?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another durned typo Posted by: Julian
» RE: Go after Muhammad Posted by: vasumurti
» Those day are behind us? Posted by: chaoslegs

Comments are closed-

Atheist IS Standing Ground
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Atheistno1 on Nov 9, 2009 4:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Atheist's are expected to be controlled by an environment of what they are & are not allowed to say. The religious psychological grooming of controlled environments so they may maintain domination of power & damage control of the religious & bogus belief in their imaginary man called 'GOD'. They argue that Atheist's are 'cry babies' because we have some nasty thing's to say about their religion but in fact the truth always hurts & the nasty comments come from the religious fanatics because they can't stand our remarks being based on fact's. One can't help (RMI) Religious Mental Illness!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Atheist IS Standing Ground Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Atheist IS Standing Ground Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Atheist IS Standing Ground Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

Fine, just don't expect results
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beck on Nov 9, 2009 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mock away, but that won't undermine anything. It makes you look like lumpers-together with no ability or willingness to bother discerning. Isn't the point supposed to be no Ten Commandments in public or prayer in schools? Those have already been won. We may have to keep up the battle, even forever, but Christian fundamentalists lost those battles.

Mocking will undermine nothing. It's no one's business what anyone else believes. Stick to official business, and stop thinking anyone has any more right to attempt to shift beliefs in anyone else's head than you have the right to come into my living room and move my furniture. I'd rather have you try to move my furniture than sneeringly think you belong in my head. Gotta show at least a little wisdom and compassion and ability to look beyond your own experience before you think you should tamper with others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Condemn the sin not the sinner? Posted by: Sojourner

Comments are closed-

karlo
[Report this comment]
Posted by: banger on Nov 9, 2009 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last real christian died 2000 years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Niezsche said Posted by: Changling

Comments are closed-

why mock when simple comparisons
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aislinnluv on Nov 9, 2009 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
show the lack of merit in religious beliefs? take actions and behaviors of "god" and compare them with the same actions and behaviors in a common man or woman. would we accept or reject the person behaving this way? "god" is capricious, jealous, overbearing, demanding, bigoted, misogynistic. he is an instigator of child murder - oh, wait, just kidding! that was merely a "test of faith"! if your father or husband or brother behaved in the same way, would you be looking for a safe shelter, calling the cops, asking for him to be committed? "god" allegedly created humans in his own image; if this is so, why is it considered an offense for women to go bareheaded? orthodox jewish women must wear a head covering of some sort to appear in public, just as muslim women are required to do. are women inherently unclean or is "god" a dirty old man? if he gave us free will, why does he punish people who use it (consider masturbation - pleasurable, hurts nobody, so why would using your free will to enjoy it be a sin?) too much about religion of most sorts is illogical and contradictory. pah! forget mockery, go straight to derision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Singing in my key
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DennisNYC on Nov 9, 2009 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is not only singing my song, it's singing it in my key! Thank you for this excellent, well-written piece!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

You can't mock belief away
[Report this comment]
Posted by: teenabooth on Nov 9, 2009 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This essay is too simplistic. If it was possible to mock belief out of existence, then athiests would have disappeared long ago.

Religious faith is not something you can talk someone out of -- either with joking or mockery, or with facts. The mockery only makes the person more defensive, so they hunker down and constantly justify their position to themselves. And to say that you are in possession of the only "rational" argument is irrationality itself. We don't get to define what's rational to other people. Many, myself included, think that assuming the world and all it's complicated life evolved by some lucky accident is not rational at all.

The only way that fundamentalist belief can be transcended -- whether in Christianity or Islam or athiesm -- is by growing out of it. If we are given room to grow instead of being forced to constantly defend and justify ourselves, we can move from childish insistence to a mature spiritual questioning.

Attacking Christians is counterproductive. It's like attacking a first grade child for not having a fifth grade understanding of life. I think what we need to do is make sure that more people understand there are more mature stages of spiritual understanding, then let them grow up at their own pace. True, a lot of them won't ever grow, but I think most people are doing the best they can with what they've got to work with.

See the Map of Spiritual Growth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well said! Posted by: harryf200
» RE: You can't mock belief away Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

As well as those who should be standing up For Jeusus and God
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 9, 2009 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christ was not a soldier for God. He never weilded a weapon and slaughtered his adversaries. He merely asked them to see the errors of their ways. Not condemning them, but convincing them by his words and good deeds.
"Guns and God" is Blashphemy when spoken in the majority of religions that is if they are being practiced correctly. Heretical when acted upon.
Far worse for a Chrisitian to tout such a credo. How can you be devoted to the Life of Christ, yet your behavior and attitudes are in direct contradiction to it and his teachings.
They are fixated on the one portayl of Jesus when he returns. A speculative delusion by a man possibly living in exile in a cave. One that is so far away from the Life stories, that one's attention is rightly captured, by the shock.Come on who wasn't shocked once they were no longer spared the nightmare called 'Revelations' in their Chrisitan education? Not everyone was taught 'Christ the Avenger' version.Nor God the Destroyer
Worse yet is the idea that a All powerful Creator who be so petty as to torture all of humanity (along with all other living things on the planet) in Seven Sadist Acts of Revenge.
Funnier yet is that this Almighty must waste time and energy on duking it out with an underling. They're say 'One and Only One' can't dispense with Satan at will. He requires the aid of mere mortals with their AK47s or shoulder rocket launchers. Oh Yea Of Little Faith.
Besides when you actually get to the end of the Story you John tells you Christ Defeats Satan with just "The Word". The 'Armegeddon' part is only a means to highlight the fact that in the end "The Truth" (whatever it is) will ring True to all. It will be Undeniable.
These self prophesizing cults of 'apocalypse' have been around as long as man has philsosphized about existence.They were run out of town because to be successful in a confined society the ideas of death and destruction are best Rules for communal living. The aim is not that they remain commandments but become standards.
So these Apocalypters disregard about the first 3 commandments by making Satan a admirable foe to the Almighty. Please.
They portray Jesus as if he wore a Roman Toga and armorment.
And basically create an image of both God and Jesus as some Sadistic bastards. That is not Chrisitianity.
My Jesus is a man of Peace.
My "God" is not afraid their Satan, so neither am I.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Horror...The Horror...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jmmartin on Nov 9, 2009 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kurtz? Wasn't he that guy who went up the jungle river and lived with pirates and waged war on the powers that be? I love Paul Kurtz, but I profoundly disagree with him in being civil to people like the ReverEND John Hagee (who thinks Katrina was "God's" punishment on New Orleans for hosting a gay pride event), or the ReverEND Pat Robber'sson (who scares children into thinking their Halloween candy was cursed by witches), or Tony (the PAC man, not the actor) Perkins (who thinks gays can be "cured" and who almost singlehandedly spearheaded the repeal of same sex marriage in California).

No, these people do not deserve civility. They are uncivil themsleves and I believe in fighting fire with fire. Most of them are bull moose loonies with messianic complexes. We should give them what they really want. I will supply the railroad nails (three each). You bring the telephone poles with crossbeams. We'll nail 'em up and put "Ecce Homo" signs on top of the poles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

All Opinions Are Fair Game
[Report this comment]
Posted by: akarr1953 on Nov 9, 2009 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberals, religious or not, tend to support tolerance for all opinions as equally valid, given that all knowledge is tentative. But while we know what we know only until proven wrong, there is a difference between public and private knowledge.
Public knowledge is that which can be presented to any competent and reasonable person for examination and critique and, as long as it withstands reasonable public scrutiny, can be considered true for all. "Two plus two equals four," and "Petroleum is a finite resource," are two such bits of public knowledge. That all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor is also public, though the proof requires more time to develop and satisfactorily present.
All religions, however benign they may seem, rest on claims that cannot withstand the above test of public scrutiny. One cannot demonstrate, to the satisfaction of all (or even most) reasonable persons, that Jesus paid for the sins of humanity, the existence of chakras, or the linguistic perfection of the Quran -- despite the possibility, however remote, that all three beliefs are correct. Therefore, in a pluralistic society, these and other statements of faith should carry no weight in the making of public policy. Reasonable persons, even those with a particular religious faith, should oppose any effort to give insulate religious dogma from public criticism when its adherents seek to impose their views on unbelievers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All Opinions Are Fair Game Posted by: harryf200
» RE: All Opinions Are Fair Game Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

Lol, right. It's all the "do unto others" morons that are the problem with this country.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 9, 2009 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good grief, have fun with your mocking, social fanatics because, as your ideological role model said, 'If you ain't wif us, partner, yer agin' us*.'

*GWB circa 2002

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Standing Up to Jesus
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 9, 2009 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have probably read that conservatives are rewriting the bible to exclude all of those pesky liberal passages.

No doubt this will require them to eliminate all of the New Testament except, perhaps, the Book of Revelations. Jesus was such a liberal, you know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Have you forgotten Jesus?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: advancedatheist on Nov 9, 2009 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it about time you did?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why? Posted by: SayBlade
» RE: Why? Posted by: jaded
» RE: Why? Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Why? Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

Matthew 10:34
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Nov 9, 2009 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Matthew 10:34, Jesus says, "Don't imagine that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Let's say that this is entirely symbolic of Jesus's mission on Earth, rather than a call to arms (which he didn't do). Then, it stands to reason that his mission was to bring disruption to families, which, according to the Family Values Crowd (TM), is the foundational unit of all cultures. Imagine that. Jesus rending the family unit apart... Hmmm. Seems I've heard that one before.

This type of teaching is indeed doing its work. Families all across America regularly kick their gay kids out. Joel O. teaches that fabulous wealth will get you to heaven - basically the religious version of hyper, unrelenting, unrepentant capitalism that brought the entire world to a meltdown in 2008. Pat Robertson uses his sword each and every day when he opens his mouth on his TV network. The list is practically endless.

Fundamentalists and zealots are the product of bad brain chemistry. You may not be able to see the lesions in their brains but the scars are there. We are all witness to the scabs they leave when they wield their swords indiscriminately across this nation.

So what if they have soup kitchens, used clothing shops, and if they minister to the poor. The VAST MAJORITY of their work is to cut you off at the knees. With their sword.

The metaphorical one that Jesus told them about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Fear and Ignorance: Religious Recruiter
[Report this comment]
Posted by: freshlemon on Nov 9, 2009 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as people have fear and loneliness, there will be some form of religion and groups who exploit that fear and loneliness.

The religion one selects to alleviate that fear is determined by location, traditions and prevailing culture of our immediate environment. People migrate mentally and physically to what appears to be the religion with the most power to protect them from outside sources with a different perspective. This 'us against them' attitude seems to be more important to religious groups than their actual belief in their faith.

There is little agreement among the various sects of a religion. These sects are almost feudalistic and set up great castles to defend their particular brand. Dissent within the castles leads to new brands negating the concept of tolerance. Religious groups are constantly in conflict with each other.


The only true conqueror of religious control is knowledge. The more we know and experience, the less we have to fear. Mankind has been ridding itself of god's since the beginning of time as new knowledge trumped the old god's.

All people are entitled to their own personal standards, but they are not entitled to attempt to impose those standards on their government or on other people via their government.

Government is a business, not a religion. The attempt to make government toe the religious line threatens the safety and well-being of every citizen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Conqueror Posted by: LeaderofMen

Comments are closed-

It's finally OK to be less than civil-
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Doubtom43 on Nov 9, 2009 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to religionists? Nice to know that my method has finally achieved acceptance. I've never seen the need to pussyfoot around the sensibilities of the willfully ignorant. It's one thing to harbor unlikely views within the confines of your own mind, but when you profer them onto the general public, they should be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other contention, most especially when your ridiculous beliefs insist on intruding into our politics and laws. I will not be guided nor will I be constrained by ignorance.

A measure of the religionists' collective idiocy, is that they seem to be unaware of the fact that, were they were satisfied to keep their brand of insanity to themselves or their houses of "worship", they would be seen as acceptable by the rest of us--weird, to be sure, but acceptable under the principle of freedom to think as one might.

When the religionists start to push, they must expect the rest of us to be at least as rude and push back. We can live peacefully and we can be civil, the method for achieving this equilibrium is well known.

It is not the atheists who are assaulting the churches and pushing their views on the congregations! So, to mythical hell with your mythical god! Is that uncivil enough?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

are you kidding??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Nov 9, 2009 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that's all atheists/humanists do - mock religion (almost exclusively mocking fundamentalist christians)...i work for a humanist community and wish they'd stop acting like a bunch of 7-year-olds on the playground...honestly, i wish the atheists/humanists would just get on with the other stuff they CLAIM to be about rather then wasting their time being the "anti" group...most of 'em are just as "possessed" by their own beliefs, self-righteousness and dogmatic thinking as the fundy xtians anyway...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: are you kidding?? Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: are you kidding?? Posted by: Doubtom43

Comments are closed-

Jesus Freaks
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Nov 9, 2009 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Belief in a conservative Jesus was once fostered by the wealthy to curb Atheists from coming to power, but their fear is now nonsense. 90% of the national household wealth is in the hands of a few, and they have the final say in matters of importance. It would be best for big business to nurture the Atheist mind and restore the nation to its number one scientific position. Jesus freaks are a drag on the economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Religion = control
[Report this comment]
Posted by: frankly1 on Nov 9, 2009 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is simply a control mechanism. That is why they start teaching it to you before you are capable of critical thinking. When you are old enough to reason the frame is already built and the fear of denial has been installed. Denial of the deities becomes more difficult than soiling yourself after you've been potty trained. If we could get rid of religion we could probably end war and many other horrors we credit to "Gods' Will". As Douglas Adams said find proof that God exists and he vanishes in a puff of logic as faith is the sole reason for a god.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Against my principle. Posted by: frankly1
» RE: THC Ministry Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Against my principle. Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» Gotta love it! Posted by: frankly1

Comments are closed-

The logic of religion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aussidawg on Nov 9, 2009 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Various churches and sects condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy. As a result, these are frowned upon, if not prohibited outright, in many parts of the world, indeed people lose their lives because of them."

This is one thing that kills me (no pun intended.) People are actually executed for using what god presumeably gave them to procreate. That is of course unless there is a silly ritual where a group of people gather to listen to some dude in a robe with a pile of laundry on his head* or a suit and stiff white collar (now that's kinky) read a few tales about what a collection of sheep herders from 2000+ years ago thought to be reality and then gives them the go ahead to do it to it (but of course not like Will and Sonny Pruitt used to do it...to it.)

Okay, now here's a tale for all you Bible thumpers out there. When God was giving out brains to Adam and Eve, they misunderstood and thought he said "trains." They then proceeded to miss it. This explains why to this date so much of mankind remains impervious to thought.

*I am not trying to isolate Islam in this instance. Look at the hat the Pope wears. It looks like a high dollar Burger King hat. There are many "Christians" in this country (R.J. Rushdoony comes to mind) that would love to have us under the same harsh religious laws as many middle eastern countries currently llive under. IMHO, many of these religious beliefs, be they Christian, Muslum, Judism, or Hinduism, are completely equal in their insanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The logic of religion Posted by: harryf200

Comments are closed-

Patriot Act
[Report this comment]
Posted by: littlepitcher on Nov 9, 2009 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Be darned careful where you do your mocking. Christians in this country run a de-facto union and hiring hall, and they are bullythugs who will gang up on you and keep you permanently in the unemployment line for y/our proud and infidel heresies.

They manage to evade right-to-work and open shop laws which should be utilized to break their hegemony. Now, with fundamentalists going half-crazy trying to control government, we, and not just the social pathology called Islam, could end up targets of wiretaps, investigations, and government sanctions.

Think I'm paranoid? Try living in a red-state small town and openly defying the local church-ocracy.

And, no, we don't need to be kid-gloving Islam and playing the PC tolerance game. They have no tolerance and their behaviors outside of common decency, courtesy, and American liberty and tolerance need not be tolerated by any.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Patriot Act Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Patriot Act Posted by: harryf200
» RE: Patriot Act Posted by: xtiml

Comments are closed-

MORE ENTITLEMENTS?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 9, 2009 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Atheism is legitimate and a free choice. It does not however bestow on its members the right to "mock" anyone for any reason. The absence of a belief in anyone or anything does not include the right to belittle people. It's not religion that causes most of us to be civil toward each other. It's common decency. The right not to believe has no privileges beyond that. Growing up would probably help. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MORE ENTITLEMENTS? Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: MORE ENTITLEMENTS? Posted by: VZEQICVA

Comments are closed-

RE: Leave Jesus out of this please
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree. Attacking Jesus will only backfire. Atheists, humanists, rationalists, secularists, etc. should attack Paul, not Jesus.

Christian theologian Dr. Upton Clary Ewing writes:

“With all due respect for the integrity of Paul, he was not one of the Twelve Apostles… Paul never knew Jesus in life. He never walked and prayed with Him as He went from place to place, teaching the word of God.”

In one of the finest books on early Christianity, Those Incredible Christians, Dr. Hugh Schonfield reports:

“For the Apostolic Church much that Paul taught was grievous error not at all in accord with the mind and message of the Messiah. The original Apostles could urge that the truth was known by them. But Paul had never companied with Jesus or heard what he said…”

The great theologian Soren Kirkegaard, writing in the Journals, echoes the above sentiment:

“In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ, The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely, turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ.”

The great American philosopher Will Durant, in his Caesar and Christ, wrote:

Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ…Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known…Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change.”

Martin Buber, the most respected Jewish philosopher of the 20th century, wrote in Two Types of Faith:

“The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul.”

When you read the epistles of Paul, all you get are Paul’s own ideas; he never quotes the sayings of Jesus, he never reports on the life of Jesus. That point is also made by the famous theologian Helmut Koester, in his The Theological Aspects of Primitive Christian Heresy:

“Paul himself stands in the twilight zone of heresy. In reading Paul, one immediately encounters a major difficulty. Whatever Jesus had preached did not become the content of the missionary proclamation of Paul…Sayings of Jesus do not play a role in Paul’s understanding of the event of salvation…Paul did not care at all what Jesus had said… Had Paul been completely successful, very little of the sayings of Jesus would have survived.”

Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States, wrote in a letter to William Short:

“Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”

George Bernard Shaw, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925, wrote:

“There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus…There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul’s soul upon the soul of Jesus…It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus…was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at the time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

RE: Leave Jesus out of this please (cont'd)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 9, 2009 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, wrote in his Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of Paul:

“Paul…did not desire to know Christ…Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded…What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?…The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority…The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.”

William Wrede, in his excellent book Paul, informs us:

“The obvious contradictions in the three accounts (given by Paul in regard to his conversion) are enough to arouse distrust…The moral majesty of Jesus, his purity and piety, his ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the whole concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life, signifies for Paul’s Christology nothing whatever…The name ‘disciple of Jesus’ has little applicability to Paul…Jesus or Paul: this alternative characterizes, at least in part, the religious and theological warfare of the present day.”

Rudolf Bultman, one of the most respected theologians of the 20th century, wrote in his Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul:

“It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his… views. When the essential Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus’ teaching is—to all intents and purposes—irrelevant for Paul.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Elmer Gantry
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gideon Planish on Nov 9, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In many situations, it is better to be civil, as Paul Kurtz has pointed out, but satire and mockery have traditionally had a legitimate place whenever absurd ideas are joined to power and privilege. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire often used mockery to show the absurdity of ideological stances — including religious ones — that were considered sacrosanct. Mockery is one way of saying that a view does not deserve to be taken seriously. Religious views are fair game if one can also show, on a more serious level, why the view in question does indeed not deserve serious respect.

Perhaps some rationalist or humanist organisations, such as Kurtz's venerable Center for Inquiry, do have good reason to maintain a scholarly and dignified brand image. But there is also room for the younger, brasher atheists whom Kurtz inaccurately brands as "fundamentalists", and, in any event, there is a world of difference between appropriate civility and keeping quiet."

Do you suppose that Kurtz has ever listened to the Chariots of Iron poscast?:

Apple iTunes Store> pod casts> religion> other> Chariots of Iron

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This is bollocks
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harryf200 on Nov 9, 2009 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mock and Satire? Oh yeah, that really will convince people ... I don't think!

Mocking and satire will only drive the religious into being even more defensive, and it won't persuade those who are in doubt. All it will do is amuse those who believe already religion is a load of crap .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Is Smoking In Church Still Allowed - Or Has It Been Banned?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 9, 2009 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to wear a long red gown called a cassock with a white top - in fact just like this

When it was a Benediction Service, I used to have one of these .

It was enormous fun, and what with the prayers and Latin and chanting and stuff, I used to get quite high.

Is it still legal?

I gave it up when I was 15, when I discovered God. She was beautiful, but the priest wanted to know all about her in confession. I thought it was none of his bloody business, so left the Church permanently with the priest all excited.

Not been back since except for funerals and stuff.

Bless Me Father For I have Sinned. How Come You Are Allowed To Smoke In Church?

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If there is one tyhing that is as boring and tedious is an evangelical Christian it's ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harryf200 on Nov 9, 2009 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... an evangelical atheist.

I don't care what Christians, other religious Atheist groups think; I wish they'd all just shut up, piss-off and preach somewhere I don't have to listen to their boring an tedious rants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You have a choice, Posted by: Karlh
» RE: You have a choice, Posted by: Fojie

Comments are closed-

A nautical analogy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: willymack on Nov 9, 2009 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Green to green, or red to red
Perfect safety; go ahead.
When in danger or in doubt
Port your helm, and come about
The colors here alude to the running lights on a boat or ship, and are lit at night so they can be seen by other mariners. Green is starboard (right), and red is port (left). Porting one's helm is turning around and going the opposite way, so if you see a green light on your starboard side, that's a vessel going the opposite way, and you can readily gauge if you can safely pass each other.
Porting one's helm and coming about often makes as much sense as its parody "Run in circles, scream and shout".
The ships at sea can be equated to REALITY, which is the world we live in, like it or not.
Take all those holy names thought up over the centuries, and substitute, them with names like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Beavis & Butt-Head, etc. and it changes NOTHING. It's STILL a scam, a cartoon for those with weak wills and middling minds. A PARODY.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A nautical analogy Posted by: MyLeftFoot

Comments are closed-

It is not religion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 9, 2009 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that creates such egregious activities mentioned in this article, it is the human practice of religion that always causes problems. This though is not to be laid at the feet of the religion itself but only at its practice. Many Christians for instance do not agree with or support the conservative Republican fringe religious right wing. Why is that? because they are picking one small part of a much larger picture to dwell on to the detriment of everything else. With respect to social and cultural amity, religion has supplied some basic requirements without which no normal society can exist. "Thou shalt not kill" for instance. Without that basic restriction that civilized societies live by, no one would want to leave their houses. It is a necessary requirement for our society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I'm not religious and I have no faith but ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harryf200 on Nov 9, 2009 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... I'd rather share the friendship of someone, religious or not, who is kind, considerate and compassionate than with someone who is not.

There is nothing considerate, compassionate or kind about mockery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What I have never understood
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chaoslegs on Nov 9, 2009 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is my attempt at mockery (or understanding):

If Jesus is the son of God. Why do Christian's pray to Jesus, not God. Now if they are one in the same, then why the distinction between the two?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

One day
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettyn on Nov 9, 2009 10:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
humanity get over this obsession with all these various "sky fairies". We will have truly evolved into a higher species when this happens. John Lennon was right in "Imagine".

Maybe then we can live in peace and accept others for who they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: One day, If Nothing Else... Posted by: red porch

Comments are closed-

when did mocking become an accpetable form
[Report this comment]
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Nov 9, 2009 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of social discourse? ESPECIALLY by those who claim superior intellect and intelligence....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Mocking vs. discourse
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Fojie on Nov 9, 2009 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When did mocking become an acceptable form of social discourse? ESPECIALLY by those who claim superior intellect and intelligence.... "

It hasn't.

Mockery is the tactic of people incapable or unwilling to use a reasoned and rational argument.

They mock the ideas they cannot refute or the people they hate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Committing Suicide For Allah
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Nov 9, 2009 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE WORD IS OUT: "The promise of a jet plane to paradise for believers that kill themselves, was a lie spread by Satan. He has a special reward for those that commit suicide for Allah. Their private parts will be set on fire to keep the furnaces of Hell burning for an eternity". SPREAD THE WORD.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

No, mockery has long been used
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pancakebunny on Nov 9, 2009 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to refute stupid ideas.

Religious teachings are largely without merit and should be ridiculed, especially when the religious are using their "faith" to undermine science and rationality.

The Christian religion, in its fundamentalist forms, is a great tool for the ruling class to keep the masses stupid since it requires rejection of all rational thought in many areas of your life. For example, You don't have to worry about global warming because 1) science is all lies and 2) Jesus will fly in on a cloud and save all the believers anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Religion is a lie
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leland61 on Nov 9, 2009 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when it teaches myths, superstition and nonsense as if they were "truths" that can be demonstrated using the scientific method.

When religions assert that there are gods - take your pick on the type - this lie needs to be shown for what it is - a baseless assertion that myth and folk tales are verities rather than legends and delusions.

I don't care how "moderate" religion is - if it is any sort of theism - it is a lie and deludes people into all sorts of nonsensical notions, practices, prejudices, hatreds and malevolent practices - from the murder of witches and gay people to jihadist suicide bombers - they are all born from the same set of theistic delusional beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion is a lie Posted by: Fojie
» If atheism is a religion... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: If atheism is a religion... Posted by: cats.anon

Comments are closed-

Thanks, Blackford and Schuklenk for the voice of reason
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 9, 2009 1:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading through the commentary to your salient piece is an exercise worthy of Joseph Conrad indeed.

As an atheist who came out of the fundie Xtian than Jewish fundie then Jewish progressive paths, I fully appreciate what you had to say. I agree that criticism is a must when we have fundie groups destroying policy efforts, like healthcare reform, for example, that should be made for the inclusive and broadest benefit of ALL not merely the special interest of a corporation, a private sector of the "market" or a group of people who believe that Jeebus says all women are the sum of their uterus and the quantity of viable ova (or would that be ovum...?).

Just like human rights, when Laws become the sledgehammer of the religious zealot, the religious zealot has just bought themselves an opt-out from participation. Law and the public sphere cannot never be permitted to be shanghai'd by the smallest, the most narrow POV and preference. It must always expand and include the broadest quotient. Otherwise it's no democracy.

I don't give a fuck what another believes, so long as that belief doesn't constrain, limit, exclude and exert violence and oppression against any other. Religious folk need to accept that bottom line. Otherwise they don't get to play. Period.

If that basic bottom line is offensive to a religious person, that speaks volumes about them, that they cannot accept human rights above their religious beliefs for the bottom line in a pluralistic democracy. The level of religious whining has to stop. It has to stop because it is materially HARMING others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

ummm good luck with that
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kenhymes on Nov 9, 2009 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yeah... insults and mockery are going to succeed where the renaissance, the industrial and scientific revolutions, and two major atheist powers (USSR and China) have failed.
Why do you guys persist in A: believing that all human failings are due to belief in invisible things, and B: being unable to recognize that this kind of belief is practically universal in human experience?
Who are you angry at exactly? The rest of the human race? Because if you think that religious belief is sustained by religious institutions, you obviously have not had a close look at the incompetence and hilariousness of these institutions. They couldn't manipulate their way out of a box. People KNOW all about the stupidity of their priests, and believe what they believe ANYWAY. I'm not interested in arguing with you about whether this makes them "mentally ill" or whatever Dawkins-ism you favor; but surely it is a kind of belief in the invisible to think that you are onto a vehicle for social or political change with this strategy.
It's called pluralism, and it has really worked pretty well in the US and Europe, at least as well as... well, what is it you are proposing? Not sure, really, are you, when it comes down to it? No, just a vague idea that science will be the standard. That's worked real well hasn't it? Are you going to blame nuclear weapons, eugenics, thalidomide, and Vietnam on religion? If so, you are more delusional than the fruitiest shaman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ummm good luck with that Posted by: cmaciain