Thursday, December 31, 2009


In the past century, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than atheism. Atheism allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Atheism causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality for they have no God to answer to. The only morals they posses, if any, are those they pick and choose for themselves.

Atheism dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "I felt like it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, and how, and when. It gives rise to the reasoning such as Social Darwinism that states giving aid to the poor, workers rights, universal education, and welfare should be avoided as they interfere with the natural order of social competition*.

Atheism spreads like disease through societies, rarely coexisting with pre-existing mythologies, rather preferring to conquer or be conquered. Atheism is anything but tolerant.

Theists are not afraid to point out that which is true: atheism is ridiculous. Mental delusion and atheism are synonymous, and none is better than another. Atheism is malicious, malevolent, and unworthy of respect.

You probably knew that already.

We're respectful of the American People's individual rights to practice as they see fit (equal to our rights to do the same), but this does not mean we have to respect the decision. If you choose to ignore faith and reason in order to deny a higher power, you've made a ridiculous decision and we're not going to pretend it's "just another way of looking at things".

We challenge the ethics of the professional liars who claim to speak for atheists to bilk other people into giving away their faith in exchange for mere pleasures of the flesh and immorality. We also challenge the ethics of the politicians who use government to further their atheist agenda, and vice versa. We will not let anyone's atheism infiltrate our schools, our government, or our pockets, at least not without a good fight.

Atheism, the antagonist of religion, is the only "ism" that claims a monopoly on intelligence and rational thinking. Atheism is the complete lack of what makes human beings special, the ability to believe there is something more. In atheism the only thing one can look forward to is the finality of death and the realization that they are meaningless specks in this universe that could not care less about their existence. The only real contribution they could achieve in death is to leave their rotting corpse out in an open field in hopes that some equally poor and meaningless wandering animal may gain one more meal before it too succumbs to the inevitable of being wiped from all existence as if the universe cared. After all, feeding their bodies to wild animals would be the greatest contribution an atheist could ever hope to give to the world. And judging from the screams of world climatologists it would be better if atheists did this sooner rather than later.

Well if you have made it this far and are still reading you can relax now and know that I am not being serious. The article above was originally from American Atheists and directed towards religion. I took it and altered the wording sufficiently to make it refer to atheism while still conveying basically the same, illogical, point. I originally posted this on a religious debate forum as a kind of social experiment. The original article had come up in a thread and, after being pointed out that it was nothing more than polemic bigotry by a couple posters, was defended by atheists who claimed it was perfectly legitimate “criticism”. A few even claimed that those who found the article to be offensive were nothing but self martyrs. I decided to post a variant of the article, directed towards atheism, in a totally different thread, as if I were a troll, to see what would happen. As one would expect I got a string of responses from atheists who were *gasp* offended. I decided not to intervene in the frenzy and waited till another poster figured it out and let the cat out of the bag. Some people were relieved I was not serious, some tried to save face, and others were a little impressed with the experiment.

Ultimately, the main point I was going for became clearly visible for many to see. It is much easier to see bigotry and hatred when it is directed directly at you. And further, it can be extremely difficult to spot such behavior when it is directed towards a group whom you already disagree with (confirmation bias).

*You can read more on this from Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God, pg. 174-5. I did a series of posts on his book you can view here.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

No Gods Solstice Sign

This holiday season the Freedom from Religion Foundation will be, again, placing a sign upon the Illinois Capitol Hill. They originally placed the sign in 2008 as a response to a Nativity scene.

The Foundation put up its first solstice display in 2008 in Springfield in response to the state's decision to allow a religious group to plant a nativity display in the Capitol. The state granted the Foundation's permit application.
"We don't think religion, or irreligion, belongs in state capitols," noted Dan Barker, Foundation co-president and author of the book, "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists."
"But if a state is going to permit a nativity display and create a public forum, then we want to be sure that the views of the 15 percent of the U.S. population who is not religious are also represented."

First let’s start with their reasoning for putting up the sign, shown above. There is nothing wrong with thinking that religious displays should not be placed on government property. However, if they are going to be allowed, and all different views are welcome as they most obviously are in this case, what is the problem? The main point that is usually brought up in these cases is discrimination and the government forcing one particular religion. In this instance, that is not happening. The government is allowing multiple views to be represented, not just one. I fail to see how one could construe one religion gaining favor or preference when dissenting views are also allowed to be expressed.

Second, there is the exact wording of the sign itself. My main response is, “And people wonder why atheists have a reputation for being ass holes?”. When there are groups like the FFRF claiming to represent all atheists, as they do in the quote above, the general reactions are bound to be negative. For example here is one atheist’s reaction to the sign,
To me it is obviously offensive and targets religion and I think takes advantage of freedom of speech. Basically it is a "low blow" and feels like they are going to the same level of religious fundamentalists and I think we can rise above childish things like that and put something intelligent out there.
There is also the blatant lie that their sign claims to represent all atheists in the United States.
we want to be sure that the views of the 15 percent of the U.S. population who is not religious are also represented.
They do not represent the views of the non-religious in the US. They represent some of the views of the non-religious; there is a very large difference. Frankly, if they did represent all of the atheists I would be severely disturbed and slightly scared for my safety if 15% of the population held me in an equal amount of contempt as the FFRF appears to.

It is also extremely ironic, and a little hypocritical, that the FFRF would mention the Winter Solstice in their hope for “reason to prevail” this season. For in their condemnation of a modern religious celebration, Christmas, they reference an event that is, historically, even more mired in religion and religious symbolism than Christmas is today in its present state.

I wonder what the FFRF thought the reaction would be to their sign. Any religious person who reads it is going to find it purposefully insulting and the only ones who are going to fully agree with it are the militant anti-theists, basically preaching to the choir. Do they honestly think being insulting is going to cause religious groups in the future to refrain from putting up displays? If they do I would place that right at the level of second grade bully tactics. The reactionary character of their sign also intrigues me. One group is allowed to place a religious display so the FFRF must respond, and the response must be negative and insulting. It is like a child who is initially offered a toy and turns it down, yet proceeds to throw a tantrum should their sibling be allowed to play with it.

And one last note:
There is no such thing as “Freedom from Religion”. There is “Freedom of Religion”. The two are completely different as one mandates an infringement upon a person’s individual rights while the other does not. An atheist is no more free from my religion as I am free from their atheism. Stating a person is to be free from religion is equivalent to stating a person is to be free from being offended. This is ironic considering if the freedom to never be offended actually did exist than the FFRF certainly would not.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Tis The Season

The holidays are here again. The stores are packed with shoppers, lights and decorations adore homes and buildings, I ritualistically listen to my Celtic Christmas CD, and atheists feel the need to let the ignorant masses know the “true” meaning of Christmas, wait, what?

It always surprises me the number of atheist posters, bloggers, organizations, and groups who feel an incessant urge to announce the true origins of Christmas to Christians. The exact reasons for wanting to do so seem to vary but there are three main ones I have seen.

First is an apparent hopefulness that some Christians will become “enlightened” and deconvert. This reason is nothing but wishful, and ideological, thinking that usually falls under the Assumption of Peculiarity. They think they have found some kind of damming evidence and are just dying to let others know about it thinking that we, Christians, will read it and go “Oh my, my entire faith must be a sham!”. The reality tends to be closer to “oh look, another atheist ‘exposing’ the origins of Christmas” followed by either a soft chuckle of amusement or sigh of annoyance.

Some claim they bring up the origins of Christmas as a response to the War on Christmas controversy. They are annoyed by people who clamor about the War on Christmas so they, in turn, bringing up the roots of Christmas as their way of retaliating. Basically it is two wrongs make a right. Not much explaining needed here.

Finally, a reason I have seen it brought up has to do with sayings such as “Jesus is the reason for the season”. They argue that Jesus cannot be the reason as the holiday had different origins.  So what? The meaning people had for a particular holiday centuries ago has no bearing upon what meaning people give to it today. This argument I find particularly hypocritical considering that many atheists celebrate Christmas as well despite not believing in either the God associated with it today, or the gods/pagan celebrations associated with it from long ago. If they can celebrate the holiday without adhering to its origins I see no reason other people can not as well.