The Atheist Endeavor

Orwell Rolls Over In His Grave

2009-08-13T21:22:00.000-07:00

Director Robert Kane Pappas' "Orwell Rolls Over In His Grave" is the consummate critical examination of the Fourth Estate, once the bastion of American democracy. Asking whether America has entered an Orwellian world of doublespeak where outright lies can pass for the truth, Pappas explores what the media doesn't like to talk about: itself.

Meticulously tracing the process by which media has distorted and often dismissed actual news events, Pappas presents a riveting and eloquent mix of media professionals and leading intellectual voices on the media.

Among the cast of characters in "Orwell Rolls Over In His Grave" are Charles Lewis, director of the Center for Public Integrity, Vincent Bugliosi, former L.A. prosecutor and legal scholar, film director and author Michael Moore, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Danny Schecter, author and former producer for ABC and CNN, and Tony Benn, former member of the British Parliament.

"Orwell Rolls Over In His Grave" expresses ideas that will never be heard in mainstream media. From Globalvision?s Danny Schecter: ?We falsely think of our country as a democracy when it has evolved into a `mediacracy', where a media that is supposed to check political abuse is part of the political abuse. New York University media professor Mark Crispin Miller says, These commercial entities now vie with the government for control over our lives. They are not a healthy counterweight to government.

Joseph Goebbels, former head of Nazi propaganda, said that what you want in a media system- he meant the Nazi media system - is to present the ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity. From the very size of the media monopolies and how they got that way to who decides what gets on the air and what doesn't, "Orwell Rolls Over In His Grave" moves through a troubling list of questions and news stories that go unanswered and unreported in the mainstream media.

Are Americans being given the information a democracy needs to survive or have they been electronically lobotomized? Has the frenzy for media consolidation led to a dangerous irony where in an era of more news sources the majority of the population has actually become less informed? Orwell Rolls Over In His Grave reminds us that 1984 is no longer a date in the future.

You can watch the entire documentary here: Orwell Rolls Over In His Grave

Waiting for the Rapture ... And Waiting ... And Waiting

2008-06-26T15:51:00.000-07:00

by Neil Marr

Isn't it time that doomsday prophets and their followers started to remember tomorrow?

The prophets of doom have always had one thing in common ... they never predict an end of the world a hundred years on.

Every failed prophet in history – no matter how gloomy or delighted -- tells of impending 'rapture' within his own lifetime. And, of course, the prophet has a ticket to heaven while those who turn a deaf ear to his rants are doomed to be the main course at some infernal and eternal barbecue.

How bloody arrogant!

The great danger of today's apocalyptic thought is its utter abdication of responsibility for tomorrow's world.

Bush might be less inclined to send soldiers to their deaths if he wasn't so goddarn sure of a Christian heaven for them to go to. That's how potty the most powerful man in the world is. Suicide murderers are likewise assured of a free pass to their own bordello-in-the-sky paradise. Jewish militants righteously squat in foreign lands, confident that some Bronze Age book of make-believe gives them a divine right. Hey, God -- you promised, already!

Read more...

Zeitgeist: The Movie

2008-05-25T11:39:00.000-07:00

Have you ever heard about Zeitgeist? According to Wikipedia, Zeitgiest is originally a German expression that means "the spirit of the age", literally translated as time (Zeit), spirit (Geist). In some countries it has a different meaning; e.g. in the Netherlands, Zeitgeist literally refers to the mind of the time (tijdsgeest), and mind is understood as the mental spirit (state of mind). The word zeitgeist describes the intellectual and cultural climate of an era. In German, the word has more layers of meaning than the English translation, including the fact that Zeitgeist can only be observed for past events.

Now there's a movie called "Zeitgeist", a very interesting (and controversial) one. You can watch the trailer here, or (even better), you can go to http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm to watch the whole movie (about 120 minutes) online.

George Carlin - Religion is bullshit

2008-04-01T15:35:00.000-07:00

A Problem

2008-03-06T19:06:00.000-08:00

by: Ninelong

I have a problem.

Wait, allow me to rephrase that.

You, theist, have a problem. In fact, it is the problem, the uberproblem, the problem of problems, the problem to end (or start) all problems; it so superlative that the word "problem" begins to lose its meaning, and that's a problem.

I'm relatively sure you've heard of it at least once in your life, though its form may be different from what will be presented. Nevertheless, the presentation holds no bearing on its fundamental logic. Stock up on bread and fish, for this will be long.

Read More...

The Cartoon Protest

2008-02-16T23:46:00.000-08:00

Hundreds of Danish Muslims have protested in Copenhagen against the reprinting of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad they consider offensive. That's OK, it's their right to protest (in Pakistan that is...). But to protest is my right too. So here we go:

An Atheist in the Pulpit

2008-02-15T14:50:00.001-08:00

The author interview Lutheran, Pentecostal, Catholic and Episcopalian clergymen and recorded theism’s cognitive dissonance in their own words. “We tend to ignore how much cognitive effort is required to maintain extreme religious beliefs, which have no supporting evidence whatsoever.” “The disjunction between what clergymen say publicly and what they believe privately is so common that serious cognitive dissonance comes with the territory.” “We spend our lives impersonating who we think others want us to be and end up living as impostors. So when someone comes to me and tells me they are losing their faith, I congratulate them. You’re starting to embrace your own thinking self – the essential, immutable, immortal self – as opposed to the accidental criminal you have been made to think you are.” Integrity and cognitive health are theism’s real sacrifice.

read more | digg story

To Gamble In Belief

2008-02-14T18:41:00.000-08:00

by Ninelong

Gambling's fun, especially when you win. But then again, most Christians say that gambling is bad.

Alright, it's bad.

But it's fun.

Now, gambling with money is fine, so long as one can sustain the possible losses and rationally deduce the probability of winning based on the cards that has been dealt to the player. Some of you, however, choose to gamble not only with money, but with belief in a god. Now, is that really rational?

Blaise Pascal seemed to think so. He thought that it was so, so, xoxo rational, he even constructed a logical argument for belief in God! Most of you know this as Pascal's Wager, and still more of you think that the argument is cogent.

The aforementioned argument, as stated above, is Pascal's attempt to apply the power of decision to a belief in God. Aimed at lay persons who are not swayed by the traditional arguments for God, it uses fear as a motivational drive for belief. Pascal then argues that "betting" on God's existence will always yield a greater reward value than betting on the non-existence of God. It is helpful to note that this argument, unlike the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological arguments is not an argument for the existence of God; rather, it is an argument for belief in God.

An outline of the argument is as follows -

* You live as though God exists.

1. If God exists, you go to heaven; your gain is infinite.

2. If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.

* You live as though God does not exist.

1. If God exists, you go to hell; your loss is infinite.

2. If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.

Although that is is at face value both rational and appealing, it, in reality, is far from it. Allow me to demonstrate.

First and foremost, it is a product of the fallacy of the False Dilemma. The argument lists its possibilities as either the Christian god exists, or there is no god. Obviously, this dichotomy is false, since there are infinitely many different and possible gods to choose from. Therefore, the argument also begs the question, insofar as it ignores the possibility of the existence of other gods while assuming that the Christian god is the only god that can exist.

It also assumes that mere empty belief is rewarded. Again, only the Christian god is the entertained possibility - it fails to take into account the possibility of an evil god, or perhaps a logic-Nazi god who rewards those who disbelieve in him through logical and rational bases.

What of other religions, then? If I accept Pascal's Wager, which god should I choose to believe in? If I choose to believe YWHW, Allah would then threaten me with his version of an undesirable afterlife, so I must believe in Islam as well. The Greek gods would then be furious at my disbelief, threatening me with Hades' realm. I must then believe in the Greek gods. The Hindu deities would then be displeased, and since I am faced with yet another afterlife, I must believe in Hinduism, by Pascal's Wager. In reality, every religion with an undesirable afterlife would have to be believed in.

All the above religions, however, have contradicting definitions, doctrines, and practices. How, then, does one reconcile them? One cannot. The Wager is then shown to be illogical by virtue of reductio ad absurdum.

Another interesting criticism here would be that the Wager actually ignores the benefits and losses while one is still alive. What of one's time, money, activities, and whatnot that one spends worshiping a deity? If one is lucky enough to have chosen the correct religion and the denomination, then it is all good. That, however, is most improbable - if one is incorrect, all is wasted. The resources could have been put to a more beneficial pursuit, such as funding a hospital instead of a church.

If one accepts this argument as a basis of one's belief, then that would be heretical by most religions to date; what religion allows entry into a heaven to a person who merely gambled correctly? This is not what most would call "true belief;" it is merely an insurance bet. "I'm going all in," so to speak.

As a final point of inquiry, can one actually choose to believe in anything at all? In order to "believe," in the strictest and most sincere sense of the word, one would need to have evidence and support; one would have to know it to be true, insofar as personal experience is to be trusted. Evidence, no matter how crappy, is the determining factor for both belief and disbelief in any x. If it weren't, then belief would be arbitrary, and we would see people switching religions and beliefs everyday.

All in all, the argument can be summarized by the fallacy of the appeal to force, since it is only a euphemism for "Believe in my god or burn in my hell."

Not the most appealing argument for belief, I must say.

The author is a regular writer for Articleated.com

Article Source: Articleated.com

Euthypro and Divine Command Ethics

2008-02-13T18:19:00.000-08:00

by Ninelong

Euthypro's Dilemma - one can say that is an investigation into the nature of what is "good", as depicted in Plato's dialogue, Euthypro. It's quite simple, really. Try reading it.

“Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it's commanded by God?”

Some may see this as a false dichotomy, but it is apparent that the accusation only holds when it is read in its current form. In a condensed version of the problem, it states that either morality is or is not contingent on god. That should do away with it.

Morality's quite a large part of everyone's day to day activities, or at least, I think it is. Let's see how your morality stands up to investigation. Bring it on.

Read more...

An Atheist's Thoughts on Religion

2008-02-10T15:50:00.000-08:00

For thousands of years, human beings have looked up at the night sky in awe and wondered what those mysterious lights were. We have looked at each other and wondered how we came to be. Contemplating these mysteries was thought to be the noblest endeavor of human culture. Religion exists to answer questions such as these.

Ancient religions believed that the lights were pinholes in the curtains of night. One Native American legend that details how the tribes of North America were born from the pieces of a monster slain by the Coyote. These answers may seem comical to us, but they were taken as divine truths in their times. The modern age has answered our ancient riddles with unmistakable proof of fact. We now know that the lights in the night sky are distant suns, giant balls of burning gas that are really far away. We know that we, the species of homo sapiens, are descended from hominids, and they were descended from primates. We know that our world is one of many planets that exist in the galaxy and there are billions of galaxies just like it in the universe. These answers are not as comforting as those offered by religion, which explains why ancient superstition continues to be called divine truth.

Read more...

Why The Bible Does Not Reflect True History

2008-02-09T10:24:00.000-08:00

The following is an edited transcript of a lecture given by George Athas to students at the University of Sydney in the first year course "Biblical Studies" on April 29th, 1999. Since this paper is a transcript note, it is not to be read as a literary article, but as the notes used by George Athas in the giving of the lecture. However, much of the text of this lecture has been reworked for greater ease in reading (rather than listening).This paper may be freely quoted for the purposes of research, but it must be referenced in the following way: ATHAS, George, 'Minimalism': The Copenhagen School of Thought In Biblical Studies, Edited Transcript of Lecture, 3rd Ed, University of Sydney, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
Abstract: The Copenhagen School of Thought, popularly known 'Minimalsim,' is an identifiable method of scholarship within biblical studies. It arose out of the need for scholars to account for the discrepanices between the biblical texts and the discoveries of archaeologists. It proposes seeing the biblical literature as purely story rather than as historiographical literature which can shed light on actual history. The 'Minimalist' method proposes using archaeology alone for the purpose of reconstructing history. This approach has many attractive features but fails to present a method of investigation which is entirely free of problems, including bias. It is just one paradigm among others which can be used to investigate the history of Syria-Palestine.

'Minimalism' is becoming more popular. It is a term used by many scholars to describe a particular school of thought which advocates a particular approach to the Bible and to the reconstruction of Ancient Israel's history. In short, 'Minimalism' says that the Bible is very close to irrelevant for reconstructing the history of Ancient Palestine, especially of the people we know as the Ancient Israelites.

Read more...

United Kingdom or United Emirates?

2008-02-08T20:17:00.000-08:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury proposed that sharia law should be applied in Britain:

Interesting huh?

The Devil Made Me Do It; The Most Dangerous Ideas Behind Fundamentalist Christianity

2008-02-08T15:21:00.000-08:00

I am not a religious person. I am, in fact, an atheist. That being said, it should not surprise you to hear that I disagree with all religious beliefs, at least those that pertain to the supernatural. My reason for disagreeing is quite simple. I do not find these beliefs to be truthful or factually correct. At the very least, no evidence has been presented to me that would suggest otherwise. I judge statements of a religious nature by the same standard by which I would judge any other statement, “Is it supported by the evidence or not?”

Let’s put the question of truthfulness and accuracy aside for a moment. When we look at religion, we must always consider that religious dogma is believed to be true by the followers of that religion. This belief is often quite strong and usually unquestioned. Therefore, it is not always the case that a statement has to be true in order to be important. There are certain religious ideas that are important to people, regardless of whether or not they are factually correct. No one has a perfect view of what is true and what is false. All of us act on our perception of what is true. We do not always perceive objective reality. We live in the realm of the subjective, we act on what we believe to be true.

There are certain concepts expounded by conservative Christians (evangelicals or fundamentalists if you prefer) that are inherently dangerous. These ideas are dangerous because they are believed to be true. Belief shapes the way we view the world. If a certain Muslim believes that the United States is an enemy of god, then that same Muslim will likely also believe that terrorism against the US is justified. It does not matter if we share this belief or reject it. The belief itself is important to us because the belief can lead to attitudes and actions that are dangerous to our well being. It is from this perspective that we will look at the beliefs that shared by many Christians in the United States and around the world. It does not matter if we share these beliefs or not, that are important to us because they can lead to attitudes and actions that are dangerous.

Read more...

Pat Condell about why does faith deserve respect?

2007-09-02T16:10:00.000-07:00

Wishful thinkers, sorry...

2007-08-23T18:54:00.001-07:00

Experts have found a way to trigger an out-of-body experience in volunteers. The experiments, described in the Science journal, offer a scientific explanation for a phenomenon experienced by one in 10 people.
Two teams used virtual reality goggles to con the brain into thinking the body was located elsewhere. The visual illusion plus the feel of their real bodies being touched made volunteers sense that they had moved outside of their physical bodies.
The researchers say their findings could have practical applications, such as helping take video games to the next level of virtuality so the players feel as if they are actually inside the game.

read more digg story

Why do Atheists care about Religion?

2007-08-23T14:44:00.000-07:00

That's why:

CNN 'God's Warriors' Special Explores Rising Influence of Religion | Christ

2007-08-23T12:34:00.001-07:00

CNN will explore the rising influence of religion around the world in a three-day, six-hour special beginning Tuesday as faith progressively plays a more prominent role in U.S. politics and sectarian violence in the Middle East threatens to tear the region asunder.Christiane Amanpour, CNN’s chief international correspondent, will delve into the world of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim zealots to investigate the global phenomenon of religious influence within politics.“The rise of religious influence within politics is a global phenomenon. How nations and individuals integrate religious and political expression is perhaps the most compelling challenge of our time,” said Amanpour, according to U.S. News & World Report.“At the very violent extreme – global security is at stake. In the United States, understanding the impact of religion upon electoral politics is very timely. The political parties and presidential candidates are actively courting faith leaders and their constituencies for their votes,” explained Amanpour.

read more | digg story

Christiane Amanpour's "God's Warriors" - Jewish God's Warriors

2007-08-22T15:42:00.000-07:00

Part 1/10

Part 2/10

Part 3/10

Part 4/10

Part 5/10

Part 6/10

Part 7/10

Part 8/10

Part 9/10

Part 10/10

Burning Down the Strawman

2007-08-20T13:08:00.000-07:00

Simply reading through news articles, watching online videos and generally surfing the web, you can come across many sites, articles, videos et cetera which attack evolutionary theory. Many claims are made about the validity of the theory and then parts or the entire theory is supposedly refuted in one fail swoop. The arguments presented may even sound “logical” or correct to the average reader. Of course, why would we see a chimp give birth to a human? That’s simply ridiculous!

It is ridiculous dear reader, it truly is. The twist is that evolution does not propose such a thing. In such an instance you have been fed a strawman argument which we went over in the introduction. Some do this knowingly but many do it unwittingly – they don’t realize that they’ve presented a distorted version of evolution. This can usually be explained by simply not understanding what evolution is.

So what is evolution? Excellent question, let’s find out!

Read more:
Burning Down the Strawman (Part 1)
Burning Down the Strawman (Part 2)

Where Is God When Bad Things Happen?

2007-08-18T17:34:00.000-07:00

There is a guy who is searching for the wrong things in the wrong place at the wrong time. His name is Dinesh D’Souza and in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, he came up with this collossal finding: when bad things happen, “atheists are nowhere to be found”! You can read his article here: Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen.

Of course, when bad things happen, it’s not God’s business. Like at Virgina Tech, or more recently, in the Uthah mine collapse, or in the Peru earthquake, atheists are to blame because despite their scientific arrogance they can’t deal with the problem of evil.

Mr. D’Souza states: ” if it's difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil”. I personally don’t understand why atheists should deal with this problem, if even for Mr. D’Souza it is obvious that God himself don’t even gives a shit.

Reading his profile, I’ve found out that Mr. D’Souza is a former “domestic policy analyst at the White House”. From the heights of his recommendations, Mr. D’Souza criticizes Richard Dawkins’s understanding of the Universe by stating: “For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules”. And he concludes:”If this is the best that modern science has to offer us, I think we need something more than modern science”.

Well, if this is the best that White House can come up with as a “domestic policy analist”, I think Americans really need to redefine the term “analist”. Because to analize is about asking the right questions and not about giving again and again the same old wrong answer.

I mean, beyond the stupidity of the title question, there is the unfairness of the content of the article. When there were so many questions to ask, about arms controll and arms dealers, about the health system and so on, this guy uses a national tragedy only to give science (and atheism and scientists and atheists) a bad name.

I don’t know where atheists are when bad things happen, they might very well be among the victims… But Mr. D’Souza’s article gave me a hint about where God hides when bad things happen: in little dark souls like Mr. D’Souza’.

Articleated.com

Atheism, Autism, and Other Minds (A Clarification)

2007-08-17T15:09:00.001-07:00

Sometimes brevity is the soul of wit; other times it is the spirit of confusion. In my recent post "Are Atheists Autistic?" I attempted to abbreviate my argument, which led to a spirited exchange over my unintentionally confusing point. Because the word count was already tipping 1000 I thought it would try the reader's patience to add more. I was hoping my readers would be able to make the connections that I wasn't making explicit.
Read more...

Are Atheists Autistic?

2007-08-17T15:09:00.000-07:00

"It's very simple," says Vox Day, in his typical controversial style, "Agnosticism is a belief in the lack of evidence for God's existence. Atheism is a symptom of a personality disorder which inordinately affects developmentally challenged young men. Watch and learn. Science will confirm this in the relatively near future."

Buried within the goading hyperbole is an interesting question: Is there a correlation between atheism and autism?

The Dark Side

2007-08-17T00:29:00.000-07:00

By: derF,

The Dark Side versus The Side of Enlightenment. Which is right and which is wrong? Which is truth and which is lies? Which is good and which is evil? What are we discussing when we compare the dark side to the enlightened side? Are we comparing liberals to conservatives? Democrats to Republicans? Truth to ignorance? The educated to the uneducated? Believers to non believers? I suppose in order to have an intelligent discourse in a comparison of the Dark Side versus the Enlightened Side one would have to define the two conditions. Read the entire article...

Fossils Could Force Rethink of Human Evolution

2007-08-14T23:20:00.000-07:00

Long before humans and Neanderthals lived side by side in Europe, two other species of early humans were coexisting in Africa, a controversial new study claims.

Researchers working in Kenya have found evidence that Homo habilis survived hundreds of thousands of years longer than previously thought and coexisted with another early human species, Homo erectus.

"There was more than one species of early man for an extended period of time in East Africa," said study team member Frank Brown of the University of Utah.

read more digg story

So Let's Talk...

2007-08-14T15:15:00.000-07:00

This guy really thinks he can convince atheist to become believers with these arguments. Please leave your comments. Don't let yourself converted by this article without seeing a shrink first!

Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists
By: Ron Rhodes

No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians. And no matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that God does not exist.

When dialoguing with atheists, it is helpful to point out the logical problems inherent in their belief system. If you succeed in showing an atheist the natural outcome of some of his (or her) main claims and arguments, you are in a much better position to share the gospel with him. Let us consider two prime examples here.
Read the entire artcle here

CNN: Discrimination Against Atheists

2007-08-10T15:52:00.000-07:00

Part 1:

...and part 2:

Atheists aren't that bad.

2007-08-08T19:05:00.000-07:00

Atheists aren't that bad. This is NOT an argument for atheism... It's a defense of atheists.

This video received the award for "Excellence in Humanist Communications" from the Harvard University Humanist Chaplaincy.

What Atheists Are Not

2007-08-08T17:43:00.000-07:00

by Toni Kumsz

Broadly defined, an atheist is a person who does not believe in God or other deities. Other than disbelief in God's existence, atheists don’t necessarily share anything in common, although many of them tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism. Many atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds.

Having said that, let's analyze the most common theist beliefs about atheists (and atheism):

1. Atheists are immoral.
Throughout the history, atheism and atheists were commonly been equated with immorality, based on the belief that morality is directly received from God, and therefore cannot be reached in the absence of the divine. Moral precepts like The Ten Commandments are seen as divine laws, demanding a divine judge. This belief is strongly challenged by the Euthyphro dilemma, which, in monotheistic terms states "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" This dilemma has continued to present a problem for theists since Plato presented it in his dialogue "Euthyphro", and today is still the object of theological and philosophical debate.

2. Atheists hate God.
Well, atheists don't hate God, because they can't. It is impossible to hate (or to love for that matter) something or somebody who doesn't exist. One can argue that there are theists that hate evolution, despite the fact that, in their view, evolution doesn't exist and it never happened. It's not quite so... If those people hate something, it is not the evolution itself, but the Evolutionism as a theory and maybe, its followers.

3. Atheists worship the devil.
As stupid it may sound, there are a lot of people who really believe this nonsense. Personally, I think these people not only do not understand what atheism is all about, but they don't understand theism as well. These are the people who interpret atheism as just another religion, a bad one. If someone doesn't believe in God or any other deity, he (she) cannot believe in devil for the very same reason.

4. Atheists are rebelling against God or/and religion.
I won't comment about rebelling against God because the same arguments from paragraphs #2 and #3 apply. As for rebelling against religion, well, theists did that too and that's how there are so many religions and sects out there. When someone creates a new religion or a new sect or when someone converts from a religion to another, he automatically reject the religion he just left. Isn't that a rebellion?

5. Atheists are responsible for the worst crimes and massacres in the history of mankind.
Usually, when it comes to this topic, theists are bringing up names like Hitler, Stalin or/and Mao. The flaw in this argument is that none of this guys did what they did in the name of atheism. In fact, this is not a flawed argument, it is more like an unfair one, because when it comes to this, theists forget about the Inquisition, the Islamic terrorists, the human sacrifices in the pre-Columbian societies and about all the peoples and cultures that were literally wiped off the face of the earth in the name of one religion or another. And that was done more often than not with the club and the sword, not with gas chambers and atomic bombs, so they really put some (physical) effort in it.

6. Atheists will go in hell after they die.
In order to claim that, there should be a proof that there is life after death. There is none. Only wishful thinking, and that is not a "smoking gun". And if there is life after death, one must prove that hell exists. And if hell exists, just take another look at the previous paragraph: hell must be a very crowded place and its atheist residents should be a tiny minority.

7. Atheists will never make it into the heaven.
Well, at least they've got this one right!

The author is a regular writer for Articleated.com
Article Source: Articleated.com

Understanding Atheism

2007-08-08T17:38:00.000-07:00

by Daria Black

Atheism is perhaps the most misunderstood category in the range of beliefs on the market. It can be a difficult to define, incorporating, under its umbrella, a host of attitudes about the non-existence of god. Atheism is the absence of a belief in deities but this definition includes those that make no claim either way. Since theism is the belief in the existence of god(s) and atheism is the antithesis of that, the latter group should more accurately be classified as agnostics or non-theists. Agnosticism is the belief that we cannot know whether god(s) exist or not, while Non-theism, is the absence of any claim towards the existence or non-existence of god(s).

The plot is further complicated by the split of atheism into two subcategories; Strong and Weak. Weak atheism is simply a non-belief in a deity of any type, while Strong atheism takes this disbelief a step further and proclaim that god does not exist. In my opinion, atheism is passive. A person simply does not believe in the existence of god or gods. Not only that, I believe that Strong Atheism is misunderstood in the sense that people in this group are not railing against an actual entity (which would be ridiculous seeing as we hold no belief that one exists) but the concept of such an entity. They are not saying, “There is no god” but rather, “The ideology of god is bogus”.

Furthermore, because of the demonization of atheists in the United States and other countries, non-believers have felt the need to launch an active defense of their non-beliefs which also account for the aggressive nature of Strong Atheism.

What Atheism is not.

In my research, I’ve come across some interesting ideas people have about atheists and atheism. It is not anti-religion. Anti-theism is the active opposition towards religion. While some atheists do hold anti-religious views, it is not a club exclusively patronized by atheists. Agnostics, Ignostics and even some theists participate in this party. Anti-theists fall into two camps. Those that believe god-worship to be harmful to society and those that merely have little tolerance for theistic beliefs.

Atheism is not anti-god, atheists are not god haters nor do we hate theists. We are not rabid protestors against those who choose to practice religion. Though these types of people exist and some of them are atheists, we generally do not care what a person believe so long as they do not use it to infringe on our personal rights and freedoms. Going from door to door to preach the goodness of your god will incite only minor irritation whereas seeking to get a law passed mandating that everyone go to church will cause an uproar and not just from atheists.

Atheists are not an immoral bunch of degenerates nor do they become atheists in order to feel free to participate in illegal and unethical behavior. Opponents of atheism claim that it is not possible to live a moral life without “god” as the motivator for doing so. The fact of the matter is that atheists abide by the same social and government laws as those who believe in god. Many atheists belonged to a religion at one point in their lives and the loss of a belief in god did not result in a change in moral beliefs.

Atheists believe in the golden rule just like theists. However, we believe that such behavior should be self-motivated and not out of fear of punishment after death. We believe that human beings are responsible for themselves and their behavior and that people are fully capable of thinking critically and determining a constructive personal code of conduct without the help of religious texts and teachings.

Who are atheists?

Atheists make up about 5% of the population in the United States. As with all affiliations we have both constructive and destructive members. There are atheists who murder, rape and steal. There are even fundamental and militant atheists running around demanding that people stop believing in god. But this is a small portion of our numbers and are not representative of the whole group. We are normal everyday people. Parents, teachers, government officials, business professionals, doctors, civil engineers, writers and artists. We go to work everyday, pay our taxes and give to charities. We protest war as well as fight in them. We believe in equal rights and equal treatment. Most importantly, we are human.

Atheists you know: Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Isaac Asimov, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Nietzsche, Gene Roddenberry, Helen Keller, James Madison (U.S. President), John Adams (Founding Father of the US), Napoleon Bonaparte and [http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Main_Page ]many others...

Why people choose atheism

The reasons for choosing atheism are varied and numerous. For the most part, however, many started out as followers of a religion but through life experience, observation and study abandoned the religion in favor of non-belief. Some reasons given for being an atheist included but are not limited to: having no need for religion or belief, could find no reason for being involved with religion and/or god worship, put off by the many contradictions within and between the world religions, lack of proof, the hypocrisy of a religion’s members and life experiences that caused one to change their mind as to the true nature of the god of their religion.

There is usually a transitional stage through agnosticism, unsure one way or the other, then into atheism as time progresses. Another good portion of atheists grow up in a household of non-belief and other just never felt a need to take part in a religion. Very few just woke up one day and decided to be an atheist for the fun of it.

My personal journey started as a Christian. I dabbled in a few other religions along the way, including Wicca and Judaism, before my studies into human behavior led me to the belief that everything in existence today has a human cause including the concept of god.

Spirituality and the atheist

Atheism is not a religion, though some religions, such as Buddhism and Taoism, are atheistic; lacking a belief in god(s). We are not united under a single doctrine nor do we have temples, churches, tenets, a holy book, holidays, rituals or any other trappings normally associated with theism. At the most, atheism would be classified as a philosophy.

Despite a non-belief in an omnipotent, omniscient being, atheism does not preclude a belief in spiritual matters. Some atheists do follow various philosophies, such as the eightfold path, that theists consider to be part of the realm of religion. As long as the practice does not include any type of god worship or require a belief in a god(s), the atheist can participate and still be considered so by his or her peers.

I hope through this short overview that you have gained a better understanding of atheism and those of us who decide to go left when others go right. Education is the key that unlocks the door to peace. Let’s turn the handle together.

Daria Black is a freelance writer and web designer. Visit her website Webernet Architect located at http://webernetarchitect.com for information and tutorials on web design, website administration, blogging, social networking and having fun on the Webernet. To learn more about Daria or to contact her visit her personal weblog Lexicon Indigo at lexiconindigo.com.

Article Source: EzineArticles.com

Article Source: Articleated.com

Interview with an Atheist

2007-08-08T17:28:00.000-07:00

by Neil Marr

As more and more of us gain access to the internet, it becomes obvious that those who once thought themselves in an Orwellian ‘minority of one’ actually are not alone in the perceived rarity of their interests, beliefs and pastimes. Far from it.

There are forums out there for folks like me who collect rare briar and meerschaum tobacco pipes, for instance. There’s even an online club for those who have a passion for accumulating old lunch pales. Whole groups discuss the works of a single obscure novelist or poet and debate the merits of various fertilizers in the production of prize-winning leeks.

The internet allows warm handshakes between people a world apart in geography and thought and a vital meeting place for those, who would otherwise suffer solitude, to share what they are relieved to find is common ground.

One of the great bonuses of the net for me has been the discovery – after half a century – that I’m not the only atheist in the world.

Let me say right now that most of my best friends are NOT atheists; but having discovered, only a year ago, communities who share my deep interest in religion and religious history and philosophy without attachment to any particular deity, I am making new friends who welcome me into their company with warmth, insight and profound knowledge of the subject at hand.

At the risk of raising some hackles, I must tell you that I have discovered ‘We are legion’.

But, as large a part of the population as we make up, we are not the devils that ugly phrase has been used to imply.

I find atheists everywhere share one particular problem – misrepresentation. People of faith seem to know little or nothing about our stance as non-believers and jump to some pretty inaccurate conclusions (this is our fault – many atheists are afraid to ‘come out of the closet’ for several sound reasons). In the various lively forums, the same questions come up time and again.

So I thought I’d try to address some of the basics; some of the questions most frequently asked by theists in their first encounter with atheists.

I have provided here only the bare bones of likely atheist answers in an attempt to keep this article as short as possible. If you would like to raise other questions and be offered fuller replies, just key the word ATHEISM into a search engine and you’ll now find several sites and forums to visit and in which to debate.

On the whole an intelligent, civil and open-minded theist will be welcomed into an atheist forum and debate will be civilised and enlightening all round.

Please bear in mind that atheists are individuals with no spokesperson – let alone me –qualified to represent them as a group. There is no atheist creed, agenda or manifesto. Many might not fully agree with my selection of questions or with the wording of my replies. It has been said that getting atheists to conform is a little like herding cats, so please bear with me while I do my honest best to give fair answers to fair questions.

(I use he/him in its neutral sense below. This is merely for convenience and implies no sexist insult).

Q: Is atheism a religion in itself?

A: Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is merely the non-acceptance of the existence of divine entities and other supernatural influences. It has been said that atheism is to religion what not playing golf is to sport. That pretty well sums it up.

Q: What is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

A: An atheist absolutely rejects the notion of deities and supernatural intervention, an agnostic isn’t quite sure of the existence of gods but will not deny the possibility. There are several schools of atheist philosophy and those in atheist forums would be happy go into greater detail. Several terms are applied to atheism (which is from the Greek and simply means without theism): positive atheist, secular humanist, bright, free-thinker, non-theist. They’re pretty well interchangeable, but fine differences will be explained if you ask.

Q: What does an atheist believe?

A: You would have to ask him, and I hope you will. Each and every atheist, like each and every theist, believes many things. The only thought atheists share in common is an absolute non-belief in gods, afterlife (in the form of heaven, hell or reincarnation) and supernatural intervention in the cosmos and the affairs of man.

Q: What's to stop an atheist running riot if he has no God-given moral code?

A: An atheist is bound by the same moral codes of human decency and social responsibility as a theist. But he does not believe these codes are heaven-sent. In fact, some atheists feel that the theist notion of actions being rewarded or punished by a divine entity casts doubt on his inherent morality. An atheist’s motivation is conscience-driven rather than externally imposed and influenced by ideas of divine reward and punishment. In fact, evolutionary theory posits strong reasons for people to behave ethically. And, of course, we follow even the lesser laws of our lands and don’t double-park.

Q: An atheist can't prove there is no God, can he?

A: He does not feel the need to. The burden of proof is on the claimant. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no empirical support for the existence of deities. What evidence is offered is ‘circular’ in that it relies upon partisan literature and/or is faith based. Faith is not admissible evidence. Earnestly believing something to be true does not make it so.

Q: Surely religion is about love and peace. What's so wrong with that?

A: Religion has, though the ages, proven to be divisive, destructive and has given rise to many a bloody conflict past and present. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures actively promote violence. As for love, the concept of eternal torment in hell for temporal human sin seems to contradict the ideals of love and forgiveness. This is such a broad subject that, again, it is wide open for much broader discussion if you visit a forum or two or happen to meet an atheist face-to-face socially.

Q: Are atheists so arrogant that they think they're above God?

A: As there are arrogant theists, there are arrogant atheists. However, an atheist does not feel he is above God; because no god exists. He knows mankind to be the pinnacle of currently known earthly evolution and feels great humility in the face of the majesty of time and space and the richness of all that is a natural part of the world in which he plays his tiny and temporary part.

Q: Why can’t religious people and atheists get along together?

A: We can. And we do. But an atheist may not necessarily accept that religion per se should command respect, any more than non-belief commands respect. Only people can command respect. Hopefully atheism or theism doesn’t actually define us. There are many more points on which the atheist and theist would agree than there are those upon which they would disagree. Bearing this in mind, the internet provides a platform for open discussion of differences and for showing that we all share human decency and love of our fellows, irrespective of gender, race, nationality, color, social standing … and creed.

Q: Do I risk conversion to atheism by mixing with atheists or visiting their forums?

A: Atheism is a non-belief, a non-establishment, a non-institution; it is not a club where we head-count membership. The purpose of debate is not to evangelize but to openly discuss matters of mutual interest. A knowledge-questing theist might well question some of his beliefs after careful consideration of other ideas, or he might – as many admirable theist friends do – stick to his guns and give the atheists food for thought. We’re not on a conversion kick … but we do try to promote common sense and education.

Q: Is the material universe the atheist’s God?

A: The atheist is, like any thinking person, in awe of the cosmos – what is known and what is yet to be discovered. But the universe is not his god. He has no god. The universe is innocent of its own existence, let alone ours. Such acceptance is the basis of atheistic humility and humanity and the reason most atheists support scientific and scholarly quest for answers that will enrich humankind.

Q: Why are atheists so hung up about a dividing line between church and state?

A: All past and present incarnations of theocracy have resulted in untold misery, warfare, poverty of spirit and ignorance. What atheists feel is that – especially in the USA – the west is seeing the thin edge of a worryingly broad wedge. This is another point that should be discussed more fully. I am not evading the question, merely suggesting that it merits more space than is available here.

Q: Science can't account for everything; ergo there must be a God, no?

A: No. Already the disciplines of science and scholarship have answered many complex questions and solved many hitherto insurmountable problems, opening up a magnificent vista of possibility. Science and Scholarship is ever-questing and self-critical. Where there might currently be a gap in scientific knowledge (and they’re working on it), to suggest that the gap be automatically filled by supernatural means is hardly realistic.

Q: God created everything; the universe and all that's in it is part of His plan. It says so in the scriptures, doesn't it?

A: This is an example of ‘circular’ argument, where support for a supposition comes from a source that is itself part of that very supposition. The scriptures of all religions are fatally flawed. They are riddled with inaccuracy and contradiction. Creation stories, from the sublime to the ridiculous, abound. None match and none offer the satisfaction and staggering beauty of scientific evidence in support of the development of the universe and life on earth.

Q: But evolution, for example, is just a theory, isn’t it?

A: It is important to understand clearly the definition of scientific theory. In this formal usage, the word theory has little in common with its casual everyday use to describe an unproven supposition. Evolution is a tried-and-tested scientific theory just like gravity is a tried-and-tested theory. Please don’t jump out of a window to prove that the theory of gravity is the figment of scientific imagination. The transmission of disease by germs is also a theory. But don’t have your tonsils removed by a surgeon who hasn’t washed his hands. Much, much more will be available to you on such subjects when you start to take part in debates.

Q: If there is no afterlife, where does an atheist turn to for purpose?

A: Ask him. Each of us has his own justification for living life as he does. Most atheists – more than content with their tiny spec of existence – try to make the very most of their time on earth and to make our lives productive and useful to those around us. An atheist must fulfil his perceived purpose in the here-and-now, or fail. There are no second chances through reincarnation; no purpose is left to him after death. Atheists face this fact and are comfortable with it. I will be meeting my children and grandchildren next week for our yearly gathering of the clans. I see all the eternity I could ever wish for in their faces.

Q: Why are so many atheists researchers into religions when they are so sure there are no gods?

A: Firstly, religion and history are fascinating subjects for academic research to anyone with an enquiring mind. Secondly, even though there is no divine basis to religion, one reality of religion is its influence upon the world in which we live. We have a vested interest in knowing as much about it as we can. And it often surprises us that so very few of those professing a faith have actually read the literature upon which it’s based and know anything about their particular religion’s history and structure.

Q: What about Pascal's Wager?

A: The French philosopher Blaise Pascal is popularly quoted by Christian theists when they argue against atheism. In a nutshell, Pascal said: Believe in God and you stand to gain everything. If you’re wrong in that belief, you lose nothing. Heads you win, tails you don’t lose.

There are two problems with this gambit. Firstly, you cannot with honesty choose to believe. You either do or you don’t. Secondly, which god is Pascal talking about? Who’s to say the theist (insert a religion here) has chosen to believe in the real one?

Think on this: If you are a monotheist (say a Jew, a Christian, or a Moslem), you believe in one god. You disbelieve in the hundreds and thousands of other gods worshipped in the world today and in the past. The atheist merely believes in one god less.

Another philosopher, Epicurus, writing 300 years before the birth of the Christian's Jesus Christ, composed what is known as the ‘Epicurean Paradox’. It is more likely to be quoted by atheists than the flawed Pascal’s Wager:

Is God all-powerful but unable to stop evil?
Then God is not omnipotent.

Is God all-powerful but not willing to stop evil?
Then God is malevolent.

Is God all-powerful and all-good?
Then whence enter evil?

I hope you’ve found this simple Q&A helpful and that it gives you a little to go on if and when you meet an atheist or visit an atheist forum.

My own feeling is that I am not at war with religion, but I would like to see it become irrelevant. My idea of heaven – long after my time – is a world united in a single good ideal. It is for future generations to help that ideal evolve through discussion, understanding and the steadfast application of reason.

END

Neil Marr (c) 2007

Article Source: Articleated.com

Always God For a Laugh

2007-08-08T17:23:00.000-07:00

by Neil Marr

It gets hot even in the shade on my terrace ... and for some it’s as hot as hell.

Down by the sea, there are Norwegian tourists the colour of Kinder Eggs (the visiting English are more like the typeface on my bank statements). Several WASPS who spend the entire summer here look like Grace Jones and Bill Cosby. They go home to Baton Rouge and local house prices plummet until the tan fades.

We've got topless beaches, water-skiing, jet-ski rides to Monte Carlo, shops that don't display price tags (if you have to ask the cost, you can't afford it), street entertainers and the swishest al fresco restaurants and open air nightclubs in the world. Pretty young private nurses will come to your villa or hotel suite to rub soothing oils into your sun-blistered skin. This is the millionaire's playpen. There's a swim-in cinema. Honest ... you swim in and doggy-paddle to watch Titanic.

But the best fun and value for money on the French Riviera is home entertainment … God's Goon Show.

For over a decade, stray members of this troupe of crazy Christians (I'm talking crazy Christians, not the taciturn real McCoy) would visit the bougainvillea- and parasol-shaded terrace of my home to remove their blazers and loosen the perfectly-knotted neckties they wore even in 110 degrees of heat.

These are believers who wear ties religiously.

They would place heavy black bibles on a shadowed table, sip iced tea or mineral water and fan themselves with the leaflets they always brought along (presumable for that purpose, as they are seldom read) ... and then they'd do a turn just for me and my wife. I wanted their autographs, but I was too awed to ask.

But my friends, the Jehovah's Witnesses and other assorted heavenly clowns, don't come any more. My terrace, it seems, got too hot to handle.

You see I have studied theology and biblical history for thirty-five years, not through devotion to any deity, but more with the fascination of a doctor studying AIDS. He doesn't love or worship AIDS, that doctor; though he might find it interesting. He studies to trace the origin and evolution of the disease in search of a cure. Along the way the doctor is also driven by the growing body count. (OK, some smarty pants will pick me up and say 'Yeah ... but he does believe AIDS exists!' I'd point out that, spelled out fully, the medical term does not refer to an existence but to a deficiency in the human makeup).

Word soon got around that my terrace was an easy touch for an hour's respite from the heat and for free kiddy drinks. I began to wonder if – like professional tramps – the godly visitors had chalked some secret welcome sign on my gate. A squiggle something like the autograph of The Entertainer Formerly Known As Prince.

They were a delight, and – like cuckoos – heralded spring. Like Swiss clocks, they also went 'cuckoo' every fifteen minutes. They were as entertaining as any of the army of other busking bonzos who invade St Tropez, Cannes, Nice, Monte Carlo and Menton in the maddening midday sun, pretending to be statues or to sketch Mona Lisas on the sidewalk when they weren't playing My Way on banjo.

They so loved my home-made iced lemon tea and biscuits that I was promised everything from wings and a free harp to sex with a blonde-haired angel in God's Heavenly House of Fun. Kind of tempting, I admit, that permissive aprés life in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

And I was never short of leaflets to fan myself with.

Never did I discover the migratory route the troupe – mostly American, British or Dutch – followed when the tourist season ended in September.

I did find out a few other things, though. I found that most had read nothing but the embarrassingly flawed James VI bible and that few had even read that properly – just the passages marked by yellow post-it slips between the pages. I found how they financed their long vacations in the earthly paradise of the rich, famous and gullible with guile and smile (few human beings have as many teeth as a door-to-door God salesman – maybe it's a miracle). I found not one of the heavenly-minded had been any earthly good. They had all signed up with God's franchise through failure, psychosis, drug abuse, alcoholism, unemployment or crime. None seemed to have been 'called' by love like some admirable true believers I know and respect – all by twisted, selfish desperation and an unearthly knack for conmanship.

I found their silly attempts at conversation bored my cat, whose sense of humour is not as finely tuned as my own – well, you wouldn't see much fun in life either if you were called Norman, and ‘Nobby’ for short. I found that – unlike the other Riviera buskers – they weren't too good at their jobs. Lousy celestial salesman. They looked funny enough, of course, dressed as FBI men in a land of sandals and shorts, but they couldn't juggle for toffee. They made Tommy Cooper look like a miracle worker. By comparison, Prof Stanley Unwin would be talking sense.

I also, sadly, found how to take the sunshine out of summer by scaring these Pinheads of Paradise away.

There are four mistakes you must avoid if you are to be assured of repeat performances for several seasons from the cast of God's Goon Show:

a) Do NOT contradict quotations from their big black books by pointing out the performer's errors in several different translations and original language texts of the Old and New Testaments. Do not introduce apocrypha or early church writings.

b) Do NOT heckle by pointing out contradictory passages they have not got around to reading yet and which might ruffle their immaculately groomed cuckoo feathers in the unlikely event that they might understand.

c) DO throw a sheet or blanket over the theology section of your library before they pass through to the loo. It frightens them ... puts the fear of God into them!

d) Do NOT invite qualified physicists, physicians, geologists, astronomers, historians or even magicians to share the iced tea.

I made all of these mistakes and have suffered excommunication from the audience of God's Goon Show as a result. The entertainment is sadly missed. I'm thinking of buying a ping-pong table to fill the gaping void in my life.

The first couple that came to call, a handsome young man and stunning young girl, both dressed as bankers and toting more junkmail than my postman, accepted lemonade and asked me when I had last looked in the Bible. I was a novice at this stage and did not think to quickly whisk away the stack of bibles and other books of biblical scholarship on my terrace table. I was researching a novel and – in my innocence – pushed over a wad of papers I'd been working on for some weeks detailing and charting, chapter and verse, gaffs in the four gospels and Acts.

They finished their fizzy pop and left without even telling me which particular God club they belonged to or revealing what was their speciality act.

But I was older and wiser when the second pair arrived for refreshment (Christ said 'whenever three or more are gathered … etc.' I'm not of the persuasion which would qualify me as one of the triad so I can only assume economic cutbacks were in play) and they were much better value. They even extended their run.

I'd learned a couple of lessons from the earlier birds who had flown so I allowed Ian and Mike to talk on and on. They left me fulfilled with biblical bullshit and with a mountain of literature, which kept me in stitches and satisfactorily fanned until their subsequent visit the following week.

It was a hoot. Their parting shot was how Jesus loved me and God had me in his care – “Just look how healthy you are and praise the Lord.” I didn't want to piddle on their picnic by revealing that my wife had leukaemia and that I'd suffered five major heart attacks, just undergone major vascular surgery and was in the queue for a quadruple bypass. That wouldn't have been cricket. That very morning, I had discovered the first tell-tale signs of dandruff! I kept that to myself, too, to spare their feelings.

A week later, they were here again. Mike even accepted a small beer, informing me that Jesus had said “take a little wine for thy stomach's sake.” I corrected him on his misquote – that this wasn't Jesus, but wise words from a fun-loving disciple. What a gaff! There followed the inquisition and I had to confess to having known more about their subject in my teens than they did now.

A visit by Ian to the aforementioned loo and past my unveiled theology section sealed my fate. Shelf after shelf of books on theology with scholarly tomes on several non-Christian religions for good measure. Satanic bylines screamed Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. I never saw them again. Somebody stopped the Watch Tower.

Brian, a canny Scott became so pally he'd call in almost daily on his way from a mountain caravan he'd been given by one of his flock to free lunches in Monaco provided by other sheep, all well ripe for the fleecing. Brian had been a hard-bitten businessman in the construction industry, who'd failed and discovered Christ when his last cheque for house bricks bounced, and how to be an international gigolo for Jesus at the age of almost seventy. A much better investment was religion. Also he looked like Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments.

His trips around the world – especially to Bible-Belt America – were free and first class. He always came back with his sporran jingling. The word of God never passed over his cellphone. The portable was too expensive to use for anything but incoming messages and God didn't have his number.

In a gesture of Christian brotherhood, Brian loaned me a huge and special Bible he carried everywhere. “The only book I've ever read,” he told me proudly (of course, he was lying … he hadn't even read his Bible cover to cover). He explained that this leather bound James VI, unlike other versions, would be enlightening because each chapter and verse had references that would overcome all argument and doubt.

I was intrigued until I found the noted ‘evidence and backup’ in the book cross-referred only to other chapters within itself. A little like Sherlock Holmes proving his existence by advising you to have Dr Watson vouch for him.

Now Brian had been visiting my wife and me for three years for meals, non-alcohol drinks and the occasional bed for the night. All it took to have him cancel all future appearances at my home was the mistake I made in pointing out the simple and famous mis-translation from the original Hebrew in the book of Isaiah (7-14) and correcting him when he suggested that my complete collection of Josephus Flavius had been written by the hapless husband of the Virgin Mary.

A British guy who ran the Southern French and Italian end of a Swiss radio station heard that I'd worked for the BBC as a newsman and invited me aboard. He was here time and again, drinking my whisky, beer and wine (he was of the Simon-Peter persuasion) and telling me all about his family castle in the North of England.

I was invited to his palatial mountain home in Italy where I heard his station for the first time. The religious ranting and raving was of the finest quality, the music exquisitely dismal, and I stumbled around his studio, banging into things like overhead mikes and mixer decks because I was blinded by tears of laughter. He commanded me quit – carefully making sure to keep the unopened litre bottle of single malt, books and new videotapes of Al Pacino movies I'd brought along.

Another source of high octane amusement was lost and gone forever because I sometimes lose control when exposed to the priceless patter of the chosen, like a two-year-old being tickled or the Carry On team under the influence of a dentist's laughing gas. Who writes their scripts? They're so good, even I suspect they may be heaven-sent after all. I miss these clowns profoundly.

My all time favourite (I'm ashamed to admit I've forgotten his name but, there again, some folks might even have forgotten Bob Hope by now) was an Irishman who'd arrived in town to peddle a new sect. He, his wife and his poor children had been living in a tent and were hungry and filthy. My wife, Skovia, and I brought them home for showers, gave them all new clothes, a square meal and money. They returned several times and – in touching repayment -- told us all about God's House of Fun – the paradise pleasure palace I mentioned earlier.

They gave me a gaudy, ill-drawn poster which showed overly busty and scantily clad angels lounging at a poolside and, through an arched window, God was clearly having a high old time on a bed with one who looked a little like Jane Mansfield -- only holy. They promised me sex with an angel if I converted and joined the club.

Feathers make me sneeze and laugh – even angel feathers I’d guess -- but I promised to consider the deal.

It was two days later when they left town. That was the day they found out from another member of the comedy team that I was a journalist (God's salesmen NEVER ask about you – they don't care if you're a rocket scientist or a rapist … their own histories are much more important) and that his sect and his poster had made the front page splash of a major and silly national newspaper in the UK and a whole feature in a massive US magazine. Be sure your sins will find you out!

This summer's been a drag so far. Not a single manic missionary has called to brighten my day with any brand of half-baked nonsense. I truly miss their antics, which had all the warmth and charm of Freud's tantrumming tot with a machine gun. All the beauty of an unflushed toilet. All the depth of feeling of the tank they used to film Jaws.

Maybe – again like the tramps – they've scrawled a new secret sign on my gate saying: "DANGER - BEWARE OF THE ATHEIST! DON'T BE TEMPTED BY HIS TEA!!"

If they're right about where I'm going, though, we're sure to meet again ... and that would be the very devil of a laugh.

END

Neil Marr (c) 2007

Article Source: Articleated.com

Why I don't believe

2007-08-08T17:19:00.000-07:00

by derF

I frequent a web site called Atheists.com. On forums there we discuss many different topics as eclectic as, humor, pets, news, science, psychology and, yes, even religion. We were recently visited by an administrator from this site who invited any of us to post our views of religion and atheism here. So I will try to explain to you why I don’t believe in god and feel religion is a waste of time.

My first problem with religion is one that I really wonder if religious people consider. There are literally hundreds of different religions in the world. There is Baha’i, Buddhism, Catholicism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Orthodox Eastern Church, Protestantism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism to name a few of the major ones. And there are many many more religions that we know about but are not practiced anymore. Greek, Roman and Norse mythology comes to mind. Now, can ALL of these religions be the REAL religion? Can all of the deities they worship be the ONE CORRECT deity? Of course not. But...... they CAN all be wrong. And are.

Lets consider the books of religion for a minute. Anyone who studies ancient religions will quickly point out to you that many of the stories found in the bible were ‘borrowed’ from earlier religions including genesis and the flood. Muhammad who supposedly transcribed the Koran for god was illiterate. The stories he told that ended up being the Koran were ones his followers remembered him telling and were only written many years after his death. Muhammad was also a thug and warmonger who’s religion is so brutal that it had to be spread by force of arms. The book of Mormon is a pure work of fiction written by another con man and thief who’s history is well documented known as Joseph Smith. I won’t even bother to try and refute the pure evil and violence of the old testament.

Evolution versus creation is a hot topic today. I really only see one reason why religious folks refuse to believe in evolution. It’s excludes them from eternity. And so in a futile attempt to cling to their belief in eternal life they stack their one little book of religion against the hundred and hundreds of volumes and an equally large number of museums that contains overwhelming proof that evolution is truth. They even have to deny the evidence of their fellow mans endeavors. Did you know that early in man’s history there were no domesticated dogs? Geneticists have been able to prove that all dogs today derive their genetic code from a small wolf like wild dog that early man domesticated. All the hundred of different breeds of dogs were derived from that one original dog. How did they get so diverse. Because man used the science of evolution to evolve the traits they found desirable to create a dog that was better suited to the tasks that man wished them to perform.

Religious folks love to point out that life is just too varied and that it is just to complicated to have not been created by an intelligent being. Here is an area that I will give a little. Yes it is amazing, no, absolutely flabbergasting how marvelous the many creatures and their makeup is. The human eye is a marvel to behold. The human brain and it’s ability is stupefying. If there were some sort of being who created these marvelous life forms and the even more amazing world they live in and the endless universe it is located in, then this being would have to be unimaginably sophisticated with abilities and power that we cannot imagine. This must truly be one awesome being. He could not possibly just have blinked into existence, if I may use the religious folks argument. So, who designed him?

Come on now, you are not going to apply your reasoning to everything and then give god a free ride now are you.

Lastly, I would like to broach the topic of moral certitude. The religious folks always try to claim the moral high ground claiming that without their religious books people would be immoral and decadent. They believe, I guess, that the only reason people are kind and tolerant and display all other virtuous attributes is because if they didn’t they would be condemned to hell. Please excuse me from wanting to associate with people who are only displaying good because they will be rewarded for it. I, as an atheist, am honest, kind, loving, dependable and hardworking not because I expect a reward but because this is my one and only chance at this short lived existence and I want it to be as pleasant as possible.

Article Source: Articleated.com