Pro life vs. proliferate

Conservative is, I think, a misleading moniker. It evokes – at least in me – the image of someone who wants to preserve the world, who – at least in principle – places a high value on life. And indeed, many self-described conservatives won’t tire of telling everyone that they want to preserve life, that they are pro life. Of course, when they say pro life, they really mean pro human life – they seldom are vegetarians.

Well, no, actually they mean pro unborn human life. Unborn only – because most conservatives don’t give a damn what happens to the baby once it is born (at least until, as George Carlin pointed out, the baby has grown old enough to become a soldier).

So it seems that few conservatives really have an interest in preserving life. Indeed, to my eyes the opposite is true: a conservative mindset destroys life.

Christian/Jewish conservatives like to point to Genesis 1:28

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”

That is their main reason for being pro life. As a result, fundamental believers breed like rabbits. With similarly devastating effect. We already have filled the earth and subdued it. It’s a fact that the single, most effective way to preserve life on Earth is for humans to breed less. Neither reducing carbon emissions nor cleaner energy will save the planet. Only spawning fewer children will. But that is what conservatives are vehemently opposed to. They say they want to preserve life? They don’t. They destroy our habitat by mindlessly keeping their old traditions and way of life.

Conservatives aren’ big on preserving life. They are big on preserving their lifestyle.

Idiot worship

Why are we here? What is our purpose? Atheists usually answer this with ‘happenstance’ and ‘none at all’, respectively. Believers, however, say that this is too sad a proposition for them to accept. They state – with no little emphasis – that we are here because god created us, and that our purpose is to worship Him.

Let us think about this for a while. So God created us (let’s not go into ‘in his own image’, that’s a bit too much). God created this universe with 200 billion galaxies, each containing 300-400 billion solar systems, and then, as his crowning achievement, he created us. So we can worship him.

Really? Why? To me, almost everything is wrong with this picture:

First, the scale is off. Let’s assume I was a God, and created more solar systems than there are grains of sand on earth. Why would I then want to create a single, tiny planet that orbits one of the more obscure, run-off-the-mill suns in an ordinary galaxy, and populate it with a race of ignoramuses? To worship me? They represent not even a  trillionth of a percent of my creation; yet I went to all this length just to have that infinitesimally small fraction worship me? Why isn’t my crown achievement in a setting befitting it’s purpose – The centerpiece of my creation?

If I had the power to create a universe and the desire to be worshipped, there are much, much better ways to go about this: create an immense, beautiful plane (with physics that allow this), populated by trillions of smart, brilliant and fun beings that worship me.

Then, allegedly, if we worship Him in our lives, we’ll get to worship Him even more after our death. Am I the only one who thinks that this not only incredibly boring, but also an incredibly stupid set up? If before and after death is the same, the concept of death is completely irrelevant. Except for those who don’t worship God – those will be tortured in eternity by this allegedly benevolent god. And here, again, the scale is off: the proportions don’t match: an infinite punishment (eternal torture) for a finite transgression (non-worship in lifetime). Wouldn’t that be an infinitely immoral punishment?

Yet that is not the biggest issue I have with a god that requires worship – it is this: doesn’t it strike you as incredibly petty of a supreme being to have the need to be adulated? This god is all-knowing and all-powerful. Compared to gods, humans are less than ants, idiotic motes of dust who can’t even perform a single miracle, or break a single physical law. Pathetic. If I had the urge to be adored, I’d want to be adored by beings of importance, not the bunch of losers that ruin their own planet the same way pigs trash their sty.
I seriously doubt that a God would want to be worshipped, at least not by us. Consider: Programmers have a rare privilege; they can create virtual worlds in the programs they write. They are, in a very small way, gods and creators of the programs they write. Few, if any programmers ever feel the urge to write code that extols the virtue of their coder. It’s no challenge, serves no purpose, and makes them look really pathetic. So why would a God want something that even the lowliest, personality disorder-ridden geek wouldn’t want?

There is no way a god would ever want to be worshipped. At least not by you, me, or any other human.

So why do believers insist that we must worship their god?

Yep, that’s what I think, too.


They simply don’t get it. Barely four weeks after Islamist gunmen stormed the offices of French satirical ‘Charlie Hebdo’ and murdered twelve unarmed artists in the name of Mohammed, Muslims in London have nothing better to do than to take to the streets and protest against Hebdo’s depictions of their religious idol. I find this deeply disturbing for a number of reasons

  • No matter how much they profess to distance themselves from the murders, their protest lends some legitimacy to the terrible, murderous deed of Islamists. They complain about what the artists got killed for: freedom of expression – and at the same time insist they feel offended?
  • Somehow these Muslims seem to have completely overlooked the fact that the mass publication of Hebdo’s drawings are a direct reaction to the barbaric deed done in the name of Islam. They are not doing their religion a favor by openly showing a complete lack of appreciation for how societies respond to evil.
  • Some of these people held up signs saying we love Prophet Muhammad more than our lives. Don’t these Muslims understand that statements like these merely serve to underline just how ethically underdeveloped they are? Valuing human life beneath that of an ideology is always a sign that something is wrong with that ideology.
  • These people feel offended by drawings – that’s OK. But somehow, they also feel that being offended entitles them to something. Their protest shows a remarkable lack of understanding what constitutes freedom. If something written offends you, don’t read it! That is the extend of your freedom. If you want someone else to do something based on your religion: get stuffed. You have no right to impose your beliefs on others. Deal with it.
  • Bonus: the child holding up a sign Insult my mum and I will punch you – Pope Francis. Bravo, Francis! You really did the world a favor when Islamist hardliners quote you to justify their actions.

Most disturbing of all: these people complain that their religion is not getting the respect it allegedly deserves – shortly after followers of that religion just demonstrated their disrespect for life, and after the protesters themselves expressed a remarkable lack of respect for the sanctity of life by telling us that they ‘love Prophet Muhammad more than their lives’. Respect isn’t owed, people – it has to be earned. Otherwise, Nazis would demand the same respect for their disgusting ideology.

Islam must earn respect. So far, however, all these protesters have shown is a complete lack of understanding what ethics are, and that their ideology definitely does not deserve respect.

Crossed out

Soccer Club Real Madrid are proud of their logo. It contains an image of the royal spanish crown. The crow itself is, well, crowned by a small christian cross. Real now has made the rare decision to remove the cross from the crown. Not to appease hordes of militant atheists that were offended by a religious symbol and demanded that it was removed, centuries of tradition be damned!

No, Real chose to remove the cross because they signed a lucrative deal with Abu Dhabi’s national bank. The streets of Madrid have been strangely calm – no reports of outraged Christians that demand putting Jesus back in Real yet.

There are a number take-aways here: many self-professed devout christians, so it would seem, are only christians as long as it’s financially favorable. Further, it is a fact that the religious intolerance of a muslim organization has led to the removal of the cross – which is rather ironic given Spain’s history with Islam.
Finally, it’s strange that christians have less objections when their holy symbol is removed to appease another religious group than when people demand it removed for humanity.

Then again, that’s exactly how religion works.

Why bother?

Often, I’m asked why I even bother; why don’t I just shut up and ignore all those religious idiots? After all, it’s none of my business; I really should care less about what people believe. As one exasperated fundamental Christian asked: ‘If you don’t believe in God, why do you keep talking about Him’? And isn’t belief in a benevolent God a good thing?

Of course, most of that is correct: I shouldn’t care about other people’s religion; mostly I don’t. Belief in supernatural beings can be benign. The problem is, however, when someone’s superstition adversely affects the freedom and well-being of others.

In 2004, a devastating Tsunami hit the Aceh province in Indonesia. A horrendous tragedy. Every rational person agrees that this happened naturally. In deeply religious (and therefore scientifically retarded) Aceh, however, those in power saw it as a sign from God that they weren’t pious enough. As a result, Aceh now has one of the most draconic, barbaric and misogynistic Sharia in place that punishes even trivial things like not going to prayer on Friday. It’s irrelevant if you are a muslim or not, by the way. You either go to prayer – or the stockades, awaiting your punishment. Sharia has outlawed cinemas, heavily restricts what – if any – music you may listen to. Women must no longer straddle a motorcycle, nor are they allowed to wear pants.

If you now think that perhaps I’m citing an extreme example to make a point – please recall that less than 50 years ago, children’s playgrounds where closed on Sunday, and dancing was forbidden on holy days – in the UK, Germany, Switzerland and most other European countries.

So the next time you ask why bother, ask yourself: how would you like ten lashes from the whip for skipping a service for the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his noodly appendages)?

That is why I bother.

And so should you.

Evil squared

There is a peculiar attribute of logic that is initially difficult to comprehend, and even more difficult to master: Negation. How is it that negating a statement twice makes it positive? And don’t get me started about negating a phrase with ‘or’. Eventually, though, we figure it out.

Or not. At least not when looking at religion: Evil, theologians say, is the negation of Good. Satan is evil – at least according to scripture. The epitome of evil.

And when evil people die, they’ll go to to hell where he tortures them.

Whoops… You see how difficult negation is? You just screwed up the negation. Satan would not torture evil people. Why would he? If he was truly evil, he’d torture good people.

Well, I guess there’s a reason why most holy scripture was written before people learned basic logic.


So UK’s minister of Unreason Faith, Baroness Warsi, has resigned. Now, I always thought of her as a few cards short of a full deck – but that is an occupational requirement for someone working in the faith industry. Now I’m disappointed to see that’s she’s also a sissy.

‘When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping’ my mother used to say. When you think that your team is doing something wrong, you double down, and try to change it for the better. That’s at least what I expect from professionals. Those who can, do. Warsi, as was painfully obvious, can’t.

Never one to face difficult questions, the horrendous situation in Gaza and the difficulties in determining which side has committed less evil has prompted Warsi to take the easy way out.

She won’t be missed. A civilized country needs a Minister of Faith as much as a fish needs a bicycle.

Trojan Hoax

A great brouhaha has erupted about the fact that faith-based schools are teaching outrageous lies to children.


I mean – come on! What else do you expect? Did anyone really think that the lies would be limited to scripture? What kind of hypocrite thinks that one lie is different from another? What mental contortions do you have to make to think ‘God hates homosexuals’ and ‘you are lucky to be Muslims and not ignorant like Christians and Jews’ are somehow different?

This is no ‘Trojan Horse‘. Read the Odyssey. If you are morally backward or stupid enough to support faith based schools, don’t feign surprise when the teachers lie to your children. That’s what you pay them for.


If you know the Ten Commandments, you know this one:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor

This is, of course, part of Christian doctrine – and if you are to believe the, uh, believers – an absolute. Don’t lie, period. No weaseling around, right?


What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church… a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

In light of above reasoning, it should be no wonder if the church got angry at such blatant sophistry. They would rightly denounce it as ‘relativism’, when clear-cut commands are intentionally undermined by smart-assed equivocating, trying to evade the issue. What will the world come to if any half-decent atheistic schmuck with a softcopy of ‘Hitchslapped’ can bang out an excuse for lying?

Except, of course, that above relativistic doublespeak comes from none other than one of Christianity’s (well, the Protestants, anyway) most revered priests: Martin Luther (not Dr. King).

It wasn’t Stephen Colbert who invented ‘truthiness’ – it was Luther; the church has long since mastered it’s use. Colbert only gave it a much deserved name.

Before, it was called quod licet iovi, non licet bovi

God Buzzword Bingo

After the ‘Pop Quitz’ yesterday, let’s progress to more serious gambling: Buzzword Bingo.

How can you convincingly claim that someone is a god? Well, it seems that a couple of thousand years ago, humanity was rather unimaginative. People devised a formula, a list of buzzwords if you want, and to be a god you had to check off a laundry list of things that are impossible for humans. In a case of classic irony, the Greek even hung a lantern on this when they told the story of Herakles (Hercules) and the 12 deeds he had to accomplish to become a god.


God buzzword bingo 50 3

Bingo! for Jesus and Horus. Image by CF

So what were the classic ingredients to ‘prove’ that you talked a bout a god? The laundry list traditionally contained the following items:

  • Born of a virgin 
  • Performed Miracles (of course) 
  • Raised the dead 
  • Was the son of a God 
  • Had disciples 
  • His birth was foretold
  • Fought or wrestled with demons
  • was supernaturally wise at young age
  • Was brutally killed and subsequently resurrected

Sound familiar? It should. After all, the following gods worshipped well before 400 BC score more than 80% on that list: Horus, Dionysus, Mithra, Zarathustra, and Krishna.

Oh, and so do the Jhonny-come-latelys, Jesus of Nazareth and Appolonius of Tyana.