Tag Archives: christianity

Forbidden Christmas

Posted on by

Merry Christmas everyone!

And yes, we uncouth unbelievers truly mean Merry Christmas when we say that. I find it a little bit strange that devout believers think that Atheists are merely polite but probably insincere when they wish someone a Merry Christmas, yet have no such reservation when someone of a different religion – say, a Jew or Hindu – does the same. It should be clear to anyone that

  • well-wishes come from the heart, not mind. They don’t require reason and are thus compatible with all religions.
  • it’s the the believers of a competing faith who are far much more likely to be polite rather than sincere; after all, they know you are stupid enough to believe in the wrong gods. Atheists merely suspect this.

And yet, it’s Atheists who get accused of grinchian behavior: devout believers in the USA passed a completely unnecessary bill that made it legal to say ‘Merry Christmas’. In these instances, they probably were preventive strikes (a religious version of the Bush Doctrine so to say) against the perceived threat that atheist might think about making the phrase ‘Merry Christmas’ illegal in schools – as part of their alleged War on Christmas.

Of course, there are some cringeworthy actions from Atheists around Christmas time – the small-minded annual controversy some misguided Atheists start when they want to ban nativity scenes. To me these scenes are more proof of a Disneyan understanding of Christianity than anything else – most of these scenes look like something straight out of a fairytale ride in an amusement park. Let these guys have their fun, guys! We have bigger fish to fry.

But looking at the world we find that intolerant, petty religious people are on the forefront of the ‘Forbidden Christmas’ business. This year alone, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Brunei and Tajikistan have actually banned celebrating Christmas – with punishments up to five years in jail should you be caught. Their rationale: Christmas is ‘unislamic’. Wow. That’s a surprise! And it only took them a few centuries to figure that out.

But let’s be honest. It just bugs these medieval dimwitted clerics that another religion has a couple of fun days. To fundamental believers, fun is always bad. Plus, they love to be able to tell people what they must not do – that’s pretty much the raison d’être for most organized religions.

So these countries ban Christmas because it allegedly threatens their great, peaceful religion. Which is at least somewhat ironic – given the hundreds of thousands Muslims that are currently fleeing their home to infidel Europe and US, where they can live in the peace and happiness that their devout islamist brethren deny them at home.

So, as a true Atheist please believe me that I sincerely wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Splendid Solstice – wherever you are, and whatever you believe.

Take care, and peace!

Don’t pray for Paris…

Posted on by

In Paris, a number of heavily armed murderers have again killed an incredible amount of unarmed, unsuspecting and peaceful individuals. As I write this, information is still scarce, but the picture is becoming clear. One of the locations of mass murder is only a stone’s throw from this year’s other horrendous attack on humanity, the bloodbath at Charlie Hebdo’s. Target of the attacks were visitors of a rock concert, and patrons of in-cafés. It’s obvious that this was not a coincidence: the murderers wanted to kill young people.

I feel that I’m not going out on a limb here when I say that with great likelihood, the attackers will turn out to be some youths professing to be faithful adherents to a medieval or bronze age belief. They will say that they committed bloodshed in the name of the religion of peace or perhaps the religion of love.

These people with their moronic belief in repulsive fantasies of paradise sucker themselves into believing that they are shunned by society not because they are antisocial losers, but that they take society’s disgust upon themselves because they fight for a higher cause: a god who obviously is so impotent that he can’t bring order to this world himself. And so they arm themselves with automatic weapons, strap on bombs to make sure they won’t survive the day, and kill indiscriminately in order to be able to screw their promised virgins.

This has to stop. A new hashtag #prayforparis is making the rounds. Hogwash. Stop praying, people. If you pray, you commit the same feeble-minded idiocy that ended with automatic weapons in a crowded concert and on the streets of Paris. Do something. Give to médecins sans frontieres. Go help at the local shelter. In Europe, support the fugitives that are currently trying to leave the war-ravaged Levant. Make this world a better place where hate preachers have no opportunity to turn dumb losers into dumb losers who kill for paradise pussy.

Don’t pray for Paris, help them!

Rose and Night Mare

Posted on by

My neighbors have a small daughter. A few days ago, adorable Liana – who is currently in her ‘pink’ phase and drives her mother insane with it – took me aside to ask me an important question.

You see, she has this pink (of course) toy unicorn she calls Rose. A few days ago she watched an episode of some children’s show, which – surprise! – stars a pink unicorn. In that particular episode she befriended a black abandoned filly called Night Mare (pun probably intended, but completely lost on Liana). At the end of the show Night Mare left to find her parents. Liana was excited, because she thinks she has solved a mystery: Rose and Night Mare are actually sisters, and their parents are the same! Once Night Mare finds out she’ll return to Rose and they’ll be best friends forever!

She now wanted my opinion on this. Actually, she didn’t want my opinion. She wanted my confirmation. Looking into those huge, earnest blue eyes I pondered: Rose was a unicorn, Night Mare a horse. So they probably had at least one different parent, if not both. Would that upset her? Probably. What should I tell her? Should I lie?

Suddenly, I understood. I smiled and asked: “How did you find out?”

Liana happily clapped her hands and launched into a rambling story of unicorns, horses, and dark woods.

Why did I dodge the question? Let’s be honest. We are talking about the lineage of mythical beasts here. If the daughter doesn’t exist, who cares who her parents were? Theorizing about the genealogy of make-belief beings is a supremely childish exercise.

Yup, that’s the same way I think about Jesus.

Pro life vs. proliferate

Posted on by

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.

Lament

Posted on by

A few days ago, my father died. I am deeply saddened, and miss him dearly. I was with him on his last two days; he knew he was dying. Although most of our conversations were heartbreaking, I will treasure them forever: our talks were loving, honest and sometimes even funny. I’m thankful and happy that we had this last opportunity to be together. There are no words left unspoken between us, no unresolved quarrels, nor secrets that remain untold. For that, too, I’m immensely thankful and happy.

My father was very religious. His funeral service was beautiful and deeply personal. The priest knew my father, and during his eulogy recalled many of the details that made me proud to be his son. As atheist, attending church service is a strange affair: on one hand you get to sit with a group of nice people who talk about being kind and generous. This usually elates and uplifts me. But, every single time, they manage to point out that they act kindly for spectacularly wrong reasons. That part drives me nuts. Kind people, really bad reasoning. I usually get through a religious service by setting my mind adrift, letting it meander through thoughtscapes filled with silly religious arguments that engage in shouting matches with ethical reasoning. It always puts a smile on my face.

Attending my father’s funeral, however, was different. Grief-stricken as I was, I was unable to let my mind wander, unable to dwell on the many things that I loved about him: the involuntary twitch of his left arm when he was about to say something embarrassing; his astonishingly blue eyes that could twinkle like few others, or the way he ducked his head ever so slightly before he made an ironic comment. Instead, my attention was riveted to the priest and his eulogy. At first, when he talked about my father’s life, I was grateful, nodding, and wiped away my tears.

But then, he told us how my father was now in paradise, describing how cherubs were singing around him, and how my father was singing with then, praising God. Make no mistake: the priest was trying to be profoundly kind, to assuage our fears, and to honor my father – and for that I’m thankful.

Yet, unbidden, from the bottom of my grieving heart rose a single thought:

Seriously?

How can people even want to believe something as silly and, well, pedestrian as cherubs singing and praising god? I’ve commented before on how downright boring all descriptions of heaven and paradise are. Even I, atheistic unbeliever that I am, wished that my father was in a better place than that uninspired, drab setting. Theologically, I couldn’t help but noting that the priest was presupposing that my father had gone to heaven. Of course I, too, wish that this was true. But how would the priest know? The priest neither knows what happens in heaven, nor if my father had gone there – yet confidently stated both in the lamest imaginable terms. Hadn’t the immense sadness of my loss weighed me down, I would have laughed out loud.

My father was a great man – at least he was to me. I will always miss him. And yet, today I feel content. Although he’s gone, I’ll remember his kindness and the hand he had in forming me. My sorrow has turned into pride. My friends helped me with that. It is the people dear to me who help me building his memory. It’s their kindness that fills the void left by my father. It’s their unwavering support that lifts my spirits. I’m healing.

Unexpectedly, though, the thought that my father is singing with cherubs also brings a smile to my face: my father was a terrible singer. Just imagine the faces these poor cherubs would try not to make.

So, yeah, I guess religion can help consoling atheists. Just not the way believers say it does.

Thanks, Dad – I miss you.

—

In loving memory of my father, Ove Franz

Dumb Dynasty

Posted on by

Showing once again how deranged fundamental Christians can become, Duck Dynasty’s resident pea-brain Phil Robertson shared his unhealthy obsession with rape and decapitation. It’s unsettling for Atheists to see that so many devout believers are preoccupied with rape and torture, and Robertson’s latest deliberation is another scary case in point.

At a Prayer Breakfast in Vero Beach, FL, Robertson fantasized:

Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off [sic] in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?

Somewhat revealingly, his narrative then changes to the second person, perhaps expressing his own revenge fantasy:

Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun.’

This guy needs therapy. And a brain. Both urgently.

First, it seems that Robertson confuses not having a belief with not being able to distinguish between right and wrong – something that even apes can; apes that are obviously not religious. If someone needs to read the bible to find out that murdering people is wrong, they are a danger to society. Robertson seemingly believes that someone who isn’t cowered by the Bible’s threat of eternal consequences would have no restraints and be free to do anything they like. Which, as IS proves, is rape and decapitation. Except that those guys say they believe in essentially the same god as Robertson does. A couple of things

  • It was some 2400 years ago when Greek Philosopher Plato showed in his Euthyphron that Gods and Good are separate concepts: believing in Gods does not make you a good person, nor is belief in Gods a prerequisite to being good.
  • Judging by his remarks, rape and decapitation are what Robertson would do if he wasn’t living under the threat of celestial retribution. The sickening story he tells is much too elaborate to be a first-time thought.
  • It seems that rape and decapitation are the hallmark of religious people, not atheists: the IS does it on a daily basis, and devout Christians just can’t stop talking about them.
  • For this argument to make any sense, Robertson must be deathly afraid of his god. How can you love something that you are terrified of?
  • For reasons eluding sanity Robertson ignores any retribution that society will exact on him should he live out his repulsive fantasies. What does that say about his view of society?

Just for the record – as always, atheists maintain that even though we do not fear eternal retribution, we already do all the raping and decapitation we want – which is none at all.

But there’s a lot more wrong with Robertson’s creepy outburst than a disturbing misunderstanding of fundamental ethics and a sickening fantasy.

First of all, in Robertson’s grisly story, the atheist, the one who allegedly can’t tell right from wrong, is the victim. As a general rule, perpetrators are to be held accountable for their actions, not their victims. It doesn’t matter if a victim can’t tell right from wrong: a person who is incapable of understanding basic ethics still has the same rights to every ethical rule we have. Not understanding your rights are not grounds to withhold them. Newborn babies have rights – even though they don’t (yet) understand them. Not getting this simple concept right requires an astonishing amount of ignorance and is a sign of a disturbing disconnect from reality.

Moreover, perpetrators by definition ignore the consequences their actions would incur, else they wouldn’t be perpetrators. It stands to reason (if there is any reason left in Robertson’s ‘argument’) that he somehow thinks that the murderers and rapists in his story somehow aren’t responsible for their actions; that the atheists somehow brought this about themselves. You know, like the woman wearing a short skirt is asking to be raped, and a guy with dark skin wants to by lynched. That’s one sickening line of reasoning.

What’s most bewildering in Robertson’s horrible sex-and-crime fantasy, though, is that he delivers the most convincing argument against his vile belief himself. Now, I know that following an argument to its conclusion isn’t a believer’s strong suit, but in this case, Robertson really should have gone the extra inch:

You see, Robertson never says anything about the religious background of the two murderers. Let’s assume that before they die, both rapist/murderers are saved – they affirm their belief in Christ. So, according to Robertson’s belief, what will be the result?

  • The atheists (husband, wife and their two little girls) suffer eternal torture in hell – because although they never committed a crime, they didn’t believe in Jesus
  • The rapists and murderers live in paradise because they accepted Jesus in their hearts
  • Robertson believes that this is good and just  

So who can’t distinguish between right and wrong?

Small wonder that the two guys committed their crime – Christianity offers a get-out-of-hell-free card. You can do the most horrible crime and don’t have to face the consequences as long as you believe in Jesus.

Moreover, the double child rape that Robertson fantasizes about squarely points the finger at a serious moral issue that all believers in an allegedly ethical, omnipotent god have to struggle with. As Tracy Harris observed:

If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God.

The fact that God does not step in to prevent the rape of the two children is not a case for an ethical god. It doesn’t disprove His existence, but casts his supposed benevolence in a very dim light. Plus it establishes that Atheists (Traci Harris is an outspoken atheist, and sometimes co-hosts The Atheist Experience, an Austin, TX, based cable TV show) are opposed to rape, even though they don’t believe in Gods. It also shows that she is more opposed to rape than the all-powerful Christian God – who doesn’t raise a finger to prevent it from happening.

In all, Robertson manages to prove just how horribly unjust and unethical his belief is, yet somehow fails to understand just what he is saying. Luckily for him, our society is better than this loon. If it behaved like he thinks we do, they’d have to ‘decapitate his head off’.

What an ass.
 

Satanic Viagra

Posted on by

Reports on religion become stranger by the day. A recent report in the Telegraph made me question if editors had given up on journalists altogether. How else would the following subhead have slipped into publication:
 

‘Pope Francis’ effect credited with rising demand for exorcisms around the world.

Excuse me? Credited? That’s like saying Jihadists are to be credited for 9/11! The whole article reads like an episode from The Twilight Zone:

States Father Cesare Truqui, chief Exorcist in Chur, Switzerland:

“Pope Francis talks about the Devil all the time and has certainly raised awareness about exorcism. But all Latin Americans have this sensibility – for them, the existence of the Devil is part of their faith.”

Truqui uses a rather broad brush here, as I’m sure that not all Latin Americans are as batshit crazy as this idiot. But he does point to a real problem: in order to shore up their dwindling numbers, the catholic church is ratcheting up a fictitious threat to scare people into staying. They obviously don’t give a damn that full-on bronze-age superstition will scare borderline psychopaths into hurting or killing others – the end justifies the menace, so to speak. After all, it is quite damning (ha, ha) evidence that satanic possession is a phenomenon that only afflicts Christians.

But what bewilders me most is how priests can state the most outrageous stupidities without reporters calling them on it. In the interview, Chief Exorcist Truqui states that

I once treated […] a man who was obsessed with masturbating – he did it every day, many times

Seriously? So when you are able to jerk off multiple times a day you are now possessed by the Devil? Hey, I wish I could do that. Exorcise your libido? Did someone perhaps confuse that word with exercise and called the wrong professional? Only the uptight, sexually dysfunctional church could find something wrong with that. Listen, you idiots, don’t you know that Pfizer has a major product line to give clients what you think is the Devil’s work? Are you really that retarded?  

It gets worse. Claiming he can discern the difference between medically ill people and those truly possessed by the Devil, exorcist Truqui enthuses

There are some classic signs – people who speak in ancient tongues, for instance. Other people have supernatural strength when they are in a state of possession[…]. In some cases, people are able to levitate.

Note that Truquil carefully avoids an outright lie here – he doesn’t say that he’s ever witnessed such an event, just what would be indicative of a possesion. No reliable evidence of levitation, spontaneous language abilities, or truly superhuman strength has ever been recoded, and Truquil knows that. He just spouts these idiocies for the simple minded believers to sell his snake oil.

It’s not as if he doesn’t know it:

“A considerable number of the cases referred to us are in fact psychiatric cases”

Another narrowly avoided lie: they all are.

Word!

Posted on by

Deeply religious Christians claim that the Bible is the perfect, unerring and true word of their god. Devout Muslims state the same about their sacred texts. Their God, of course, is omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient. However, said deeply religious people never see the contradiction of their assertions with reality that become glaringly obvious in discussions. When quoting their own holy text to such a believer, atheists often hear something like this:

  • “You took that quote out of context” (a Christian favorite, and corollary to “you need to read the whole bible to understand it”.)
  • “That [the quote] only makes sense in its original language” (a Muslim favorite)

What they seemingly don’t understand is that you should never use these arguments if you think that your sacred texts are the true word of god because of a simple fact:

An omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being’s true, perfect and unerring word would be impossible to misunderstand.

Also, such a word would not, at least in theory, require any means of interpretation – everyone would instantly recognize and understand its message. The direct, true word of a supreme being transcends traditional communication and coalesces in our thoughts with its full meaning perfectly intact, impossible to misunderstand or misrepresent. An omnipotent being would get its message across.

Now, since not everyone agrees on the same interpretation, let alone same sacred text, something must be wrong. A truly sacred text would not allow a belief to fracture into denominations, nor would it allow factions to go to war over the correct interpretation (orthodox vs protestant vs catholic Christians or Sunni vs Shia Muslims): there would only be one interpretation. Such a text would unite and convince instantly. It would leave no doubt in anyone’s mind.

Supposing, of course, that this god is truly benevolent. It’s entirely possible that a malevolent God seeds many convincing yet contradictory, deliberately imperfect holy texts throughout the world to spread the mayhem, distraught and death we see today.

But if we assume that god is benevolent, and not a prankster, any true word of his or her would pass a very simple litmus test – it must be universally understood.

So here’s an easy test that you can apply to something allegedly holy: if that text required any kind of translation, it’s not His true word.

Pagan vs. Heathen

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, in an aside, I used both terms pagan and heathen in the same sentence, prompting my father to ask me what the difference is. Truth be told, when I was writing, I simply used both words because I liked the rhythm, while being dimly aware that I was probably using two terms that essentially were synonyms.

So what is the difference between a pagan and a heathen? It turns out that the answer is not simple at all.

Historically, both terms were used by people who believed in the Bible God to describe people who didn’t subscribe to the Judeo-Christian belief – but with subtle differences. Both were derogatory terms. Pagan was used to identify an idol worshipper of Hellenistic origin (Zeus, Jupiter, Athene, etc.). The term Heathen, on the other hand, referred to the untamed wild northern people – living on the Heath – who worshipped Asgardian gods (Odin, Thor, etc.).

Later (around 1000 AD, after Christianity had become more entrenched in Europe and belief in Hellenistic and Asgardian gods became rare), these terms became less distinct. From inside Christianity, everyone who wasn’t a Christian was referred to as a heathen, including Muslims (who are a subset of the Abrahamic faith), and Atheists (rare as they were), but excluding Jews. So after the crusades, the words heathen and pagan became true synonyms.

Of course, it is important to note that both terms require a frame of reference: the word heathen or pagan loses meaning outside the Christian sphere. Islam, for example, does not make the distinction: for both words, the Arabic translation is الوثني, i.e. a primitive unbeliever (yet Islam itself makes the distinction between Unbelievers and People of the Book (أهل الكتاب): Jews, Sabians and Christians).

Today, of course, it’s even more complex. New Age Bimbos have rediscovered belief in supernatural BS, and have honestly started to refer to themselves as Pagan or Heathen. The fact that they refer to themselves as a non-christian rather than what they actually believe in tells us everything we need to know about the level of intelligence involved in these believers.

And then of course there is my favorite meaning: nowadays, when someone jokingly refers to herself as a heathen or pagan, she usually means to say that she has some residual belief, but not as much as her family would like her to have. This believer usually sees the inside of a church either as a tourist attraction, or on Christmas and Easter.

Which reminds me: Happy Easter, to all you heathens and idol worshipers! And to all the Christians who went on a hunt for quintessential pagan idol: the Easter Egg.

Kill Bill

Posted on by

In California, a lawyer has filed the Sodomite Suppression Act, a new bill that will legalize murdering gays

by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.

Since this is California, the bill will go to the signature-gathering stage because under California law, any bill that you introduce will do so – provided that you cough up the USD 200 fee. So Matt McLaughlin thought this was a wise investment, and paid in full.

Somewhat predictably, this caused people to become flustered; some even went so far as to call for McLaughlin being disbarred.

Now I don’t think that submitting a bill, even if it was created from pure, unadulterated hate and mixed with equal amounts of terminal homophobia such as this one, should result in legal action against whomever submitted it. For a number of reasons:

  • progressing the bill is a phenomenal waste of resources, yes. But don’t kill the messenger. The correct response is to change the process, not to punish the person who uses it correctly. If you can submit such an insane bill, something may be wrong with your legal system.
  • that being said, I think it’s also a sign of a healthy trust in your population that you allow whackjobs to submit whacky proposals. Even if we don’t like what’s proposed, at least all proposals are heard. This is actually a good thing.
  • also, I think freedom of speech is more important than silencing an idiot because we don’t like to hear what they want to say. Let them speak freely. That way we also know whom to avoid in the future.
  • this is a another great example to cite when some believers tell you that religion is good for people

And of course, reading the comment section is as entertaining as visiting the local zoo: asks a (presumably devout Christian) believer:

Is this nutter for real?  Sadly, he gives Christians a bad name.  I think he may need to acquaint himself more closely with the teachings in the Bible which are based around love, not discrimination and hatred

Obviously, that commenter, unlike hate-filled Matt McLaughlin, didn’t read the bible.