Dumb Dynasty

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.

Funky old Medina

Fundamental religion and science don’t mix well, as anyone who has listened to Ken ‘Creationist Museum’ Ham can attest. Now news reports reach us now from the holy city of Medina where cleric Sheik Bandar al-Khaibari ‘proved’ to an astonished audience that the earth doesn’t rotate at all.
Galileo Galilei, who, incidentally, was born on the exact same day a couple of hundred years ago, could have emphasized – he has had his share of trouble with religious scientific ignoramuses (he was sentenced to life long imprisonment for discovering the fact that the earth rotates by christian fundamentalists).

It seems the Sheik is very religious – meaning his grasp on reality is tenuous at best. Reportedly, he is also doubting the moon landings, putting him not only with the religious idiots, but squarely with the conspiracy nuts.

Maybe he’s also Ken Ham’s long-lost brother?

Neal Larson: Moran

Neal Larson is angry at ‘militant atheists’. Why? It’s not entirely clear, but after carefully reading his ‘Militant Atheism Rears its Ugly Head‘, I conclude it’s because these terrible, ungodly people dare to speak up for themselves.

Since we should never assume malice where simple incompetence suffices, let’s be kind and assume that Neal really lost his marbles writing this.

First, he flat out states that he

would refuse to vote for a proud and vocal atheist for high office, regardless of any offsetting credentials.

But he would vote for proud and vocal theists who flaunt their faith – who make a show of going to church, and make it a point to use phrases like under god during allegiance, …so help me god for their oath, or finish their speeches with God bless America. Because double standards are a sign of healthy morals, right? I guess his regardless of any offsetting credentials is the cherry on top to underscore his open-mindedness.

He then unintentionally proves that he doesn’t know the difference between private and official roles, claiming that a school official who leads everyone into prayer over the intercom is merely someone who privately affirms their faith. A little later he bemoans the fact that many Americans are falling prey to political hyper-correctness, who then outlaw phrases like ‘bless you’. Doing that would indeed be silly – but it is in no way something that Atheists would demand. It’s what religious people do because they erroneously believe that saying ‘bless you’ would offend Atheists. It doesn’t. And here’s a hint: we don’t mind people saying ‘merry Christmas’ either. We know how to interpret kindness, thank you very much.

But those are only small fry. Neal goes full-on Moran with this:

While atheists are certainly capable of doing good works, those good works are not inspired by an absence of belief in God. How could they be? If atheists do good, it is in spite of – not because of – their atheism, so let’s stop acting like not believing is just another super awesome way of believing.

Can you be more condescending while spouting world-class stupidity? His complacent ‘How could they be?’ alone is weapons-grade stupid, merely underscoring the fact that Neal has skipped Ethics 101. So he’s never heard of Euthyphro – his (rather obvious) loss. But to really kick this into a universe of stupidity of it’s own is to accuse Atheists that they believe Atheism to be a religion. Not understanding non-belief is one thing. But confidently stating an idiocy of this magnitude is really asking for it.

He then whips himself into a truly righteous anger, condemning the activities of some atheists:

Particularly insidious are the atheists who get a sense of satisfaction eroding the faith of others and behave as though it is a favor to rattle another’s belief in a higher power.

Although I, too, have qualms about ‘proselytizing’ Atheists, I would like to pose the following two questions to Neal:

  1. Do you think that Christian missionaries are equally reprehensible?
  2. How do you define the word hypocrisy?

At the end of his text, Neal forgoes the classic ‘Hitler’ argument (which I was expecting), likening atheists to jihadists instead:

I think we could all be more tolerant of unintrusive atheism, because who doesn’t have doubts? But let’s separate them from the purveyors and jihadists of Godlessness

It requires an extraordinary level of incompetence – or, ideed, malice – in times of daily beheadings, rape and torture by jihadist ISIS and militant believers who kill for their god, to use either term in conjunction with atheists who until today have never killed, tortured or raped anyone in the name of unbelief.

What a piece of self-important, hypocritical, holier-than-thou drivel. It’s difficult to believe someone can be that incompetent.

Write less, think more, Neal.

Rick Insanetorum

US Presidential Wannabe Rick Santorum appeared on fundamentalist Christian TV yesterday to give his ideas of what he thinks are sane propositions once his party assumes power:

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion

You know, strangely enough, it is. In unrelated news, one plus one equals two! Is America reverting to ‘W’-era stupidity? Can we expect Americans again to be proud of their ignorance, confidently holding up signs yelling “Get a brain! Morans”?

He then went on saying that removing the Bible from the classroom isn’t neutral, but the promotion of a different worldview. Yeah, like forcing a boxer to remove his knife before he enters the ring is promoting his opponent.

But Ricky didn’t leave it at that. Brace yourself, this one’s going to make you spell Moron with an ‘a’:

[They say that] the absence of religion is not a religion in itself – which it is!


Like being dead is a way to live or being bald is a hair color.

Rick: Unfortunately, the absence of intelligence is not a form of genius.

Well, you’ve got to hand it to Santorum. It’s 79 seconds of concentrated stupid, so dense that it’s on par with Archbishop John Nienstedt – and that guy is a pro!

Morally depraved West

Many Islamist denounce the West because they think it is decadent and morally depraved. They may have a point:

Reports show that western Djihadists who join up with murderous bands like ISIS, Al Shabab, Taliban or Boko Haram do so not because of religious zeal – but out of boredom. They torture, shoot and behead others as pastime.

Take the hipster Jihadi (another middle-class boy gone wrong). The photo of Islam Yaken that went viral doesn’t suggest a man who has submitted to the will of Allah but a boy who likes posing with kick-ass swords – with an effeminate little satchel which probably cost most people’s annual salary to buy. It’s quite obvious, isn’t it, that he thinks he’s cool? He’s the Islamist James Dean – the rebel with a cause.

Can you be any more decadent or morally depraved than that?

Darwin = Hitler

And here we go again. Dumb as doornail ‘Discovery Institute’ (DI) are trying to scientifically ‘prove’ that science leads to immoral behavior. This time around, they have drawn a line between Darwin and Hitler, claiming that the Holocaust is a direct result of Darwin’s theories. Citing a film by Dr. Richard Weikart called “Darwin to Hitler”, based on his book of the same name and funded in large parts by DI, their argument goes as follows:

Natural selection was the guiding idea for Hitler and the Nazis. … the term [selection] was related directly to Darwinian terminology that when you went to the camps, you went through a selection process. They were selecting this person to survive and this person to go to the gas chambers.

And that’s their complete line of reasoning. Just what did this ‘Dr.’ get his title for? I bet it’s not science. Darwin discovered the principle of natural selection. The grisly scene Weikart describes is unnatural selection, the exact opposite.

[slow clap]


85 Bullets

Germany is a normal European country, with a population of some 80 million citizen. The Germans have a reputation of being highly organized, and that they keep meticulous records of almost everything. Statistics on anything are published on a daily basis. Most are completely uninteresting to me, but one caught my eye.

Germany’s Federal Ministry of the Interior – among many other things – gathers and publishes statistics about weapons use by their police force. And these numbers are interesting:

In all of 2011, a total of 85 bullets were fired in the line of duty by the entirety of Germany’s Police force. Of these, 49 were fired as warning shots. The remaining were aimed and fired at people, resulting in 15 injured persons, and six fatalities. The year before seven people got themselves killed by police bullets, with 37 shots being aimed and fired intentionally.

These figures are interesting in comparison with the US, where no such statistics are kept. But it would be safe to say that there are significantly more weapon discharges there: in a single incident in LA, police discharged in excess of 90 shots, a few weeks later in another incident in NY, 87 aimed shots were fired.

Some may say that in defense of the US, the German Police does not have to deal with a gun-crazed population.

Which is entirely my point. I’m not criticizing US police.

Who in their right mind – outside the US – has their 9 years-old girl train with automatic weapons? Is there anyone in Europe who wouldn’t be left speechless in horror when looking at the following advertisement:


In related news, the NRA offered to assist german police instructors in gun training; 21 hits out of 36 rounds fired, they say, are a bad average that must be improved.

Dr. Dumb

In Liberia, an outbreak of deadly Ebola has already killed more than 1’300 people. Missionary Dr. Kent Brantly contracted the disease himself. Unlike most of the Ebola patients, he survived. Also, unlike most of the Ebola patients, he received an experimental drug designed to cure Ebola. Now, it is too soon to conclude that the serum cured the doctor; ten percent of those who fall ill to Ebola recover by themselves. But it’s enough to be optimistic that the serum helped.

Dr. Brantly, after his recovery, and in full knowledge of the fact that he received experimental treatment, and, despicably, in full knowledge that one of the greatest contributors to the spreading of Ebola in Liberia is rampant superstition, took every opportunity to spread more superstition:

I am more grateful every day to the Lord for sparing my life and continuing to heal my body.


Above all, I am forever thankful to God for sparing my life

Well, you ungrateful idiot, the nurses and doctors who risked their life while treating you are who healed you. Or are you so deluded that you think your god loves you more than those thousands who died? The experimental serum that very likely saved your life was designed by scientists to fight a disease – a disease that has been created by your god. Your god then gave this disease to thousands of people – including you. By surviving, I would argue, you are going against His plan, so don’t thank him too quickly. Next time, don’t take experimental drugs against god-given diseases – just pray and see what happens.

During a press conference, Dr. Dumb then went on to sermonize thusly:

Please continue to pray for the people in Liberia.

No! If you want to help, do something. Send money, food, or organize awareness drives. Praying only helps yourself feeling better, while those in Liberia keep dying. Liberia desperately needs your help – in more than one way: they need better medical infrastructure to fight the outbreak. They need better education to rid the country of dangerous superstitions. Mostly, though, they need greater help in overcoming poverty.

Also, Liberia apparently needs better medical experts to replace those who attribute healing powers to ghosts or gods.

Sex Ed Fail

The US (and some other developed countries) don’t have sex education at school. Rather, they have ‘abstinence education’: the only viable method to prevent unwanted pregnancy, they teach, is sexual abstinence. You don’t have to be too bright to foresee that this isn’t going to work. So why not teach safer, more robust ways to prevent young women becoming pregnant? Because religious, uptight idiots believe that teaching safe sex methods may make teenagers promiscuous. Yeah, that’s why teenagers have so much sex: good Sex Ed.

In a similar vein it would seem that the reason why they don’t teach first aid nor CPR to aspiring drivers in the US is this: it may make drivers think it’s a good idea to run over people. I’m astonished to find that they buckle up at all over there; after all I could argue that buckling up could lead people to believe it’s OK to drive into other cars.

Well, correctly attributing cause and effect has been a constant challenge for the religious majority. It’s a wonder they’ve managed to connect the dots between sex and pregnancy at all. Except for one prominent case involving Joseph.

See what happens when you teach being stupid?

The Athorcist

It’s a strange thing. There are many reports of people having become possessed by demons. Yet, when looking into these possessions, a couple of striking coincidences emerge:

1) all who have become ‘possessed’ are religious; or rather, all who report someone as being possessed, are religious.

2) the ‘demon’ or ‘spirit’ in question is always part of the mythology of the ‘soul’ that is possessed. Although we regularly hear reports of the devil possessing a Christian, it has never been reported, for example, that a demon of the Vishnu mythology has possessed a Christian.

3) There have never been reports of an atheist being possessed by a demon. There have – of course – been accusations that atheists are possessed by the devil; but these accusations were always made by religious people, usually with dire consequences to the atheist – as probably intended; see 1).

So, what can we conclude from this? Statistically, these observations are significant. Let us assume demons exist. If there really were demons, they should affect everyone, not just one particular group of people. Possessions only happening within the sphere of one belief, with no cross-over to other beliefs is statistically unlikely to the extreme. Furthermore, attaining complete immunity to possession through not believing in demons should be impossible. You can’t, for example, become immune to influenza simply by not believing in germs. Something is off here.

Well, you do the math.

In related news, the Vatican is increasing the size for their exorcism department, citing high demand. It’s a successful business model, I hear.

May I suggest an easier, much cheaper vaccination against demons?