Sunday, January 25, 2015


"By any reasonable measure of achievement, the faith of the Enlightenment thinkers in science was justified. Today the greatest divide within humanity is not between races, or religions, or even, as is widely believed, between the literate and illiterate. It is the chasm that separates scientific from prescientific cultures."
Edward O. Wilson
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge

Civil rights by anecdote

Apparently, according to Steve Neumann, there is no longer any such thing as sexism, racism, ageism, or any other similar forms of discrimination. That's right it's all just a delusion. Even though he never makes such a statement in his ridiculous Salon piece, "Atheism’s civil-rights delusion: Why non-believers don’t need their own Selma moment", that is where his grossly flawed logic leads. There seems to be only two main points in this idiotic piece of shit.

The first is easily summarized by his own statement in paragraph three, "But I’ve never suffered any prejudice in the 15 years since I came out as an atheist." Since he hasn't personally experienced any prejudice it seems it can't be real. Are you fucking kidding! Does this asshole really think that every woman all over the world has directly experienced discrimination or harassment? Since there would have to be at least a small fraction that have not that must mean that sexism no longer exists, right? Wrong! And what about those atheists who have been harassed and persecuted? If this moron paid any attention to the news he should have noticed that there is still plenty of prejudice aimed at atheists. There was just a case in Canada where a judge ordered a father to bring his children to church. There are constantly examples of atheists speaking up for their rights and then having their lives threatened for it.

His other point is just as fucked up.
"But there’s another, more fundamental reason why comparing the atheist movement to civil rights movements is a case of comparing apples and oranges. Being black or gay isn’t something someone chooses." Huh? Choosing to be a particular way or not, assuming it is a choice, is how you determine whether someone deserves civil rights? I actually, at various times, tried to believe in God. It never worked for me. It was in college that I came to understand that there is nothing wrong in not believing what others do. Seems that Mr. Neumann still hasn't figured that one out. There is also the implication that if you can hide who you are you should do precisely that. This seems to prove the exact opposite of what this dick head is claiming. If anyone is coerced in any way to hide who they are those are precisely the people who need a "Selma moment". Atheists shouldn't even have to consider any negative consequences for making it publicly known that they are atheists. Yet, we do.

Sounds to me like the "Jim Crow" he refers to in the subtitle of his piece is a matter of projection. Neumann is the worst type of self-deluded atheist.  He seems more interested in ingratiating himself to the majority than he is with thinking about anything for himself.

Sunday, January 11, 2015


"What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job."
Carl Sagan
(stated by the Dr. Arroway character)

God is tragedy

Stan Duncan's "What God's Role in Tragedy Really Is" is yet another example of how pathetic many theists beliefs can be. It seems that either Duncan doesn't really believe in what he says he does or he is exceptional good at self-delusion. His lame excuses about for God's lack of benevolence is are as full of shit as they are old and thoroughly debunked.

The following paragraph I found particularly irksome:
"God doesn't kill people. Storms, tsunamis, earthquakes, and human beings kill people. God didn't cause the nightmares of Banda Aceh and Southeast Asia any more than God caused Hurricanes Sandy or Katrina or the 6,000 deaths (so far) by Ebola in East Africa. It is true that God is very much in the storms and wars, but God is there in the healing not the killing. God is in the mending not the destroying."

The problem with this approach is that it blatantly contradicts the notion that this God is supposedly the source of all things. So, yes, if Duncan and like-minded theists' God does exist that Being does kill. Even if you try weaseling out of responsibility by trying to back-pedal on God's omnipotence, if this Supreme Being created humanity then death is also it's responsibility. Death is innate to all known living things which means it must have been designed into life. God is still a killer and the author of countless tragedies.

Whether Duncan is self-deluded, willfully ignorant, or just an intellectually stunted fool does not change the conclusion that if God (the abstract version) exists then God must be the source of all things whether they are deemed to be good or bad. Make up excuses for God's negative side is just ridiculous and a further indication of how weak religion and religious thinking really is.

Sunday, January 4, 2015


"Which well perceived if thou hold in mind,
The Nature, delivered from every haughty lord,
And forthwith free, is seen to do all things
Herself and through herself of own accord,
Rid of all god."
On the Nature of things