Yep!  Pick whatever superstition makes you feel good at night seems to be the motto.

Isn’t Tom Cruise already proseletysing about hugging aliens through Scientology?

Funny as it sounds, it’s true.  It’s the new generation of stupidity coming over this country.

I was listening to a radio revivalist yesterday who was preaching
about false prophets and deceitful tactics that the devil’s followers
use to fool the faithful.  IMO about 90% of what he said applied
directly to his teachings and tactics.  Its too bad he can’t go back
and listen to himself without the blindfold of faith and apply what he
said to his own methods and teachings !!

Annie you make the point most clearly..thanks.

In point of fact, people who choose war and are against abotion couldn’t care less about lives.  The fire power used in war kills more civilians than any “intended target”.  They couldn’t care less if they just bombed babies in the street or women carrying fetuses in their bellies.  Take a look at this war.  It makes the point for me.

The only reason there is an issue about abortion is because some “Sylvia Browne” medium type said that it was BAAAAD.  The Bible says it’s nothing.

People follow their own guidelines.  We can tell a person’s true persuasion by the battles they choose.

ooppppsss..."menstruatine women” should have read: “menstruating women”...like usual my fingers aren’t as quick as my brain.....sorry.....

So, Glenno, you would disagree that those who claim to be “pro-life” are also (generally speaking) “pro-war” (at least in Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, etc), and are also generally speaking “pro-death penalty”?

You may not want to aknowledge the inherently hypocritical and intellectually twisted position, most people of faith find themselves in.  This however does not negate the fact that people of faith, at least those whose god is the god of abraham share some common positions and view points and life rules.  I shall list them for you:

1 - abortion is murder
2 - retributive war is good and just
3 - crime should be punished harshly (by death)
4 - sex before marriage is a sin
5 - children of unwed mothers should bear her sin
6 - those on welfare are lazy and leaches
7 - drug addiction is a choice
8 - the homeless chose to be on the street
9 - mental illness is a curse from god
10 - sex is evil
11 - men have a right to beat their women
11 - a man’s women are his wife, sister, mother, daughter
12 - women are less than men
13 - god is male
14 - menstruatine women are unclean
15 - eve (a woman) is the cause of man’s expulsion from paradise
16 - sons are more desirable than daughters
17 - there are many many others....

Judeo-Christo-Islamic fiath is not now forgiving, kind, or gentle.  It has never been so.  It will never be so.  It’s foundation is mysogny, vengance, cruelty, ethno-centrism, racism, slavery, and subjugation.  It is without reason, love, or charity.  The religions of abraham are the embodiment of evil.

Just look at that fuckhead scumbag Cardinal Ratizinger, who just left Australia without making an apology for the sexual and physical abuse by it’s priests his church allowed to go on for decades.  Abuse that the Vatican tried to coverup.  Victims the Vatican tried to paint as insane, liars, and attention seekers.  Then this moral degenerate has the gall to accuse the world of being a “spiritual dessert” or “moral wasteland”.  This ivory tower, pseudo intellectual is going to lecture us, who actually live in the real world on how to think and live?

Yes, here is an example of how Christian fiath is loving, forgiving, and humble.  A short search will find equally despicable “leaders” among the other abrahmic fiaths.  I write them all off as shallow pretenders, with NOTHING of value to offer anyone, except themselves.

HAHA Good point!! :D

Maybe it’s because people like Concetta come there!!  :}

:D That is funny! Why does everyone hate New Jersey?

Oh, by the way Annie, there’s a reason why prople from New York
City dread the light at the end of the tunnel; its New Jersey.

Actually, simpleman, in my anger at this assinine behaviour everyone is adopting, I failed to see what you saw and I thought it was pretty well thought out entirely.  It never occurred to me that she was speaking only in terms of our fluffy loved ones who have passed on nicely.

I think the question of whether or not a father would be judgemental in a spirit world if his child was being abducted and raped is a good one.  What the fuck are people selling today?  And--I guess this is where I “shut down"---why the hell are people buying it??

I know people who think Sylvia Browne, who has never ever done anything but suggest things about dead relatives, is a brilliant medium.  They even send her money.

One time this short-haired stocky girl was asking Sylvia if she and her partner were going to stay together long term and if Sylvia could see that.  Right away I noticed she was a gay girl.  She never said at first.  I think she was testing Browne.  Anyway, Sylvia Browne went on about “does he have really full lips and a rosey complexion?”, etc.  And this continued for some time until the girl spouted “It’s not a guy, it’s a girl.  I am a lesbian.  But thank you.”

And there I was--sitting here watching it knowing that the girl was gay from the time she stood up.  If Browne is so clueless as to the obvious subtlties that even I can pick up on, why does anyone buy this shit?  It’s the same with religion.  Some Sylvia Browne “I am so special” type of people wrote the Bible and Koran.  And here are the sheep still buying these stupid books as gospel.  haha By all means, buy one to show it for what it is, but the way people think is starting to make me give up hope for this world.

Every now and then I go back and review some of my postings.
Sometimes, what I post is shallow or not well thought out, but
I keep my observations to myself.  This time, however, I think I
will expose my personal critiques.  I asked if Hitler’s spirit was
over there, but it might have been more to the point to ask if the
Grand Inquisitor’s spirit was over there.  I also asked if a father
could watch his daughter be brutally raped without being
judgemental.  More to the point would have been to ask if a
mother could watch her son brutally rape an innocent child
without being judgemental.  One that I missed entirely was
whether a pope could watch hundreds of priests taking sexual
advantage of their young charges without being judgemental.
Sorry to having used so many cliques.

HAHA She’d be dead meat in no time.  And we would be “arrogant” in no time.  It’s an endless issue. One people of reason question a person like her who wants to be taken as “special” as well as at face value, we become the arrogant ones.

I didn’t notice the things you were saying.  I DID notice subtleties that made me angry that she would EVER get a spot on MSNBC for any reason.  Things like how we don’t judge dogs when they have sex.  Please! People stand for hours at the zoo during mating season just to snicker and take pictures.  If this is what my dead relatives are doing, they can fuck on off.  It’s a stupid....grrrr.  To assume that you can know what energy THINKS is abhorrently stupid, but to say that said energy is grandma--how the fuck does she know if it’s all about being energy?

Science has already answered the “white light” at the end of living.  And it’s perfectly straight forward regarding the synapse in our brain shutting down.

I wish someone would shut her down.

SNED,

I have heard the same thing from people before.  I am just beginning to believe people are either stupid or were taught to fear “going into the light”.  haha

Hi Annie!

Did you happen to notice that all her “experiences” are xian oriented?
There was no mention of other cultures, no communicating with the
ancient past.  There was no mention of religious conflicts that exist in
the here and now.  What questions would you like to ask if you could
communicate with souls?  Who was the Egyptian pharoah that Moses
escaped from?  Are the canonized books of the bible really the ones
that should be there?  Is Hitler’s spirit over there?  Is abortion immoral?
Can the mother of a homosexual really watch her son making love in
the shower without being judgemental?  If she can, then what’s the big
deal?  Can a father watch his daughter being brutally raped without
being judgemental?  If a Civil War soldier was killed in battle and it was
his time to die, how can you speak of his future potentials?
The participants on this forum could write volumes of books with
questions such as these.

Maybe we should invite Concetta to contribute to this forum!!

I once told a dear friend that death was no more than going to sleep without waking up.

To which that friend replied..."That’s really really scary!”

(So what’s the scary part if one’s dead? Go figure)

Whew!  You saved my life. But then, maybe your friend just needs to write a book and stroke his MENSA ego.  And maybe he’s just genius enough to be insane.  It happens.  Who knows?

IMO, people are beginning to see through scientific break throughs that we’re really alone.  All this stuff by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Stenger et.al. has made people start to think and it scares them. That’s evident by how hard they try and get into debates with them and then claim that they won the debate when in truth, they know they did not.  I have to believe that.  If you watch these guys debate Dawkins and Harris and then claim victory--well, suffice it to say, they look and sound as crazy as Tom Cruise when he goes onto his circular, manic mantra on Scientology.  So now we have all these people grasping at these ridiculous straws in order to hang on to life--any life.  It’s like having total control for them.  For me, it’s like a nightmare.

I honestly believe that if people just looked around at how “ungreat” this life really is despite the occasional fleeting joys, they wouldn’t give a damn.  I personally love getting older--a thought which scares and annoys a lot of people.  But to me, it just means that I am healthy this long and can make the best of it (so far).  But my life has had far more hardship and turmoil than it has ever had joy.  I am looking forward to dying in my sleep at 80 and falling into blackness and silence.  What is the big issue?  I wasn’t here before.  So?

I am beginning to think no one really wants to know the truth.

Fear not Annie...people want to believe. I know an arrogant MENSA who is now writing a book that proves reincarnation. He firmly believes in it. He has found a gazillion anecdotal stories to prove it. He is also well versed in physics. So I asked him if physicists have proven that morality exists at the molecular level. I asked him if by default the steps in-reincarnation (coming back each time to improve oneself) don’t imply a god...(when he claims to be a non believer)...to which he replied.."if you think our existence has no meaning then you have no right to ask the questions.” Which I countered with a FU...of course I can ask the questions...to which he has yet to respond. He’s not an idiot but he still needs to think he won’t die dead..

What I did tell him for sure was that if his book is readable he will sell books and might become a god himself amongst his readers...because there’s such an overwhelming need by some folks like our sociopath to believe in anything...other than ones own sense of common values, morality and justice etc. They gotta believe....(Yet Europe is showing us better societies that don’t follow the faithies line of crap for a hereafter)

Okay!  Religion isn’t superstion?  People aren’t superstitious?  OMG.  Someone comment on this crap before I put a bullet in the chamber and aim it at my head.

Why isn’t this woman hospitalised and given medication?  Why is she seen as someone worthy of chatting with about the dead; what they see and don’t see, think and don’t think, etc, as if she truly knows what she’s talking about just because she SAYS SO?  Why in the hell would anyone take this seriously? 

This is our nature, folks.  It’s the end of the world. Fuck!

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25724631&GT1=43001

Yes or No...how much easier can this be?

If someone says that science is a “religion,” ask them to carefully define “religion.” Forcing them to give a careful definition (rather than falling into the trap of claiming that their definition is wrong) allows you to expose their hidden agenda.  What are they really trying to say when they define religion to include science?  By smearing the usual meaning of those words, they hope to deflect certain scientific criticisms of religion.

Science begins with the basic assumptions needed to talk about physical reality, namely that our collective senses do connect in a basic way with what’s out there.  We may often misinterpret what we see, hear, feel, taste, and smell, but scientists assume that those senses (and their extensions by telescopes, microscopes, etc.) do ultimately provide a basis for a reliable, consistent view of the universe.  If we don’t assume the basic reliability of our collective senses, then there is no point in even talking about reality.  We could be in some kind of “matrix” and our actual reality might have nothing to do with that “matrix” reality.  We have nothing to lose by assuming that our collective senses do connect to a real universe, and the consistency of our observations do support that view. 

Most religions begin with that same starting point, but they go on to add a layer of unwarranted fat.  They assume that reality can be divided up into a physical realm and a supernatural realm.  Unlike the basic assumption about our senses, the assumption of a supernatural realm does not appear to be necessary and should be culled with Occam’s razor.  It certainly appears that we can sensibly talk about a universe without gods and spirits.

Scientific inquiry starts with hard facts and sound, well-tested conclusions previously derived from those facts; religion begins with blind faith in a core doctrine that may not be questioned.  Science is self-correcting; religion must modify its core doctrines to escape those errors that become embarrassing.  The first instinct of science is to test its ideas; the first instinct of religion is to circle its wagons in defense. 

The fruit of science is a world-wide, unified agreement among scientists about the basic nature of reality, a deep insight hitherto unavailable, an insight that has led to countless engineering improvements, an insight that got us to the moon.  Observations are the accepted basis for settling disputes.  When enough data accumulates, scientific disputes are settled despite die-hard holdouts.  The fruit of religion is a vast proliferation of differing core doctrines, there being no way to rationally settle the differences between them.  Moreover, religious doctrine is notorious for hindering our understanding of the universe.  Advancements in medicine and a deeper understanding of reality have been fought at every step.  2000 years of religion and their ignorant gods have failed to even reveal the existence of galaxies, let alone send us to the moon!  Though scientists may often be passionate about their theories, it is never a case of those theories being a ticket to heaven.  Religions attach a vast, cosmic importance to their core doctrines, which often lead to bloody wars and atrocities in the name of the “true religion.”

Therefore, we shall criticize efforts to erase the differences between religion and science by definition!  Calling science a religion doesn’t erase those differences.

The best argument for atheism or realism is that religion makes no effort to figure out what is true or confirm the truth. Religion routinely does the opposite when scientists conduct experiments to find out the real truth religious leaders look at this as a challange to their authority as the divine keepers of truth and supress research and free thought. God gives his tacit approval to this at a minimum.

This arguement should be enough to convince reasonable people that haven’t been indoctrinated into one cult or another. However for people that have been indoctrinated you may have to debate a bottomless pit of “divine” mythology. If you do this without defining the basics of how mythology changes over time and how history is written by those in power you’ll wind up going in circles forever.

for more go to
http://www.geocities.com/zacherystaylor/therealgodmaybe.htm

Simpleman, you said basically the same thing about your definition of religion that SNED and GreenSnake did.

It was I who divided the religions up. l.e. Mystical religions vs. Abrahamic.  That’s because I could never tell you how much I hate the three Abrahamic faiths.  The people who rigorously uphold them are an atrocity to mankind as well.

As far as science and atheism being labeled a religion by theists; that’s because they have no better argument for their elusive, invisible and imaginary gods of arrogance, and science bears evidence of what it claims.  It’s a defense--however weak.  What else can they retaliate with?

Please excuse my folly.  It is a pet peeve of mine that rather than counter points made here, Faithies will simply turn around and state that atheism is also a religion.  They also attach the religion label to science.  I am not sure why they think this negates our ideas, but I thought that by setting forth my concept of “religion” we might be able to get back on track.  Lewis Carroll said much the same as Greensnake when the red queen stated that it was her word and when she used it, it meant whatever she wanted it to mean.  For that reason, I felt that it would be useful to set a definition or assumption to be used in the context of this forum.  I am not so presumptive as to think my definition is the one that should be used. That is why I asked for input and assistance.  The definitions proposed by The Sned and Greensnake are both better than mine and for that I thank you.

It is generalities such as ‘The anti-abortionists are usually very pro-war, too.  Kind of ironic.’ that allow me to dismiss your supposed wisdom as biased positions to justify your turning away. You have wanted your illusions to be true to such an extent that you have actually come to believe them, which is symptomatic of mental illness. In addition, pro-abortionists such as yourself confuse legality with morality. Pleaseallow me to be direct...setting aside all legal matters and the Bible and anything else written, do YOU, Annie, BELIEVE that the cutting apart and sucking a pre-born baby out of a woman is morally justified? Please answer YES or NO.

Debating the truth of a definition for a word is folly!  Such an argument presumes that there is a correct definition, or at least that some definitions are more correct than others.  Folly!  Definitions of a word merely spell out the meanings that some one or some group has attached to that word.  No yardstick exists that can determine that one definition is more truthful than another for the same reason that no yardstick exists that can determine that one name for a city is more truthful than another.  A definition might be useless, should it be totally nebulous or contain a contradiction, but it is never wrong.  A definition may be counterproductive, confusing, or even deceitful if it runs contrary to normal usage in some context.  But it can never be wrong.  It can never be right, either, any more than a name can be right.

There are some things we can say about a definition.  We may survey how a word is actually used, taking note of those definitions that enjoy significant usage.  We may compare spoken and printed usage, media usage, ignorant and learned usage, regional usage, and current and obsolete usage.  We may find that some definitions are used among professional groups.  The definition of a “rational number,” for example, as given in standard math texts, is the only definition that would be assumed by a mathematician.  We can also note whether a definition appears in a certain dictionary.  However, a dictionary can’t confer truthfulness on a definition; it is merely a survey of definitions that enjoy significant usage. 

We may argue what a word means to most people or to certain groups (including professional societies and publishers of books), but we cannot meaningfully argue over the truth of a definition.  Whether nazism is a religion depends entirely on the definition one uses for “religion.” Whether most people count nazism as a religion is a claim that may be explored.  However, that answer would merely prove popular usage, not truth of definition. 

To me, a religion must appeal to a higher, eternal power, supernatural or spiritual, that defines one’s place and duties in the universe.  Most religions would also invoke a god or gods, have a priesthood, codify moral behavior, give meaning to life, involve prayer or supplication to the gods or a god, and develop a mythology to explain the mysteries of nature.

The anti-abortionists are usually very pro-war, too.  Kind of ironic.

Here’s something else ironic.  I kind of like the men of the Bible’s version.  In Exodus 21:22-25 we read their musings of their god’s mind that if a man accidentally kills a pregnant woman, that man should be condemned for committing murder. However, if he only kills the fetus - that is, if she miscarries - he is not condemned for murder. Clearly, then, Bible God does not consider the pre-born fetus as being the same as a human being, in which case the Commandment of “Thou Shalt Not Kill (a human)” does not apply.  So then, why does a xian feel this is wrong when clearly their God does not?  He thinks nothing of the fetus...in Exodus.  Then he talks about the baby jebus leaping in Mary’s womb. So, I guess if you’re a xian you can pick your poison on that one.

Although the Exodus version was born from the Jewish writer’s blatant misogyny, I agree that the fetus is un-important in the broad scheme.  Of course in a perfect world girls wouldn’t be raped and humiliated by their relatives nor society.  But that’s a perfect world.  And we don’t live in a perfect world.  However, when it comes down to brass tacks, the fetus be damned if the girl is harmed--either physically or emotionally by an unwanted pregnancy.  And may the wee beebee fly off to the baby Jebus if a woman were to toss it because she couldn’t care for it.  Wouldn’t it be better off? 

I feel kind of like hot flashes have come over me.  Someone actually took my words out of context and I am flattered to the point of feeling like a god from an ancient book! :D

Also stated: “I agree there would be strife in the world.  I don’t think that world peace would be obtained by getting rid of the Abrahamic faiths.”

But that wasn’t mentioned.  I am all flustered with this form of flattery.

An aborted fetus, is not a “baby”.
A fetus is only a “baby” once it is born.
It does not matter if it is in the first, sixth, or nineth month.

Of course it should only be the woman who is pregnant who decides whether or not to have an abortion.

I find it laughable that so called “pro-life” anti-abortionists are generally also agains sex education, are against family planning, and are against contraception and pregnancy prevention - if it does not promote sexual abstinance.

The “pro-lifer” defends the fetus, and claims it has a right to be born, and then also condem it once it is born to bear the sins of it’s parents.  They feel smug about defending life, and yet advocate the reduction of welfare and other social programs that help single mothers and that help teen mothers complete highschool and they also oppose daycare in schools.

All based on the bible....

BTW Nelson, science is not a religion.  No matter how often you and your intellectualy inbred cousins keep claiming it is, it will not become a religion.

Science and phylosophy stand in stark opposition to religion.  Science and phylosophy are rational - religion is irrational.  Religion is about truth revealed to the masses through a prophet (Christ, Abraham, Moses, Mohammed, etc).  Science is about finding proof and evidence here in the real material world. Magic, faith, and myth are not part of science.

The abrahamic faiths, are represive, hatefull, mysogynistic, oppresive, and cruel.  I have looked at them for many years, and still fail to see any beauty, love, or insight in them or their texts.

Do you believe that aborted babies also have (had) the right to live full, rich lives? This question arises from your

“But I fully believe that millions and millions would have lived fuller, richer lives.  And to my way of thinking, they were as worth it as you and I.  They were as deserving of a life as we are.  And for me to say different offends my own nature.”

Let’s see what you are made of…

From the last post. grow my definition of religion.....

Religion is defined as the acts by which humans attempt to control and appease as many gods (and their assistants) as they can conceive (In spite of the fact that humans can’t prove that these gods (and their assistants) exist, so that humans too can achieve the same benefits as the gods (and their assistants) once the humans die. ©

Prayer, by the way, is an attempt to control the gods....and their assistants.

Margaret Mead wrote about two societies in New Guinea, the Arapesh and Mundugamors. One lived in the fertile valley, the other on the rocky slopes of the mountains.

Those forced to cooperate to survive (the Arapesh) lived a much more peaceful life. They could only mock battle when mad at another.

Those that had plenty went to war.

These were extremes in small primitive societies. Now expand them and you get the grey areas in which we live today, but at either end of rich and poor, life remains as it did in New Guinea. Power and greed versus cooperartion and sharing.

So how we act is not all genetic. It has a great deal to do with environment.

On another subject....Religion began, I’m sure, with the lack of understanding of nature’s forces..like thunder and lightening....coupled with some coincidence of some sort where someone did something...like tossing a hunk of meat out of the cave in which they were living to appease the thunder...it stopped...the guy who threw meat out....and or the women who yelled “Will you stop all the noise!” at the top of her lungs and the thunder stopped ..were thought by others to have mystical powers....and there you go....religion.

I’d bet money on it. One attempt to control the gods worked, and the lucky person who did it became special and enjoyed the benefits of power. And it happened more than once.

Not too many Yale Divinity school graduates stand up in front of their congregations on Sunday and, knowing what they know, proclaim “It’s all bullshit!” which then causes them to be fired, lose the manse, the car, their income and possible the wife. (or hubby)

Same old same old. (There have been a few who have done it...but who wants to hear that crap if your a believer?)

As we humans have never tried to live without religion can’t know if there would be more or less violence without it.

The question becomes one of: are humans inherently violent or have we been conditioned to be so?

And: do the religo-cosomological texts merely reflect our nature, or have they shaped it?

Mike,

I beg your pardon.  I wasn’t plain enough and forgot your sensitive nature.  I was trying to point out that I just do not believe that you would ever look me in the eyes and say “I am not sure that the Spanish Inquisition, Reformation, or warring in Yugoslavia are necessarily bad things. 

I also believe religion IS fear.  So, in a sense we do agree that it was fear that flew two airplanes into the WTC.  As far as what would be going on in Afghanistan, well, I go with the old saying that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.  Something of that nature.  My point being, if Bush didn’t use fear (of god and the opposing religious fanatics) to sway the people, and if Hitler had not done the same, etc, etc, then the sheeple people would not allow such absolute power which has corrupted--absolutely!

I agree there would be strife in the world.  I don’t think that world peace would be obtained by getting rid of the Abrahamic faiths.  But I fully believe that millions and millions would have lived fuller, richer lives.  And to my way of thinking, they were as worth it as you and I.  They were as deserving of a life as we are.  And for me to say different offends my own nature.

In the early dawn of modern humans existance the female was worshiped as the bringer or life, the sustainer of the family, the tribe, the nation....
Before people understood the biology of reproduction, they assumed that the womb was the source of life, that some inherent “female” power was the source of the divine.

Then at some point, men became aware that what they ejaculated from their penises was neccessary for the production of babies.  This changed the very nature of the the male/female relationship.  This co-incided with the advent or agriculture, inparticular the planting of “seeds” (grains like wheat, barley, oats, etc).  Men assumed that just as they planted seeds in the ground to produce a crop of grain, so too the planted semen in the womb to produce a child.

The stopped seeing the female as contributing to the blood-line, and started seeing here merely as a fertile field into which a man might plant his seed.  As such she became something to own and control, like a plot of land, or a cow.  Once she became a servant, a slave, chattel, she could be bartered or sold.

Thus the beginnings of mysogny and abrahamic monotheism (which is also tied to the dominance of agriculture over hunting and gathering) are both linked to men developing an ideology that they are the chosen sex.

The text we call the bible, was finally written down on papyrus and parchment long after mysogny and abrahamic monotheism had already come into existance.

No-one of even moderate intellect can rationally claim the the bible is not racist, mysogynistic, genocide promoting, ethnocentric piece of hate propaganda.

Yes, yes, there are those who will say “but I don’t believe in those parts where it tells me to kill my children, beat my wife, beat my slave, kill the unbelievers”.  And there are those who say: “the text is not literal, it is allegorical, day does not mean day, year does not mean year, kill does not mean kill, etc etc....”

Yet in the end taking everything like that out, you are left with these basic ideas, ideas that must be accepted on faith and faith alone:

1- god exists
2- god created everything
4- god makes the rules(laws, comandments..)
5- questioning gods existance is heresy, appostacy
6- questioning gods power is heresy and/or appostacy
7- the above is true because the texts say so.

In the creation myth of the abrahamic-christo-mohamedians the order of creation of humans is of paramount importance.  Male was created before female, she was created to be his servant.  She was created to deal with his lonelyness.

Further on in this myth, she is responcible for his fall from the lord gods grace, she is the cause of his disobediance, she is the one easly tempted, she is why all of us men now must toil and eat our daily bread by the sweat of our brow.

I mean the text just goes on and on like this, hating women, killing off other races, hating other religions.  If it were written today, it would clearly be classed as hate mongering.  Don’t even get me started on Jesus, a half wit retard. He could not have existed, cause no-one that stupid would have made it past puberty.  Mohammed did exist, but he as we all know, was a child rapist, a thief, liar, sexual deviant, and fraud.

Hinduism has it’s own history of mysogny, yet it to is rooted in the move from hunting and gathering to agriculture based on raising plants for food.  This is a pattern see all over the world.  Where men realize they play a part in producing babies, they take ALL the credit for it.

Annie, it is a strange thing and could be used as an example of the male mind. Even after all our ups and downs we been through, I felt a warm and seductive feeling when I read your words, “someday, I would love to look you in the eyes”. I visualize our eyes locked at close range. Then, you mentioned “look me in the face” and the feeling faded slightly because those words are sometimes associated with anger. But, when you mentioned slapping me, the passionate animalism returned and I felt attraction again.

All those crimes and atrocities mentioned were and are very bad. I really never said that they were not bad. I question the fact that they would never have existed without religion in history.
Slaughter of other clans, raping and stealing their females, torture for revenge, excitement, and adrenaline and to instill fear. These are just a few of the same type of behaviors that I could see existed and would still have existed with or without religion. The ones you named just have some familiar religious names attached to them. I believe it was fear that drove these recent wars not religion. Islam was always there but the fear of future attacks after 9/11 got the Americans to go on the warpath again. If you take the word Islam/religion out but leave in the same threat (let’s say atheist terrorists backed by a “government”), I believe “Afghanistan” would still be bombed and invaded just the same.

I believe that you and I differ more on “how much violence”, with or without religion, would there be. I am not sure and your stand seems pretty certain. I lean more toward the opinion that life and history would have had more violence in it – if the top three religions were never born. (go ahead and slap me please)
I believe that it contained and controlled the masses. I believe killing was always natural (had to survive – had to eat) and we survived time with these developed skills and instincts. We can not pretend to be who we are not – we are animals. It seems like we tend to look at atrocities and such from our vantage point. I believe if we try to view them from the past forward, it may not look so bad.

Good night Annie.

Oh I don’t know if that’s true Mike.

The orignators knew that it wasn’t true?  I think the longer you tell yourself something, the more you believe it.  Or the more you are taught something, the more you buy into the belief.

I think they didn’t have answers but since they were looked up to because of their herded positions, they inserted magic gods as a means to answer their own selfish, myopic desires.  Still, I think they believed it.  There were plenty of gods before the ones they made in their images.  They fed it to the people, and the people believed because they wanted to believe this superman in the sky loved their people the best.

People believe what they want to believe.  Has always been.

If you’re not sure that the world would have been a better place without the Abrahamic faiths, then someday I would love to look you in the eye so that you could tell me that the Spanish Inquisition wasn’t necessarily bad, that Hitler using the RCC wasn’t for sure a bad thing when each prisoner was asked whether they were xian or Jew before the decisions were made as to what to do with them, etc.  And try not to forget Martin Luther and the Reformation.  If you could look me in my face and tell me that you’re not sure the world would have been better without these religions and their leaders, I would have to slap you just to make sure you were alive.

I see a few more recent posts now…Defining ideas, religions and systems separating them and possibly attempting to rate one over the other?

“Religion is a set of mystical values and concepts related to what becomes of an individual identity after the physical death of that identity… intended as blueprints or guidelines to obtain the best after death outcomes for the various the individual identities.” (Simpleman)

I see it as originating in a series and as a way to control the masses – money, power, tame them down / bring law and order, taxes etc…
It developed into a way of life and it was designed not to be challenged from within.
(which system / religion am I referring to?)

If Religion was a hoax, as many believe here, then the originators and teachers knew there was most likely no heaven or rewards. If all the words and set guidelines were false then they also knew following them did not achieve any better afterlife than the murderer or rapist. So, if Simpleman does believe the hoax theory then he may be right in line with Archeon’s beliefs. Simpleman may just not know it.

I am not sure – I am certain though that I am not as sure as Annie on:
“Still, the fact remains, the world would have and would still be a much nicer place without the dogmas of Judeo-xianity and Islam and it’s off-shoots.”

What would have controlled the masses back in the time? Would we still be “uncontrolled” if these dogmas did not exist?

“Women remained the property and chattle of their brothers, husbands, and fathers.”

“…we are still paying unintentional service to the ingrained racism and mysogny that our JUDEO-CHRISTIAN has left us with.” (Archeon)

After all this time on the board, I still insist on putting the horse in front of the cart.

(Female suppression)

If the bible was written and inspired by men alone, the thoughts and behavior already existed (before the bible). I agree that the written words supported and justified future generations but it can not be blamed for it. But, I also believe that it would still exist even if the bible never did.

When the female human started carrying offspring and giving birth, the male immediately gained the advantage. Evolution, natural selection and the development of behavior genes took time but the whole process of becoming the hunter, the bigger, the stronger, the provider, thus the dominant one, set the mindset of the male brain of today.

Sadly, I see a small little guy, like a Ross Perot, getting the same kind of disrespect that a woman would (from a bigger man), based simply on his appearance. They will see him as weak and not a good leader. A president today does will not physically fight against a leader of another country so body size should not matter but it does…If I am correct with this point, I see no connection to the bible for this prejudice. I believe it is simply the male mind at work.

Misogyny, I do not see. I do see men trying to keep the order of dominance and control. We love women. We need women. We do not want to lose women. So, we try to control women. Did I learn this behavior from the bible or did the bible influence my fathers? Nope – it’s all in the genes and in the (jeans). Even as I age and my sexual drive slows down, I am still driven mentally to succeed in “successful courting”. You see it with “dirty old men”, in their eighties, who seek to score till the end. Their “score” may simply be a returned smile or a rub on the back but it does prove the chemical and emotional drive of the male pursuit (and conquer) also.

Wow, Simpleman.  That is complex.  You have religion defined as far as I can see.  For me personally, it doesn’t matter to me what religion a person is so long as it’s not Abrahamic.  They are fanatical in every sense.  Even those who seem peaceful will tear you apart (either physically or verbally) if you challenge their belief system.  But the same holds true for the second group--those tyrannicals who have huge ideologies.  The one thing we can draw from these dictators, is that they always use one of the Abrahamic faiths to do their evil bidding.

Gandhi was of a mystical (reincarnation) type of religion and won over Britain with peaceful protesting.  Buddhists use the same method.  I don’t have a problem with mystical religions that don’t have ONE higher power over another.  It’s useless to me, but good can and has been learned from it.  All we have learned from the Abrahmic faiths is violence.  And those “Hitlers” who use it for violence.

Wow!  Then there’s Pol Pot who just used his own ideas--.  It’s very complex.  Still, the fact remains, the world would have and would still be a much nicer place without the dogmas of Judeo-xianity and Islam and it’s off-shoots.

Thanks to all of you, I am struggling to come up with something that defines my idea of what religion is. 
The following is a first draft of my conception.

Religion is a set of mystical values and concepts related to what becomes of an individual identity after the physical death of that identity.

Hopefully, this covers such beliefs such as heaven, hell, rebirth and reincarnation.

The values and ideals of the various religions are intended as blueprints or guidelines to obtain the best after death outcomes for the various the individual identities.

Thus, in my opinion, political and philosophical concept systems, such as democracy, communism, nihilism, and nazism are directed at ways to conduct our individual identities while we are living, without consideration of the disposition of these identities after death.

The proponents of any religion or philosopohy can be passive, accepting, passionate or fanatical.
Please help me modify this idea with your thoughts on it.

I hate to admit it out of fear of appearing to be a traitor, but I agree with archeon.

I believe that none of us are without imperfections and faults to hide.

Now--today, we are all friends and it should stay that way.  Maybe because I am close to Canada and have many wonderful Canadian friends.  I don’t know.  I just think that we are all culpable for atrocities and bigotries that we are working out.

The only think I disagree with is Hilary.  I think she’s a bitch and a cunt.  I doubt she’s a whore.  But then...I am a woman!  And NOT a republican.  So who gives a damn what I think?  haha :D

I think this statement actually makes my point for me: “in regards to our founders, they risked their SLAVES family and homes for THIER right to be free”.
(emphais is mine) The founders were all white MEN, of English (or at least British) descent.  They did not grant the same liberties to Indians, Women, Negros, or other non-white Europeans that they claimed as a god given right for themselves.  Then to top it all off, after the “revolution” was over the self styled “patriots” raped, murdered, and stole from those who had been loyal to the crown during the revolution.  Again effectively denying the rights that they the founders and patriots claimed as god given.

And yes, until the mid 60’s the Catholic church held an iron like grip on Quebec society and culture.  And yes it was a bastion of racism, bigotry, and mysogny.  One would be a fool to claim that Quebec is a catholic province now.  Quebec has the lowest rates of marriage, the highest rates of divorce, the highest rates of premarital sex, the lowest rate of church attendance, the highest rate of those claiming no belief, etc, etc....Quebec has moved from being the represive conservative backwater, to being a culuraly and socialy enlightened and progresive.

And, yet I agree that even here in Canada we are still paying unintential service to the ingrained racism and mysogny that our JUDEO-CHRISTIAN has left us with.  However, at least here like in Europe, we are willing to entertain the idea at least that it is possible that the jewish god, and his prophets (of which christ and mohammed are two) may not be the best role models on which to base a multicultral, pluralistic society based on mutual respect, acceptance, and tolerance.

Cherry picking theology is intellectually suspect, moraly corrupt, and ethically unsupportable.  All christian, jewish, and islamic variants are based on some basic presupositions:

1- god exists
2- god created the world
3- god created humans
4- the first human was a man
5- the first woman was created to be man’s servant
etc, etc,.....

That all being said.  I still read with great admiration, the US constitution, the declaration of independance, and the Bill of rights.  Those same founders of the USA, created three documents that for the first time in history laid the ground work for the way we humans should and must live together.  They paved the way for the liberties that we all now share and unfortunately take for granted.  Even up here in Canada, we feel the benefits of the work done by the founders of the USA.  Though they failed to extend the rights they claimed to all, their laws, their political works, thier actions, and their example allowed for the gradual extenstion of these rights to all.  For this I thank them, for this I admire the USA and it’s people.  By comparison to the foundation documents of the USA those of other nations fall far short.  Indeed when we here in Canada began work on our own “home grown” constitution and bill of rights, we began by looking at yours.  And what we have now, the supremacy of law and justice is due to the founders of your nation.  And for that I thank them and you.

The last time Canadians and Americans engaged in armed conflict against one another was in 1812.  That our two nations have avoided resorting to violence for almost 200 years, is a testament to our mutual respect and freindship.

Archeon… I think thee protesteth too much about believers and our US history.
Having been raised a Presbyterian some decades ago I can guarantee I wasn’t a fanatic about anything religious because the sect simply didn’t spoon feed hate fear, magic and that fanatically related BS that so many sects do promote.

So when I questioned the faith in general I didn’t feel an ounce of guilt. I can claim that the Methodists and Congregationalists where in the same arena. So I lived it and I think you’re wrong. If you want to define a fanatic as anyone who believes in Christianity that’s your prerogative and I think we’ve gone over this before with Simpleman who believes that there are good people who have a belief and I agree with him.

As for US and Canadian history...quite frankly we receive no education about Canada in the US but the mere fact that you have a French Catholic Provence says a lot about women’s rights misogyny etc. And in regards to our founders, they risked their slaves family and homes for their right to be free. What they heck did the Canadians do....? Kiss the queens ass?

Now let me say this about the US. It has been, and is now. run by jerks, creeps and scumbags. It is corrupt beyond my imagination. It is not a country to be proud of at this moment....and it may never regain respect because of the religious right and the religious middle who move more to the right every year.  But there must be more dark in Canada’s past than shade from all those trees.

Simpleman, I did not confuse religion with fanatisism.  I don’t accept that it is possible to be a person of faith, and not be a fanatic.  At least I have not yet met any.  Indeed I would suggest that if you (the general you, not the specific you) claimed to have faith, and were not fanatical, then your faith is weak at best, a sham at worst.

By any definition of religion, communism and nazism are religions.  They all - communism, christianity, islam, national-socialism, judaism, hinduism, to some extent even budhism, and a host of other fiaths - require us (the general us, as in the people of the world) to accept the truth as revealed to us through a “prophet”.  They require that we suspend disbelief (as this is the antithesis of faith), and not to question were these self appointed prophets recieved this “secret”, “divine”, or what ever knowledge.

I also get a kick out of the attempts made by faithies to characterize the extreme believers as fanatics or being guilty of blind faith.  There are no flavours of faith.  All faith is blind, and all faith is fanatical.  All faith requires the suppension of disbelief.  All faith precludes questioning the source.

And I am sorry Mike W. but the USA is a racist mysognistic nation.  It was founded by a bunch of elitist white men.  They proclaimed loudly and widely that they were fighting for freedom, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.  Yet they kept slaves, treated them often with less humanity than they extended to their dogs or horses, they denied women the rights that they themselves claimed.  While I agree with those who say that most of these founders were only tenuously “christian”, I would say that their world view was poisoned by 1700 years of judeo-christian mysogny and racism, and 5000 years of judaic mysogny and racism.

And yes, I have had people from your great nation say the words: “Hillary is a bitch, cunt, whore.” I can say that ALL of the republicans I have met here have an pathalogical hatred of Hillary.  For most, it simply boils down to the fact that she is a woman.

As for the two candidates from the two parties demonstrating that the USA has somehow overcome it’s racism, classism, and faithism, they do not.  They are essentially cut from the same cloth, that of the political class. That great class of freeloaders, self-advancers, con-artists, liars, and cheats.  Either one will be beholden to the exact same movers and shakers of the military-industrial complex.  Either one will continue to ensure the USA is a theocracy.

The USA will finally have killed off the ghosts of the past when a lesbian, brown-skinned, single mother, atheist, blind, confined to a wheel-chair woman is put forth as a viable candidate for president.  But lets be frank, Arnold will be president before an atheist or homo will be.

Hi simpleman!

Maybe I am not understanding things correctly.  But, to me, Nazis killed Jews out of direct order and sometimes fear.  Like US soldiers, they are/were robotic for an ideology.

Islam, one of the three Abrahamic faiths, hates women and kills people because of their theology.  So, obviously both theologies and ideologies can get carried away into fanaticsm, but I don’t see this as the case with the more peaceful religions that have prophets...such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.  Actually, the Hindi have man gods--and still they are not a very fanatical bunch.  Passionate, sure.  Fanatical, no.  I have never seen signs of this.

It’s as the one poster said, too.  God With Us was emblazoned on the belt buckles of German soldiers.  So at times, a fanatical ideology can be catapulted into disaster by using another fanatical notion.  i.e. Christendom--another Abrahamic faith.

I feel like I just went in circles. Hope you caught all of that.

I have only met but a few true geniuses in my lifetime. I suppose if I had attended one of the big name colleges, I would have met many more. Receiving an associates degree in electronics, at the local trade school, exposed me to just the regular Joe(s) from the city.

The few geniuses that I met had one thing in common. They were quite impatient with the average citizen and our way of thinking, comprehending and responding to things. A simple conversation was never simple. Their brain seemed to absorb and analyze things, words, actions, etc…so much…better I suppose.
The ones that I did meet seemed to have a problem with socially interacting with others but I could see that they feel the opposite. They feel society has the social problems not them. I suppose there are many geniuses out there that are so smart that they figured out how to interact, socialize and live among the average man. They beat the odds by hiding some of their anger, impatience and discomfort from their fellow citizens. They actually may even enjoy the respect given to them as they easily build their cabins, disassemble and assemble motor gear shafts and effortlessly repair computer equipment. And, if they could also easily track, guide and provide camaraderie for paying guests and tourists, the average guy will bond, look up to and totally respect their “friend”.

It hurts me to think that their friend up north is simply “playing the part” but really inside he’s thinking “stupid, ignorant, cunt slave wife, dumb ass hick, black hater – dick loving bigot, Christian nation red skin thief, bible owner illiterate idiot… “Be careful, great seeing you, see you next year, be careful driving back down…” – to your rear end up…the asshole, hypocritical godless loving nothing nation…

Glad to see a few of us here have not yet succumbed to dirt and an eternal rest in nothingness.

Hi Annie!

Point taken on Bhuddism and I understand your point
on fanaticism being irrational and illogical.

Since the subject of discussion was Nazism, do
suppose the Germans were passionately exterminating
the Jews?  Do the Taliban passionately punish Muslim
women?  These are fanatical activities and do not
compare to stating that communism is a religion.

Also, thanks for the Lewis Black video pointer.  I
have seen it before and agree that it is very
appropo.

I don’t know, simpleman.  Buddhism is a religion based on a very iconic prophet--The Buddha. 

I think maybe the words “fanatic” and “passionate are being confused.  You can be passionate about philosophy or history.  Hell, for that matter, you can even be passionate about the Bible and it’s origins.  I am!  But I am no fanatic.  And most philosphers aren’t either.  Scientists raise no one up as an icon so they are what I would call “passionate” about their findings.  If they were fanatical, I would think they would start proclaiming a scientific jihad of sorts against all who disagree with science.

Fanaticsm has to do with the irrational and illogical.  IMO.

Archeon:

I find that I must disagree with your concept
of religion.  I feel that your are confusing
religion with fanaticism.  Although fundamentalists
represent a form of fanaticism, not all people of
faith are fanatics, just as being fanatical about
politics, charisma or a philosophy does not make one
religious.  In order for a fanatical system to be a
religion, some supernatural being needs to be
involved.  Invoking terms such as prophet or cult
does not imply religion.  Think about it; religious
proponents here have tried to use the same line of
reasoning to proclaim atheism as a religion, when
atheism is the antithesis of religion.

I would suggest that because communism of the Marxist/Lenninist/Moaist variety requires a blind faith acceptance of the truth that the “prophet” reveals to the “masses”, that it is a religion.  Just because there is no “god” involved, does not preclude that some psuedo-philosophical drivel is a religion.  Nazism also was a religion, a religion of the whoreship of Hitler, it’s creed was “Mein Kampf” and the speaches of Hitler, it’s faith was “National-Socialism”.

The same dangers that personality cults like Nazism, or Marxism, or Lenninism, or Maohism, have as an inherent characteristic (to question the validity of the pronouncements of the “prophets” is heretical), are also inherent in religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.  Come to think of it, judism, christianity, and islam are also just personality cults.

It still amazes me that the religio-fascists just can’t accept that god as defined by ANY of the world’s religions is an impossibility.

So now the US has a black christian and a white christian as candidates for president.  My god, they have come along way.  Everyone can’t stop congratulating themselves for how “progressive” this election has been. We even had a christian woman try for a kick at the can - she almost was a candidate.  But I suppose the inherent mysogny of the “christian” nation that the USA is reared it’s ugly head.  I mean we can’t actually have a bitch-cunt-whore running the country now can we.  Believe me, I have spoken with quite a few republican minded tourists up here in Canada, and “bitch-cunt-whore” is a term many actually used to describe Hillary.

A nation that continues to bend over and take it up the ass for the Judeochristianmuslims, will never escape mysogny.  But I suppose it is to be expected.  Just remember that after the civil war it was black men that were emancipated, women black or white or red or yellow or brown were not.  Women remained the property and chattle of their brothers, husbands, and fathers.  So it seems fitting that a black man would be given the chance at the oval office before a woman of any colour would.  Seriously though white evangelical christians, orthodox jews must be truly frightened by the prospect of a black president, just not as frightening as a president with a cunt.  As for the muslims....well that they hate women is a given.

Here ya go, Simpleman.  Hope it’s not a repeat.  But it’s straight from a Jewish man’s mouth.  It might cheer you, too. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_BRZoXjOmI&feature =related

As I review my last post, I am struck by
something that has been stated before. 
The god of the hebrews is portrayed in
the more vindictive perspective and the
god of the gentiles is portrayed with the
more loving, fatherly traits.  That falls
in step with the hebrew messiah being
expected to conquer the enemies of the
hebrews and establish a glorious kingdom
for them here on earth and xian messiah
will bring all his followers to a glorious
kingdom in the hereafter.  It therefore
becomes obvious that the god and messiah
of the old testament are not the same as
the ones in the new testament.  The xians
tried and failed to highjack the history
and traditions of the hebrews and make them
over in their own concepts.

The ten commandments starts out with the proclamation:
I the lord thy god am a jealous god.

Even as a child, this bothered me.  Jealousy is a
“negative” emotion. Why would god have a negative
emotion?  Why should he be jealous of other gods?
Why does he need or crave adoration from his
created subjects?  Why wreak such terrible
punishment when they do not worship him above all
others?  Maybe because the creative act took so
much out of him that he had to rest after the
process and he wanted recognition and appreciation
for all his efforts.  These seem to be more human
traits than the traits of an omni-powerful being.
Now that I am out of the religious nest I can see
that god has been poorly defined.  Here are some
of the things attributed to him.

Jealous
Angry
Punishing
Wrathful
Vengeneful
All powerful
All knowing
Omnipresent
Loving
Caring
Forgiving
Fatherly
Giver of free will
Victorious
Sacrificing
Good
Healing
Truthful
Magical
Generous
Promising
Full of plans
Perfect
Not to be questioned
The god of the Jews
The god of the Gentiles
Creator of everything
Responsible for all things good
Not responsible for anything evil

The list is much longer, but evangelists will use
subsets of attributes to make their points.

Akira, if you are still around, a good book would
be a study of many of the sermons of one and show how
one sermon contradicts another.  If they are talking
about homosexuality, he is vindictive.  If they are
preaching salvation, he is loving and forgiving, etc.

Hey SNED!  How have you been?

Simpleman, thank you for allowing me the right to post your words.  I will give you the blog address when I have it. I am getting the same problem with Truthdig.  It’s happened to me before though.  It should go back to the way it was eventually.

You know, I think what you call regurgitation of the same stuff is really just good repetition.  Maybe people will start seeing and comprehending what they’re reading and question it if they see it often enough.

Perris, you put it so apt, I couldn’t add anything except, what the fuck kind of deity would be so insecure as to NEED reassurance from Abraham--not to mention, he can’t read Abraham’s heart and mind?  Apparently not.  Yet he had no problem hardening Pharaoh’s heart and mind against him so he could send plagues upon Egypt and then kill the first born son of each Egyptian because he was pissed at what Pharoah had done...what the fuck?

You’re sooo right.  People are desperate to be saved from this world.  But truly, it’s so much easier to accept it as it is and just say “this is it, I am going to die just like everyone else and it doesn’t matter what I do”.  There’s a freedom to that.

I also enjoyed your efforts. Very simple. To the point.

Just went to a wedding- second time for both. God given credit for everything, in this new match, but apparently not blamed for the first go round.

Eleventh commandment....God ALWAYS wins.

Mother in-law angry that ceremony was not somber. “Who needs somber?” I asked, “if half of all somber weddings end in divorce?” (2 our of 4 of her kids)

No response.

Spouse, marrying out of the Church referred to the ceremony as akin to a game show. But he went along with the guilt free banter and ho ho ho aspect of it all. (to his credit)

Hello Annie....hope all is well.

Hey Simpleman!

First let me say, I am using your post of June 19 for a blog of mine--if you don’t mind.  I think it’s brilliant. 

Secondly, and regarding your latest post, I think it again all goes back to reason and logic.  The painter argument is a lame (at best) attempt to scibble away the erroneous writings of religious books.  Even if VanGogh loved his paintings and then in a moment of anger at the colours being “not quite right, threw them all into a river to drown them out of his memory (think Noah), that’s a). not at all true love, rather it’s a short fuse… and b). a very human trait.

It’s not something at all that you could attach to an all-knowing, all-loving and powerful god.  How can we attach imperfect creation to a supposed perfect creator?  For that matter, why create if all is perfect in your Deified universe?

Anyone with a sizeable I.Q. and sense of logic and reason can see this all for what it is.  The meandering thoughts of camel riding dictators of old.  Nothing more.

Richard Dawkins said on the Bill Maher show that he was 6.9 percent atheist in that he couldn’t be absolutely certian there is no god just as he couldn’t be absolutely certain there is no such thing as fairies.  I will go one step further and say that there are absolutely no fairies and there is absolutely no god.  We are here randomly.  I say this because not only is there no evidence for such legendary myths as fairies, leprechauns and gods, but the evidence leads us to the complete contrary.

Yes, well, all that would be true if such “god” existed.  Allah, the figure deity of the Koran is not as horrid--quite.  But the measurement between is not far off.  He also conciders the female “half a male” Surah: 26. 

Again, all of that would be true if these weren’t the ramblings of horny old primitives.

As for me, I believe what Schopenhauer said.  “We are a mess of a human race.  But here we are and here it is!  We better make the best of it”.  Schopenhauer was right.  It’s a mess alright.  Only through religion have we made it messier instead of making the best of it. 

The Harris polls DO show, howeve, that atheism and agnosticsm are both on a fast rise.

Is the only body of knowledge which as made predictions that come to pass.  It has saved millions from disease and early death.  It has fed billions of mouths.  It has saved countless lives from hurricanes and tornado.  It enhances our every minute of everyday.

Fundamentalists are frothy-mouthed, spewers of hate, un-think, and lies.

God created humans, and the universe, for personal entertainment.  A “perfect” entity would have no need for the universe, but may have want for entertainment.  Your suffering is god’s delight.

The bible is a racist document.  It claims superiority of the Jews over all other “races” (even thought they never gain prominence outside of the dead sea area).  Cain is claimed to be the ancestor to the “black race”, despite science showing explicitly we all come from Africans.

God is a murderer and a thief.  God drowns countless men, women, and their entire families for “impurity” (more evidence for humans-as-entertainment).  God commanded the summary destruction of Jericho, a city state which was founded thousands of years before the Jews.  It was old enough, it had probably become a place of commerce, and no longer kept a standing army, preferring a passive walled defense.  The Army of the Israelites marched on and destroyed a weakened Jericho after an earthquake.  They made up lies attributing the earthquake to their specific god, and murdered every man, woman, child, and pet while also stealing every bit of loot to be had. 

God is a maker of slaves.  Far from being a justification for freeing slaves.  The bible claims god imposed unjust punishment upon Adam and Eve for eating fruit from a tree that would allow them to know when they were doing good or evil.  They couldn’t have known what they were doing even according to the goddamn story.

And to think they want to teach this garbage to Children. 

<Forehead slap>

It boggles the mind