Sometimes the religious are so ridiculously delusional that their antics top some of our best attempts to imagine what they could possibly do. Case in point, getting freaked out over pink Ouija boards. Yes, we’re used to them getting bent over virtually everything being satanic or as the Waterboy’s mom would put it, “the Devil”, and certainly we’ve been hearing them bitch about Ouija boards before, but now Hasbro, the maker of Ouija boards, has gone and made pretty pink versions of the old game, apparently in an attempt to lure 8 year old girls to hell. Just let the panicked and certifiably insane ramblings of Stephan Phelan, communications director for some extremist Christian group, wash over you…

“All Christians should know, well everyone should, that it’s opening up a person to attack, spiritually… the Ouija board is actually is a portal to talk to spirits and it’s hard to get people to understand that until they actually do it. I don’t pretend to know how it works, but it actually does.”

He doesn’t pretend to know how it works, only that it actually does. How charming. Now imagine if Mr. Phelan and the rest of his twisted panties gang found out that this pink version has been out for at least a year now. Imagine how many little girls might have been spiritually attacked! Where have our heroes been all this time? What a bunch of slackers. I mean, if you REALLY cared, I think you should be on guard for all these potential threats to children’s spirits. Of course one would have to wonder where the fuck they were as priests were ACTUALLY attacking children, but I suppose raping and sodomizing children either doesn’t hurt them spiritually or if it does, nowhere near the extent playing with a pink Ouija board would.

Personally, I find it much more upsetting that things like this are made pink and marketed to young girls, because they can cause far more harm and represent a far worse and actual attack upon them. Their ability to think critically and act rationally are at risk if it’s not explained to them that it’s all pretend.

Atheist Spot

Well we non-religious make a stink about the strings usually attached to Christian charity such as proselytizing to those in need receiving the charity. What a horrid thing to have to sit through that shit before you can get something to eat or drink. Granted, some are kind enough to simply plague you during or after the meal so you don’t have to wait, but still, the way I always understood it, charity ain’t charity if it’s got conditions.

Now we have this report which alleges something far worse, that the Christians aren’t even bothering to help the non-Christians.

Max Beauvoir, Haiti’s “supreme master” of voodoo, alleged his faith’s opponents had deliberately prevented much-needed help from reaching followers of the religion, which blends the traditional beliefs of West African slaves with Roman Catholicism.
“The evangelicals are in control and they take everything for themselves,” he claimed. “They have the advantage that they control the airport where everything is stuck. They take everything they get to their own people and that’s a shame.

At first, I have to confess, I found it difficult to believe because of what I mentioned earlier. I mean, it’s tragedies like these that they live for since it’s fertile soil to both proselytize and make your religion more appealing. To think they’d deliberately pass that up seems antithetical, but perhaps things are so bad there that they’re simply cutting their losses. In fact, it seems they haven’t made much headway there at all for centuries, so maybe they’re making sure the ones who currently claim to be Christians don’t slip away by making it their first priority to see that they get aid first.

In any event, this is why religiously motivated charity and other good deeds aren’t actually as good as you might think. The root is “religiously motivated”, for if you help people because your religion says it’s right rather than understand why it actually is right, then that can be really troubling. There’s no understanding then, and this gets back to what I’ve said often about Christianity discouraging empathy. If your actions are motivated by what your religion says and those actions happen to help people, is that ok? No. Hell, the Nazis gave Germany the autobahn and the original Volkswagon, so were they cool? No, because the ends don’t justify the means. Furthermore, if your primary concern is the religion and not the people, then you may do shit like this priest alleges, like not aiding certain people, or telling people condoms can actually give you AIDS. If you honestly cared about people, things like that would never enter your mind. Killing your kid with prayer and preventing others equal rights are more examples of this lack of empathy and putting religion before people, before reality. Another is a ridiculous new bill in Utah which will make women who have miscarriages murderers, all because the Mormons are more caught up in their religion than reality.

Well I suggest you read the article I linked to earlier because aside from this charity issue, there are other goodies such as Christians on the radio telling people they caused the earthquake so they need to repent and also not to be outdone by Pat Robertson’s nonsense that it was due to a pact with the devil, those same people who he’d say were devil worshippers (although ironically they actually worship the same fucking god as Pat claims to) claim this was a sign that people need to get back in touch with nature. I have to admit that last bit is pretty good, but again, that doesn’t make voodoo good for suggesting that because why? That’s right, the ends don’t justify the means, although the voodoo people predicted something was going to happen 6 months in advance, so there is that.

Atheist Spot

I just noticed this ridiculous bit of so-called journalism. Ok, it’s listed as opinion but it’s written by a journalism major. Christ, you think journalism is in bad shape now, if this kid is a glimpse of the future, we’re fucked.

Now you might have noticed that I’m not writings as much these days. That’s due to two things, one being the demands of a new job and the other being rather worn down by the perpetual ignorance and bullshit by the religious. How many times must one address atheism is a religion, atheists have no morals, political prayers, and of course the infamous Stalin, Mao and Hitler crap? Let’s face it, these people believe unwarranted shit, so why should facts matter? Why should pointing out their assertions are incorrect have any consequence when they believe in things which can’t be shown to exist? It just seems like a waste of time, and despite whatever outrage I may have at any given bit of nonsense, expressing that anymore feels like I’m simply yelling in a padded, sound proof cell. It’s even worse when you encounter other seemingly like-minded people and you find out that despite what they profess, they’re in many ways just as bad as the yahoos we’re both supposedly against!

So with that said, I offer you a response I gave to our aspiring journalist. Why did I respond? Who the fuck knows? Maybe I’m avoiding starting the massive mound of work I have before me, or Wyatt is a surrogate for people who will remain nameless who I’d rather be setting straight. Whatever the prompting, here it is, for what it’s worth….

Wyatt,

It’s clear you’ve misunderstood the intent of Atheist Ireland. The intent was to both protest Ireland’s blasphemy law as a violation of free speech and to show how completely impractical it is. Fundamentally, the assertions of any one religion are blasphemous to every other. The divinity of Jesus is blasphemous to non-Christians. Christians, Jews and people of other religions find the assertion that Mohammed was a prophet to be blasphemous. And what of multiple gods of the Hindus, the notion of reincarnation, an evil alien named Xenu, or an angel named Moroni revealing the word of the Abrahamic god? Very quickly you can see how impractical the blasphemy law is.

Now as a journalism major, I’m quite shocked at how you’re not up in arms over a law that opposes free speech, and that you could so casually overlook that due to your apparent disdain for atheism. To post something like “[d]espite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them,” and have your only reaction be to say it “is an ideal representation of how corrupt Atheist Ireland and other extremist groups like it are” is nothing short of shocking to me.

Atheist Spot

I’m sure you’re familiar with the above image, one which many in the world think warrants “revenge and blood” from this pleasant looking old guy who drew it, Kurt Westergaard.

Well some jackass tried yesterday and failed. Now exactly what common ground are we to find with these people? Please remind me again, and exactly why we need to be tolerant and respectful?

And I’m not just talking about Muslims, as this asshat demonstrated. Of course, thankfully, he didn’t have an axe and knife.

When we see images mocking the stuff we like, sure, it might be aggravating, but does it provoke us to violence? Better question, should we all be sympathetic to these offended folk and their need to violently lash out, or expect more civilized behavior and self control? You know where I stand. Hell, if you don’t like something, retaliate by making something more clever and attention grabbing, like this example where artists turned white supremacist books into an art exhibit. Of course the offended might be lacking in the creative expression skills, though. I do remember when I was in college getting an angry phone call from someone offended by a cartoon of mine in the paper. I suggested they create one of their own and I offered to make sure it got published in the paper, but the offended guy replied with a sad voice, “but I can’t draw like you.” Luckily though, he never paid me a visit with his buddies Mr. Knife and Mr. Axe.

Maybe the religious fanatics in the world just need some classes in the arts. Maybe Knifey McAxe could create an interesting piece, perhaps a performance piece, to showcase the evil of the infidels rather than having to get all choppy and stabby.

Atheist Spot

I’ve recently read this piece of ignorant crap. I have to say, I expect this from the average person, but a tenured college professor, one whose field is theology? No, that’s really inexcusable. What am I talking about? Basically, the use of an antiquated and non-applicable definition of atheism.

Let’s face it, most definitions for atheism have been written by the religious, usually Christians. I think my favorite was one from a 19th century dictionary – “the denial of God”. That one always makes me chuckle. Today, most dictionaries have less laughable but still not fully applicable definitions. You’ll find “the doctrine that there is no God or gods” or simply “disbelief or denial of the existence of God or gods”. Notice the capital “G”, by the way. How very objective. LOL! I’ve yet to meet an atheist who claims knowledge of the non-existence of gods. Now of course atheists conclude that there aren’t any gods in light of the failures of all who’ve tried to assert that there are any, which prompts disbelief in those alleged gods, but disbelieving in light of lack of evidence and asserting actual knowledge are two very different things.

It’s this difference that theists either can’t or won’t acknowledge. Why? Because far too many theist arguments rely on the non-applicable definition, including Prof. Rauser’s in that laughable article. Yes, if atheists were as he asserts they are, and we were all claiming we knew there was no gods (including the capital “G” kind), then he’d be right to ask for evidence from us. That would certainly put a heavy burden of proof on atheists. Now it wouldn’t shift the burden of proof from theists, but rather it would mean we share a comparable burden. Were that the case, then theists could get away with such nonsense as “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” or “atheism is a religion.” For theists, having an apples to apples comparison is ideal, because then they simply have to present their apple as being tastier, and let’s face it, if you’re going to go with faith, isn’t the one which allows you to live forever with friends and family, and perhaps even have a perpetually virginal harem, sound tastier than the alternative?

Unfortunately for theists, it’s not apples and apples. It’s not even apples and oranges, but faith and reason. Most atheists you’ll encounter, and indeed most examples of atheism exhibited by leading atheist authors and speakers such as Dennett, Harris and Dawkins, subscribe to the definition of disbelief based on the failings of god claims so far. There’s no assertion other than that the god claims out there simply are inadequate for they all fail to demonstrate the existence of the gods they claim exist. That’s not a subjective position but rather an objective one, unless you believe requiring demonstrable evidence is subjective and closed-minded.

My suggestion to theists is simply to stop trying to engage a non-applicable definition and further, stop telling atheists they aren’t real atheists. As a theist, you’re arguably at odds with reality so asserting what’s real and what’s not is comical already, but when you have atheist after atheist telling you how they define their position and you keep insisting that there position is actually something else, I’d say you’re REALLY out of touch with reality and being deliberately obtuse. If you’d rather debate an outdated and non-applicable definition, then by all means knock yourselves out, but if you’re actually interested in discussions with real people and have any interest in listening and learning instead of fighting and pontificating, then I suggest you abandon the outmoded definition you’re relying on and everything else which is based on it. In other words grasshoppers, you can’t pour tea into a full cup.

Atheist Spot