Saturday, February 27, 2010

Ohhhh, He's Goin' To Hades for that Fib!

Faux News piece of crap talking head Sean Hannity apparently forgot that wonderful 9th (8th if you're Catholic - I guess they were too busy with the alter boys to learn to count correctly) Commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."  Friendly Atheist (Hermant Mehta) has a clip of Hannity spewing falsehoods about the recent meeting of White House officials and the Secular Coalition for America, claiming religious folks don't get such nice treatment (I guess they do even better...) and attendance of a person who was not there.

You'd think a nice Irish Catholic boy like SH would know better than to lie.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Spare the Rod - Use the Quarter Inch Plumbing Supply Line Instead

I wish I could say this is very curious coming from a religion that supposedly follows "the Prince of Peace".  I really wish I could.  Sadly, for all the good words they attribute to Jesus, and all the praising and glorification of the son of god whose birth and death was to usher in a new image of god, some believers have not yet caught on.  Maybe they will in another 2,000 years.

Found on Salon is a story of parents who have murdered their 7-year old adopted child, and put another adopted child, this one 11 years old, into the hospital in critical condition.  Why did they do this?  The little girl mispronounced a word in her home-schooling lesson.  That may seem a bit harsh, but the parents subscribe to a brutal, sadistic, (and in my opinion) evil method of child rearing.  It is referred to as "child training" (as if you were training a dog to jump through a ring of fire, or as a proponent of the method wrote: "the same principles the Amish use to train their stubborn mules, the same technique God uses to train his children"), and it has too, too many followers (see also).

I am not a parent, so I cannot comprehend the intentional, scheduled, beating of a child.  I do have a temper, so I can understand (not condone, but understand) folks who get into trouble for hitting their kids.  But to actively pursue a plan of beating a child proactively to make sure the child behaves?  Only a monster would do that, and only monsters would preach it.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

"Funny - You Don't Look Like an Atheist!" (part 2)

Part 1 of "Funny - you don't look like an atheist" described some of the erroneous preconceptions believers have about the physical properties of an atheist.  Those preconceptions can be somewhat humorous, expecting atheists to basically look like lowlifes, or criminals, or satanists.  I mean, Jimmy Bakker was as low as they got, the finest criminals go to confession, and if atheists don't believe in a god, how in the hell (pun intended) are they supposed to worship a non-existent devil?

Part 2 gets a little more serious, and by "serious" I mean in part "depressing", in part tremendously frustrating.  This part focuses on that vile preconception of good vs evil, and whether atheists can determine one from the other.  Sometimes I am able to ignore fools who proclaim you cannot know goodness without a belief in their flavor of a higher being.  Their ignorant statements may be frustrating, but they whither away.  The depressing part is when somebody you know, whom you've been friends with for years, makes the declaration that "you can't be an atheist - you're too good."  How do you respond to something like that?

I heard it from a neighbor, a friend.  I knew she and her husband were hardcore believers, but they were the good kind of believers - they believed what they believed, but did not try to force it on anybody else.  They did say a quick prayer before eating, but never tried to get me to pray with them, or do anything related to their faith.  But one day we were talking and she described a visit she recently was paid by a couple of Mormon missionaries.  She had a good chuckle at some of the things they said and her response to them ("they mentioned only 250,000 are allowed into the inner sanctum of heaven, and asked if I would like to be one of them.  I told them 'sure - but which one of you will be pushed out because I was let in?'").  A couple more minutes of conversation about religion led her to ask if I have ever believed in (her) god.  The topic had been discussed in the past, and I told her that, no, I had never felt there was any sort of deity, or higher being(s) of any sort, and repeated that I was an atheist.  That's when she said "you can't be an atheist - you're too good."...

At first blush I was depressed by that statement - that somebody that I thought knew me pretty well would completely disregard a declaration that I was dead serious about with such ease.  But then, I started getting angry.  Not green "Hulk smash" angry, but as angry and frustrated as I had ever gotten with her.  She made another statement, this one about "you can't know good without knowing (her) god".... At that, I told her straight out how arrogant, how condescending, and petty those statements were.  "What you are saying is that, unless I believe EXACTLY WHAT YOU BELIEVE, that I cannot be on your level.  Without believing in your god, nothing means anything.  My parents taught me what is right, and what is wrong, but without a mysterious all-powerful ghost looking over my shoulder, they wasted their time.  Do you realize how arrogant that is?"

"Well, I didn't mean it like that" she said.
"But that is exactly what that means - unless I am exactly like you, I mean NOTHING.  What my parents taught me - nothing.  My experiences of 40+ years - nothing.  Philosophical debates within myself about existence, and the results of those debates - NOTHING."

The conversation dropped rather quickly - she is not one who enjoys direct confrontation like that, and I believe she sensed she had offended me.  Every once in a while, though, the subject of religion comes up, and I still get the question "you really don't believe there is a god?" in a somewhat astounded manner, as if it was inconceivable that somebody would NOT believe...   It was almost like somebody who loved peanut butter, and could not understand why anybody would not love peanut butter - even those with allergies to peanuts.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

"Funny - You Don't Look Like an Atheist!" (part 1)

I have heard that statement numerous times in my life.  It seems that I have spent the better part of my adult life trying to dispel erroneous preconceptions of atheists that are held by believers of all sorts.  The "looks" issue is one of the least of them.

I am not shy about announcing my religious (non)belief, and discussions about belief systems have popped up occasionally at the various places I have worked.  And, it seems that there is one person at each employer that makes that statement.... "Gee, you don't look like an atheist."  If I was quick-witted enough, my automatic response would be "well, I do take the time to file down my horns daily."  (I have always had a very high forehead - the spots where horns would grow has never seen hair...)

So it appears that erroneous preconception #1 is that we must look like, well, something other than "normal" (whatever that is).  Trust me, I am as white-bread as they come.  I guess the folks telling me I don't look like an atheist were expecting, oh, a hardcore biker dude, or punker, or a tattoo canvas - something that is definitely not me.  Funny thing, though - I have known hardcore biker dudes and dudettes, punkers, and heavily tattooed folks who were believers in a god (most the same god as the folks who made the statement). On the flip side, some of those who were viewed as having the appearance of being most holy ended up being anything but (see Jimmy Bakker, Pat Robertson, the current Pope...).  I worked with a lady who was as sweet to you to your face as anybody you'd ever meet, but behind your back, you were mud to her and anybody she could tell.  She tried to get people fired, rumor was she worked to bankrupt an ex-business partner of her husbands... quite the conniver.  So much for looks and appearances.

God's Early Warning System Needs to be Tweaked

Courtesy of Unreasonable Faith, we find out that a woman who raped was actually warned by her god that it was going to happen.  Why did she allow the rape to happen, then?  Well, it seems that SHE WAS ALREADY TIED UP WHEN HE TOLD HER, alone with an attacker.  Great timing, g.  What is your next trick - You going to tell us that Booth is going to shoot Lincoln?
(Although there are more gory (not graphic) details about it  here, Unreasonable Faith has a good rundown on the foolishness (fallacy?) of prophesy when it is too late to do anything about the prophesied event.)

This led me to think about other sources of prophesy.  Bizarre things like "The Bible Code", NospheratuNostradamus, tea leaves, tarot cards, astronomy, etc.  These "prophesies" fall into one or more of the following categories:

1)  Ambiguous - Astronomy, tea leaves, and tarot card readings (among others) - "Get together with friends today," "stay focused," "You're possibilities for success in your field of endeavor look very good in the days ahead" (all of these were culled out of this morning's paper).  They either describe a normal day's activity, or in the example "success in your field of endeavor", is so wide-open as to be true if you happen to not trip over your own shoelace.

2)  Hindsight is 20/20 - Nostradamus, Bible Code (and many, many more) - After a (major) event, folks scour over these sources of "prophesy" to find a quatrain to misinterpret, or biblical verse that "foretold" the event.  Humans have been writing for thousands of years, and the human imagination is vast.  Some time in the past, somebody thought of something that sounded like the event that just occurred.  Here - let me try one.... "A sphere will drop, a flame will appear, a red river will flow."  There - I can say I foretold the next war!

3)  A Room Full of Monkeys - Bible Code, others - If you take a big enough book, break it down into blocks of various sizes, "read" the book going forward, backward, and diagonally like you would a word jumble, you will find "hidden words".  These hidden words are then manipulated/combined in a haphazard way to create "prophesies".  Sadly, they are usually combined *afterwards* (hindsight being 20/20, after all) to "prove" the event was "foreseen".  Why don't they make these claims ahead of time?  Probably because, with nothing to guide them in putting the words together, they'd end up with something as meaningful as "mended as well as their bruises, their tempers and their hopes. Their plans were improved with the best advice. So the time came to mid summer eve, Elrond knew all about runes of every kind".  (That was taken from a spam email.)

I saw a documentary a couple of years back about prophesies, and one section centered on 9/11.  Of course, proponents of the Bible Code and Nostradamus all rushed forth AFTERWARDS to declare that their source FORETOLD that horrible event.  Penn Jillette had a line that was something like "If you have the ability to foresee these events, or you have information of them before they happen, AND YOU DO NOTHING ABOUT IT, YOU ARE EVIL, and should be prosecuted!" (I'll try to find the exact quote).  He nails it.

Whether your prophesies are bible related, or come from some other form of witchcraft, unless you come forward ahead of time, the just STFU.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

What Do They Have Against Gays?

What is it with the religious right and their absolute hatred of gays?  Not only do they push their hatred here in the U.S., but they also export it?

The fiasco of Uganda's recent "we can execute you if you are gay" bill, which was put together with the assistance of notable US pastors has been big news over the past few weeks.  That bill would allow anybody who is gay to be jailed and anybody who has AIDS to be executed..  But you know what - even straights are subject to execution - if they know one of those dreaded gays!

Seriously - if a person (regardless of sexuality) does NOT turn in a person whom they know is gay, they can go to jail.  If they know two gays, and are caught not turning in the 2nd, they are subject to execution!

Those whackos need to go read their good book again...

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Tim Tebow, his god, and the NCAA

Tim Tebow is headed for the NFL.  He may consider it truly the "No Fun League" (or maybe even the "No Fundamentalist League") since they will not allow him to wear his biblical verse reference under his eyes like the NCAA was happy to.  I had no problem with his noting those passages in his eye-black.  As long as the NCAA didn't restrict any other player from displaying similar items, all is fine.  Shoot - Tebow was just making a small statement of his belief.  He did not preach, from all I have heard he never put somebody down because they did not believe his flavor of god... it was just him making his own statement.

Of course, can you imagine the NCAA allowing John Smith, a reserver tight-end from Podunk U., to write "Satan Rules" in his eye-black?  Of course you can't - you'd need be be on a nasty 60's LSD flashback to picture that scenario happening.

So what can the NCAA do to prevent that from happening?  Well, they could bar all players from any eye-black message, but that would seem hypocritical since they allowed their golden-boy to do it for years - and the NCAA would NEVER allow themselves to be hypocrites....

HA!!!  Barring all eye-black messages is exactly what they JUST DID.  Now that their christ-boy has left the manger, time to make sure nobody sullies their eye-black with something that may offend another (at least another christian).  As long as they were confident that the message would be coming from a good, christian boy, they were fine with it.  Heaven forbid somebody declare "allh akbar" in white on black...  or even (dare I say) "No god".

Friendly Atheist has a slightly different outlook on "The Tebow Rule" you may want to read.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Do We Really Need a Religious Bill of Rights?

That is the question the Dr. Phil Plait, the author of the Bad Astronomy blog, asks here.

Individuals should be able to express themselves in a non-disruptive manner, and a t-shirt that states "Jesus is Lord" is not disruptive (unless the school discriminates against "Allah is Great" or "Satan is my God").  But to let students who are supposed to be learning about the real world (physics, biology, geology) answer with biblical or other religious platitudes is appalling.  And to require that a teacher get away with not teaching, and to do so without any penalty, is atrocious.

I hope that Colorado saves itself from the idiocy that is this foolish act (pdf).

Update - It appears they saved themselves.... Courtesy (again) of Dr. Phil (the one who does astronomy, not Oprah's sad-eyed puppy).

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Coexist? It would be nice.

Paliban Daily has a tremendous article on the idea of religions coexisting.  It delves into that nice idea of religions coexisting, then gets into the nitty-gritty of how their tenets may prevent that from happening.

Sadly depressing in its honesty, but sometimes the truth is depressing.

Friday, February 12, 2010

What A Father! (part 2)

I was thinking about the logic (?) behind an ex-classmate thanking a god for putting her husband through months of a painful, debilitating illness before killing him in his 40's.  Since the bible is fond of parables and allegories, maybe I should try one....

A 2-year old child, Joanie, is abducted by a kindly, graying man.  This child is taken to the man's house, where there are many other residents, some of whom were also abducted, others joined the household willingly.  As time goes on, the Joanie comes to accept this man as Father.  Father provides as well as he can for all in the household, making the effort that all have enough to eat.  He does not succeed all the time, but the family members all thank Father whenever they get anything.

As this 2-year old grows up, other youngsters are brought into the family.  All are instructed to worship Father, just like Joanie was.  One day, seemingly for no reason, Father comes along and takes one of the young girl's "sisters" by the hand, stating that they are going for a walk out back.  Neither little girl questions why Father is carrying a shotgun and a shovel.  The little sister walks away with Father.  A short while later, a bang is heard, and Father comes back alone.  When one of Joanie's little "brothers" asks Mary why Father took their "sister" away, never to be seen again, all Joanie can answer is "nobody can know what is behind Father's great plan."


As I think about Joanie in the story above, some words come to mind.... "brainwashed", "insane", maybe even "confused".  When I think of Father, "INSANE", "megalomaniac", "murderer" come to mind.  How is that different from the god my ex-classmate worships?

What A Father! (part 1)

A few years ago, courtesy of Facebook, I was reconnected with quite a few high school classmates.  I grew up in an area in the North that, many years ago, had been a hotbed of new fanatical churches.  Interesting - if the focus of those churches had been something besides Jesus, they would have been considered cults, but because the big-J was involved, the phrase fundamental (or fanatical) church was used.  The small town I grew up in had the usual selection of religious flavors - Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.

When checking out the religious affiliations listed on Facebook for my ex-classmates, I saw one atheist (me), and the rest Christian of one sort or another.  But their affiliation was generally not simply listed as Christian, or Catholic/Methodist/etc.  No, what I saw was a ton of "Friend of Christ", or "Christian - I love Jesus and believe in miracles", or "Jesus is the only Way!!!"....  While in school, though, I only knew of one evangelical.  Kids just did not preach to you, or spew quotes from the bible.

Now it is different.  On Facebook, there are daily missives from multiple ex-classmates.  Some are biblical quotes, while others are other assorted praises of their personal gods.  I read some, I skip others.  One person, though, I just had to "hide".  Hers were soooo bad, so (if I may say) godawful, that I could not take them anymore.

I joined Facebook right around the time that her husband was dying of a horrible, debilitating disease.  I don't know how long it took him to die - my guess is it was over 3-12 months, none of them comfortable.  And what was her reaction to her life-partner and children's father's death?  "Praise god, for he is good and my love is now at his side...", ".... Jesus is great and kind..", "I pray hourly to my loving god...".  Her love, her husband, her kids' father has just been ripped from her by her god, and she praises him?!?  She praises the omniscient and all-powerful being who could have healed her soulmate for the inaction her god has taken in saving her man?  Daily, she still praises that beast, that mythical being who was so heartless that he would send his own son to earth, just to have that son brutally tortured and murdered, all in a public relations move.  That is just insane.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Forget Dirty Dancing... That's Dirty Pool.

Yet another example of somebody who reads a book, maybe hears somebody discuss that book, and decides that HIS interpretation of the words in that book trump everything else in a civilized society.

Courtesy of Dvorak Uncensored, we hear of a religious fanatic who decided that people should not touch while dancing.  Now, if this guy decided that it was a sin to do that, and he chose to not touch his dancing partner, that would be cool.  A personal decision made by an individual - happens all the time.  BUT NOOOOOOO (sorry, Mr. Belushi), he decides that not only would it be a sin for him, but for EVERYBODY.

So, he grabs a stun gun, picks up a freaking sledge hammer (what it the world do you think he needed a sledge hammer for?), makes an appointment with a dance instructor, and zaps the crap out of the instructor.  According to the Wisconsin State Journal, the whack-job went to the instructor's home and zapped him to "scare the instructor 'and tell him to leave the women alone.'"  Nothing about the instructor dancing (or touching!) his wife, nor any of his fellow congregation members.  The instructor just did something the radical religious fanatic did not approve of ("his church does not condone touching while dancing,"), so he took the law into his own hands.

Sick MoFo

And those that claim they are righteous say that OTHERS are evil???

Pastor prayed for Murtha's death.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

A Good Landscaper

A while ago I wrote of bible literalists and how I have a better grasp of where they are coming from, courtesy of a discussion with a literalist (he proclaimed "God was able to create the cosmos, the Earth, and man... Don't you think He could find a good publisher?").

Today, while reading Unreasonable Faith, a reference to fossil records (and how they conflict with creationism) was made.  Rather than think about how fossil records might debunk the idea of the earth being 6,000-8,500 years old, some declare a bogeyman is the source of the conflict: "some Christians do this with the fossil record (”Satan put the fossils there to confuse us!”)"

It occurred to me as I read that sentence - if "a good publisher" is all that is needed to create a literal bible, shouldn't that same all-powerful god be able to find a good landscaper to take care of those pesky fossils?

Monday, February 8, 2010

Divine Intervention ?!?

So, at the recent Teabagger convention, priestess Sarah Palin stated "It would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention in this country again..."  Sorry, ma'am... the "Hairspray" star died in 1988, so won't be able to come to your aid.

But seriously - haven't we had enough "divine intervention" over the past 10 years already?  We had fanatics working towards their interpretation of their god's wishes fly four jets into three buildings and the ground in 2001.  We had a number of doctors murdered because some fools interpreted their divine inspiration as meaning "get a high-powered rifle with a good scope and fire at will (even if it means taking out a husband in front of his wife in their kitchen)".  We've had a decider in chief follow his insipid divine inspiration to intervene in the Middle East, starting a war in Iraq.

How many bombings and acts of retribution can be attributable to divine intervention in Israel and Lebanon?  Is Salman Rushdie still under a fatwa courtesy of fanatics intervening into literary affairs, inspired by their flavor of a divinity?  And those same Teabaggers - how many of them feel President Obama is their version of satan, and will any be evil enough to intervene via violence based on their delusional beliefs of divinity's words?

Ex-governor Palin - we do not need any more "divine intervention", and your call-out to your fanatical base was, if I may say, an astoundingly retarded act.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Kidnapping By Any Other Name is Still Kidnapping

So the christianists in Haiti who had the 33 kids in their possession are being charged with kidnapping.  From everything I have read, these folks felt they had the children's best interest at thought.  I feel, though, that they were severely twisted in their "thoughts".

First, check out for some background on the church and folks involved.  (h/t for that link and other references)

Then, consider this hypothetical scenario:  You are raising your kid the best you can.  Sure, you might not have all the niceties in the world, like a 72" TV, a luxury SUV to drive them to soccer practice, or a nanny, but you are doing the best you can.  The problem is - you are raising them as christians.  Why is that a problem?  Because I believe, deep in my heart, that raising children as christians is deeply harmful to them.  Because I believe that you are harming your kids, I am justified in taking them from you - because I believe it is the only way for them to be saved!

What is the difference between christians kidnapping kids to raise them in christian orphanages, and my taking your kids?  Yeah, the kids in Haiti had gone through a hellish situation, but these fanatics ripping them from their parents (some were not orphans) to raise them as the kidnappers saw fit is no different than my coming to your house (the house with the cross hanging on the wall) and stripping them from you.

Please remember - mine is a hypothetical situation.  I do not feel it is right to interfere with the religious upbringing of a child (baring true abuse such as prevention of needed medical attention or sexual or other physical abuse).  These fanatics have no such restraint.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Oppression, Suppression, Whatever.... Either Way it is Wrong

Again we have a "man of god" - the leader, in fact, of a billion believers - abusing his god's influence to oppress those who are not like him...

'A celibate man in a dress and a beanie pontificates about how a law granting equal employment rights to homosexuals in the UK is "against the natural law."'  (

This man, as a leader of a billion people, could do a lot of good in helping make people's lives better.  Instead, he tells his subjects "those others are not like you, so they deserve to be treated as less than human!"

But then, what else would you expect from the leader of the group that defended the catholic church during the sex abuse scandal, covering up for the church for 20 years.

He's a helluva guy.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

The Tim Tebow Disappointment

No, I am not jumping on the bandwagon to decry "he'll never be an NFL QB!"  I think he will find a productive place in the NFL.

I am not disappointed in Mr. Tebow for his declared faith, nor his putting biblical verses on his face during games.  There's nothing to be disappointed in with those actions - they are simply a man who has beliefs expressing them.


The disappointment stems from his most recent associations, and the lack of compassion those associations show.  Tim Tebow has been held up as a shining light as "One of the Really Good Guys", the kind of person you would be happy to know or even meet.  Always helping others, always trying harder to improve himself and the lives of those around him... But then he goes and associates with a known hate group, Focus on the Family.  FotF claims to be a Christian organization, but in reality they are bigoted bible thumpers who believe they and their kind are the only people entitled to full rights, want the United States to accept the Bible as part of the government - abolishing the separation of church and state.  According to FotF - if you are gay, you are sick and perverted; if you do not believe in their particular flavor of Christianity, you are a heathen/sub-human;  if you question their actions, you are "anti-christian" (as opposed to being pro-Constitution).  FotF falls squarely into the realm of scary, scary fundamentalists. 

So Tim Tebow has decided to thrown his hat into the ring with christian bigots.  The same folks who spun off the Family Research Council, who just stated that gays should be jailed just for being what they are.  And he is willing to be a part of wasting $3 MILLION that could be used otherwise.  ({sigh} again)

Damn shame - I always thought he was such a nice young man.

What Did I Say About "Repression of Others"?

In the first post on NoYourGod (In The Beginning) I stated a pretty simple idea - people should be free to believe and practice whatever they wish to... as long is it does not promote repression of others.  A pretty simple idea, really.  I mean, if you want to believe a magical man with a beard snapped his fingers over 7 days to create all we see, then fine!  If your neighbor wants to believe that the world was created by a Jolly Green Giant sneeze (which would explain all the green in the world...), fine for him/her, too!  As long as you do not wish to repress those who do not share your beliefs, nor those who are not like you, by all means enjoy your beliefs and your life.

However.... HOWEVER...  if you have the gall to cross that line and declare that those who are not like you should be PUNISHED, your beliefs have morphed from religious to hate group.

Case in point:  Peter Sprigg, representing the Family Research Council (FRC on Wikipedia), stated very clearly that "we should outlaw gay behavior".  If outlawing consensual acts between two adults, acts that Mr. Sprigg could perform with his wife, is not oppression, I don't know what it.

See Andrew Sullivan's blog (Daily Dish) and FireDogLake (FDL) for more details, and the troubling video of that bigot.

The amazing thing about this?  If a governmental entity placing a Christian nativity scene on public property while disallowing any other display, and anyone DARES question that display on Constitutional grounds, Christians are lightning fast to declare "OPPRESSION!!!".  But jailing a man who grabs another's genitalia, or a woman kisses another woman's genitalia, that is justice to those hypocrites.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Blogs of Interest

I read a fair number of blogs courtesy of Google's Reader.  Some have to do with general news, other fall more into the political realm, quite a few comics, and a number of blogs related to religion.  Some of those religious blogs are also concerned with basic science issues, while others discuss the social ramifications of religious and non-religious beliefs.

The religious and atheist blogs/sites I find most interesting are:
Friendly Atheist ( - Takes a "can't we all get along" view of religious beliefs, but is very very critical of those of any sect (and the sectless) who try to impose their will on others.  In addition, Friendly Atheist answers the tough questions from readers about how to handle "coming out" in a religious family.

STFU, Believers ( - As subtle as a Mack truck, just as the name implies, and very straightforward in his criticism.  Can be very fun and funny to read.

Pharyngula ( - Dr. PZ Myers' brilliant science and anti-religion blog.  STFU, Believers may make statements that offend, but PZ takes action.  Did I mention his brilliance, yet?

BadAstronomy ( - Another brilliant person, Dr. Phil Plait, who has worked for NASA, written some very interesting books (check out "Death from the Skies"), and has been blogging for many years.  His blog has less to do with religion than science, and was started to offset poor/bad examples and uses of science in TV, movies, and the news.  Dr. Plait touches on religious issues mainly when they center around extreme stupidity, such as faith healing, and parents letting their young children die because they thought their god would magically save the child.

Richard Dawkins ( - Dr. Richard Dawkins may be the most notable atheist around. Besides his impressive scientific work, he has taken on religious fanatics harder than anybody I've ever heard of.  My one regret concerning Dr. Dawkins?  I've not yet finished reading "The God Delusion" (time to put down the latest Dune book, and finish TGD).

Unreasonable Faith ( - This is another blog that tends to not be outrageously confrontational, but will become confrontational if the situation requires it (I did enjoy his shots at Pat Robertson's take on Haiti).  Great posts, and great posts with links to other sites.

Paliban Daily ( - This site takes on the folks Andrew Sullivan refers to as "christianists" - or those that would use Christianity as a weapon just as the islamists use Islam.  A good place to keep up on lurking dangers.

Jesus and Mo ( - A comic that is guaranteed to offend Christians, Muslims, and occasionally Jews (Moses joins J&M occasionally).  J&M discuss situations from their own little cocoon, with only their wise bartender to try to keep them centered in reality.

Atheist Eve ( - A monthly comic that pokes fun at foolish religious thought.

Reading any of the above will get you a "oooohhh, yer goin' ter hell for that one!"

"Jews: Just as Wacky as Christians"

That alternate headline is a winner....

Apparently, a bunch of rabbis believe their god will rain down destruction on us if the U.S. military gets rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) and allows gays and lesbians to join (without fear of reprisal).  Funny - Israel DOES allow gays and lesbians into their military (, and yet Israel is still "The Chosen Land".

If your good book says "thou shalt not be gay", and you choose to follow that book, then by all means take the opportunity for yourself to not do those things that your book says to not do.  But if your good book says "thou shalt not be gay, and don't let anybody else be, either", then it is hardly a good book at all.

Oh, Those Whacky, Whacky Village Elders!

As if rape is not damaging enough to the victim...

How DARE that woman have a vagina!  She MUST have deserved to be raped, be punished by receiving 101 lashes, and her family threatened with being outcasts.