Header4.png
Site MenuBastardAtheismLunacyCowardiceShameWeaknessHypocrisyFearApologeticsLogicFallaciesStokingMockingDisciplesFAQFavoritesTalkLove & HateNews

Scoffing at all that's holy since 2004

ATHEISM

From Crackle: Penn Says- Agnostic vs. Atheist

The embedded video above will start to play automatically and continuously as soon as
you hover your mouse pointer anywhere over the player window.  You'll have to click the
pause button (or turn your volume down) when you're ready to read the rest of this page.

Atheism Defined

The following definition of atheism is drawn from a 1959 lawsuit initiated by a family who challenged prayer recitation in a public school.  Murray v. Curlett was a landmark in American jurisprudence on behalf of our First Amendment rights.

"Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows.  An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god.  An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now, here on earth, for all men together to enjoy.  An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.  An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to reach a life of fulfillment."

Atheism may also be defined as the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

You Say Potato, I Say Agnostic

While we could debate what each of the terms below truly mean, what matters most is how I use them within the context of this website:

A theist is someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods.  (Remember, there are many polytheistic religions.)

Example: "I believe in the Judeo-Christian god."

An atheist is someone who believes that no gods exist.  Simply stated, an atheist rejects all gods (i.e. any notion of god).

Example: "There is no god."  - or - "I do not believe in god."

A non-theist is someone who does not reject the existence of a god or gods, but has no specific belief in any god or gods.

Example: "I don't follow a specific religion, but rather a philosophy of how to live life."

An agnostic is someone who questions the existence of a god or god.  Simply stated, an agnostic neither accepts nor rejects any god.

Example: "I don't know if god exists."

Right or wrong, that's my simplified take on it.

Christians: In Dire Need of a Dictionary

gb-03 myth understood.jpg

In keeping with the self-perpetuating delusional nature of theism, theists (especially Christians) just love to say that atheism is a religion.  This is patently false.  But for those who can't grasp simple concepts I'll break it down for you.  Pay close attention and take notes if you must.  Religion, by definition, requires some element of the supernatural and a belief in a higher power -- not the lack thereof.  And since atheism rejects all notions of "god" (personal or other), atheism cannot possibly be a religion.

gb-03 god is just pretend.jpg

Atheism is no more a religion than veganism, for example.  Vegans reject all consumption of any animal product based on health concerns and principles of morality (i.e. cruelty toward animals).  Is that a religion?  Certainly not -- lest you be pathetically disingenuous.  In this sense, both atheism and veganism are practical belief systems and lifestyles based on logic and principle -- and not the supernatural in any way, shape, or form.

If atheism is a religion then EVERYTHING is a religion, and that's just silly.

"All thinking men are atheists."  Ernest Hemingway, from A Farewell to Arms

What Atheists Believe

Christians LOVE to say that atheists don't believe in anything.  This a very common defensive position that theists often take when their beliefs are threatened by skepticism.  Sorry, my deluded god-loving friends, but atheists believe in many things.  I generally try not to speak for others (a sin reserved almost exclusively for Christians), so from here on I'll speak for just myself.

gb-03 atheists riot.jpg

I believe in many things.  In fact, I believe in most of the things in which theists believe -- except in the existence of god.  I believe in the love of one's friends and family.  I believe in the inherent goodness and morality of people.  I believe that anyone who must believe in a god to maintain their moral compass is not an inherently good or moral person.  I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I believe that nature is a beautiful thing and should be respected and protected except at the expense of human life.  I believe that animals should be treated with kindness except where it conflicts with my side order of fries.  I believe in self-determination.  I believe that a woman has the undeniable, absolute, and irrevocable right to make decisions about her body.  I believe that premeditated murder, rape and molestation are unforgivable immoral acts.  I believe in occasional exceptions to rules.  I believe that I'm imperfect.  I believe that you're more imperfect than me.  I believe in giving you a few seconds to figure that last one out.  Most importantly, I believe in a good cheap bottle of wine and classic 1970's porn videos.

I also believe that no god or gods exist.  None.  Not now, not ever.  That too was a statement of belief -- just in case you hadn't noticed.

"He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."  -- Thomas Jefferson

What Christians Believe

Well, I think that most Christians (as it pertains to religion) "believe" nothing; as I see it, most claim to "know."  One way or another, this is a wholly unimportant question to me.  I'm far more interested in how and why they believe.  The following five sections will address this issue.

What is a Fact?

According to Merriam-Webster a fact is a truth.  It is based on actuality and hinges on evidence.  As such, it is something you know and therefore requires absolutely no faith.

Fact: The New York Mets won the World Series in 1986.

I don't need an ounce of faith to know this concretely proven absolute truth.  And even if I was unsure of myself, it would still be a fact and therefore a truth.  Let's put it to a test.  Let's suppose I said, "I think the Mets won the World Series in 1986."  Would it still not be a fact?  Of course it would.

People often say that they got their facts wrong, but that statement is fundamentally false.  By definition, if you're wrong  it wasn't a fact in the first place.  Think about it.  Facts are truths and truths are never wrong. Therefore, facts can never be wrong.

What is Faith?

Faith, by definition, is the belief in that which cannot be proven.  Do you have faith that you're actually reading this article right now, or do you know that you are?

Fact: You are reading this article right now, and you know it.

Faith has absolutely nothing to do with it.  That is to say, no faith is necessary when you deal with facts.

Christian Declarations

gb-03 waiting for jesus.jpg

Anyone want to argue that Christians don't declare their unwavering faith?  Anyone?  Of course not.  I mean, come on.  Theists and atheists alike will agree on this obvious reality.  Hell, Christians are proud of their faith -- and I suppose they should be.  Good for them!  Okay, enough about Christians and their general declaration of faith.  We're all on the same page.  Now let's talk about their specific beliefs.

While there are many things that Christians declare absolutely [understatement of the millennium], the common thread is found in the fact that they state their beliefs as ABSOLUTE FACTS.  This much is true and wholly provable.  Let's focus on just a couple of their irrefutable declarations.

A true Christian, for example, doesn't just believe that their god is the one true god; they state their god's existence as an absolute fact (represented as faith).  Tell me, when's the last time you heard a Christian say, "I believe that Christ is risen."  Hmm?  They state it as an absolute fact: "Christ is risen."  In the exact same manner you don't hear, "I believe that Christ died to save us from sin."

There's absolutely no speculation or conjecture in these very bold [read: arrogant] statements.  By stating a fact they are declaring knowledge.  That is to say, they are saying that they know these things to be true.

The Big Question

Given all this, how is it that Christians seem to know so much while they keep clamoring about their faith?  By definition, knowledge and intellect are in total conflict with faith.  If you know something to be true, if your intellect assures you that you are absolutely, positively, and undeniably correct, then not only is no faith necessary, but faith (by definition) is logically incoherent.

For example, imagine hearing someone say, "I have faith that the Mets won the World Series in 1986 -- and I believe it with all my heart."  You'd probably think, "The Mets did win the World Series in 86.  What the hell does faith have to do with it?"  (Again, do you have faith that you're actually reading this article right now, or do you know that you are?)

The same logic applies to the topic of religion as it does to sports trivia and atheist website articles, unless you embrace logical incoherence and abandon all common sense.

So, as previously demonstrated, Christians state their beliefs as facts.  This much is true.  But if faith is the belief in that which cannot be proven, then something is very, very wrong.  It's a total contradiction.  So, again, how is it that Christians can know so much while they keep claiming to have such great faith?

The Big Answer

It's quite simple, really.  Believing isn't good enough.  In order to believe in something you must concede that you could be wrong.  For example, I might say, "I believe the Red Sox won the World Series in 1997 -- but I could be wrong."

Well, guess what?  The truth is, I am wrong.

When it comes to believing in any god, too much is at stake -- especially ones intellectual integrity.  If I'm wrong about the Red Sox winning the World Series in 1997, big deal.  My sports trivia skills are pathetic and I've lost a few bar bets.  Oh, the shame!

But if I spent my entire life...

  • Praising a god that didn't exist
  • Fearing a god that didn't exist
  • Praying to a god that didn't exist
  • Preaching about a god that didn't exist
  • Making huge personal sacrifices (e.g. financial, sexual) to honor a god that didn't exist
  • Following inane rules against perfectly benign activities (like eating shellfish or working on a particular day of the week) as commanded by a god that didn't exist
  • Building and endorsing global houses of worship for a god that didn't exist
  • Giving money (10% or more of your income) to an organization that promoted a god that didn't exist

...then I'd be rightfully labeled as an easily deluded, gullible, a fool -- just as they label everyone who doesn't see the obvious truth of their god.  (Psalm 14:1)

We're all judged by society in no small part by our perceived and demonstrated intelligence as well as our ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.  And if Christians are wrong then they're delusional.  Simple as that.

gb-03 bare witness.jpg

Problem is, Christians can't allow even the mere possibility of that kind of theistic egg on their face.  They can't afford to have society view them in that light.  This is why they incessantly proselytize despite what lame and disingenuous rationalizations and excuses they'll argue to the contrary.

Christians claim they're on a mission to save souls.  BULLSHIT!  Every public utterance of their faith is the product of a subconscious-driven act of intellect-saving mind masturbation.  They're frantically trying to reinforce their own delusion.  This is how it works: Repeat the mantra long enough and it will eventually become your truth and reality.  And since there's intellectual safety in numbers they act together.  Conquer and divide...hence the worldwide missions.

We may now define faith as that subconscious quality that enables so many to believe what they fear to be untrue.

"We may define faith as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence.  Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith.  We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round.  We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.  The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions." - Bertrand Russell

The Pot Calling the Kettle Arrogant

When I've stated my positive atheism (i.e., the belief that absolutely no god exists) in the past, I've been asked by Christians, "How can you know such a thing?"  And they'll also call such a belief philosophically arrogant.  Isn't that just laughable?  They ask me how I could "know" such a thing, yet they (passively) declare themselves immune from the same question!  By and large, Christians will deny such immunity by (allegedly) embracing skepticism, but they prove my assertion each and every time they state their beliefs as facts without a shred of concrete proof.  I find it so amusing that they get so defensive when I state my beliefs as facts.  Gee, I wonder why?

It is the height of arrogance to state as absolute fact that which cannot be proven concretely.  Now I, personally, am completely and entirely comfortable being labeled as arrogant in this respect, but I'm not letting Christians off the hook for the same offense.

Of course I don't have total knowledge of the universe, but neither do Christians.  Of course I can't possibly prove concretely that no god exists, but Christians can't prove concretely that their god exists either.  Belief itself certainly isn't proof.  Faith isn't proof.  The word of the bible isn't proof.  The sometimes apparent design and order of the universe isn't proof.  (At the very best it's an entertaining argument, but it certainly isn't proof.)  There's also just as much apparent poor design and disorder to negate anything on the flip side.

My car has a beautiful and complex design, and I enjoy all that it is because of its designer and creator, BMW.  This I can prove concretely, literally, and absolutely.  In fact, through its Vehicle Identification Number I can actually trace it back to the specific production lines and crew members who assembled and appointed it.  The human eye also has an amazing design and structure but there's not a shred of concrete proof (or even compelling evidence) pointing to who or what caused it.  Who knows?  Maybe, just like my car, many things (natural processes and/or entities) were involved in design and manufacture of the human eye.  Perhaps the Hindu creator god Brahma created our eye.

Theories?  Yes, there are many.  Concrete proof?  Not a shred.

You don't have to like it, but physically and philosophically, anything less than concrete proof is nothing more than pure conjecture, and it leaves the matter at hand to nothing more than true and pure faith.  Again, I'll concede that the same logic applies to me as well -- BMWs notwithstanding, obviously.  So where does that leave us?  I think both sides are equal in this respect, so, fairly, they cancel each other out.

But here's the thing: I'm absolutely fine not having that concrete proof.  My Christian counterparts, however, aren't quite as cozy being in that position.  This is why the field of Christian Apologetics exists.

As previously demonstrated, Christians state their beliefs (such as the risen Jesus) as absolute facts.  If they can be so philosophically arrogant, then why can't I?  Seems only fair.  But that's the thing.  Christians aren't philosophically fair.  Belief is a one-way street to them, and theirs is the only right way.  And they think they have the right of way [vehicular pun intended].

Christians as a whole seem oblivious to fact that the burden of proof (of anything in life) is ALWAYS on the shoulders of the person making the assertion -- not the person refuting the claim.  And until that thing is absolutely and concretely proven, it is assumed to be untrue.  If I alleged that Neptune was made entirely out of polyester, then my claim would be considered absolutely false until I proved absolutely (and concretely) it to be true.  And until the time comes that I can provide that proof, my assertion must (and will) remain pure conjecture and therefore a matter of faith.

gb-03 no god logo.jpg

I have complete and total faith that no god or gods exist, and that faith and conviction will never wane.  If you ask me how I could know such a thing my answer would be substantially the same as what any Christian would provide.  (Ask a Christian if any of the Hindu gods exist and you'll hear them reject each and every one of them, as do I.)  You see, we're not that different.  I'm no less comfortable than any Christian taking a leap of faith, but the big difference is that I'm happy to concede that I could be wrong.

Try getting a born-again Christian to concede that they could be wrong, that they could be deluding themselves because their god might not really exist.  It's likely you'll never hear it.  Why?  Because rejecting the existence of an allegedly ubiquitous yet elusive god (as I do) and ultimately being wrong doesn't compromise ones intellect.

Spending one's life praising a god that ultimately doesn't exist isn't intellectually safe.  From a purely intellectual standpoint, if as an atheist I'm wrong, then I'm just a guy who didn't buy the story because there wasn't a shred of concrete proof.  On the other hand, if a theist is wrong, then he's a gullible sucker who bought into a silly man-made fantasy -- hook, line, and sinker.  And no one wants that rap.  No one.

As atheists remain the smallest segment of the population (theistically speaking), one thing is certainly clear:  In a world filled with militantly devout bible-thumping theists with strong voting and political power, in today's world it takes INFINITELY more faith and conviction to be an atheist than to subscribe to any flavor of religion.  Don't agree?  Try being a one-man tug-of-war team at your company's next summer outing.  To say that atheists are wildly outnumbered would be the epitome of understatements.

It's easy to be a sheep.  BAAH!

"I contend that we are both atheists.  I just believe in one fewer god than you do.  When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."   Stephen Roberts

Why I'm an Atheist

Given my previous concession (that I, just like my Christian counterparts, have no concrete proof one way or another), you might argue that I'm agnostic in my beliefs -- not atheistic.  Again, if a Christian can be so arrogant in their beliefs by stating them as absolute facts, then so can I.  Besides, agnosticism is too wishy-washy for me and smacks of bet-hedging, so I label myself an atheist on principle.

I am an atheist for many reasons.  While I will address each of them throughout this website, the core reasons are stated here.

Most fundamentally, I reject the existence of any god because the notion of a supreme being who's intimately involved and interested in our lives (and the eternal afterlife in bliss or anguish that logically follows) is a patently silly and man-made fantasy.  Simply stated, I refuse to suspend all common sense in favor of an obvious fairy tale created by primitive people to control the behavior of man and quell his innate fear of death.

Secondly, I reject all gods because I understand why people believe in them in the first place.  I understand why people eat and sleep, and so do you.  Their physical needs must be satisfied in order to survive, and it also gives them pleasure.  I understand why people listen to music, watch movies, read books, play sports, and engage in other non-survival pursuits, and so do you.  They seek fulfillment, and also it gives them pleasure.  And I also understand why people believe in god.  It's a no-brainer, really.  Theists just haven't figured it out yet.  Or perhaps they just don't want to.

Why People Believe in God

Primitive people invented god(s) to:

  • Provide a crutch for their own inherent human weakness and fear of death
  • Explain the nature of the world around them when they couldn't find logical explanations of their own
  • Control man and maintain order in society

Basically, people get together and form a society because they're tired of mayhem, rape, and looting.  Societies promote "the greater good" and "the general welfare."  The rules that members of a society follow to ensure the general welfare are what we call laws.  Our social contract stipulates that we agree to abide by the laws of our society or else we'll be excluded (e.g., jailed, exiled, etc.) and lose all of our membership privileges.

There are two levels of moral or ethical behavior: rule-based and principle-based.  Individuals of immature ethical development (e.g. children, gullible adults, career criminals, etc.) need rules to know what appropriate behavior is in a civilized society.  People with a more highly developed sense of ethical behavior don't need rules; principles like "do unto others" are sufficient.

Critics of religion like Gore Vidal have characterized the Judeo/Christian god as an "angry sky god", typically one that will judge or condemn you.  I don't know what psycho/sexual/logical need that meets but, as Karl "Opiate of the Masses" Marx observed, religion has been pretty good at keeping the lower classes in their place.  The extreme right wing still believes in the judge ("god is just"), but in general I think that the Christian god has evolved more into a Santa Claus who's going to check if you've been naughty or nice and reward you accordingly.

Perhaps I'm a bit biased because I was raised in Judaism, but it seems to me that the Jews as a whole are much more fatalistic (and far less child-like) in their view of god.  Apparently, they've come to the realization that being the "Chosen People" means that you get chosen for a beating more often than the other children.  But I think the religious aspect is still important as the glue that binds the nomadic tribal society together.

Militant Indecisiveness: Fundamentalist Agnosticism

Technically, nothing can truly be known.  Is there a god?  No one really knows for sure.  Most people think they do, but I believe that's just wishful thinking and the confirmation bias in play.  Practically speaking, everyone on the planet is an agnostic -– including myself.  However, I call myself a strong atheist (i.e. there is no god, god does not exist) on principle.  (Click here if you haven't already read why.)

I have no problem embracing the agnostic position from a practical standpoint.  But what pisses me off no less than Christians spewing their rhetoric are these fundamentalist agnostics who get all bent out of shape because people like me take a hard-line approach to skepticism and the condemnation of organized religion and the lunacy of religious beliefs.  Personally, for most of them, I think they're just pissed off because they don't have the balls to take an absolute position of belief one way or another.  No balls to accept, no balls to reject, no balls to even critique or utter one word of criticism for fear of backlash.  These are the "live and let live" agnostics.  But somehow that maxim doesn't apply to their opinion of strong atheists.  Hmm.  I think someone's a latent be-LEE-verrr and just too afraid of being wrong.  Ya never know, god just might be listening.

I direct the following to the aforementioned fundamentalists agnostics:

An atheist is no less certain that there is no god than you are certain, for example, that your parents love you.  Love is an intangible and cannot be proved, only demonstrated.  Disagree?  People say "I love you" all the time and don't mean it.  And false demonstration proliferates.

Agnostics question the existence of gods, so let's talk about questioning, shall we?  Let's say you asked your spouse, "Do you love me?" and they responded, "I don't know."  Tell me, honestly, would you take that as a yes or a no?  If an immediate yes doesn't come rolling off their tongue then the answer is no.  End of farking story.  Your husband doesn't know if he loves you?  He's sitting on the fence about it?  Sorry, I think not.  And it works the same way with the eternal question at hand.

Sorry to break the news to you, but agnostics are self-deceiving.  Just like the aforementioned intangible and unprovable love, any doubt is all doubt.  God is supposed to be eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent -- and you question his existence?  Exactly who are you kidding?  If you question it, then you reject it.

When it comes to trivial matters I'll happily concede the possibility of general uncertainty.  But when it comes to the almighty creator whose existence is supposedly so evident that even a child could see it...

ANY DOUBT IS ALL DOUBT.

Period.

Neither Here Nor There Claims Conviction

One agnostic wrote to me awhile back blasting me for being close-minded (as he claims all atheists are) and then proceeded to tell me that agnostics have more conviction, faith, and courage than atheists.

Um, what color is the sky in your world, Spanky?

When it comes to religious beliefs or lack thereof, by definition, atheists have gaggles more conviction, faith, and courage than agnostics.

Atheists reject the notion of god absolutely and agnostics don't know.  Hello?  One is absolute, the other is indecisive.  Is that not clear to you?

I'll be the first to concede that this isn't a pissing contest, but the argument that agnostic doubt carries more of the aforementioned than an atheist's absolute rejection is profoundly flawed and illogical.  Essentially what he's saying is [my words], "Yes, Andy, I am militantly unsure if there is or isn't a god.  I don't know.  [shrug]  To me it's neither here nor there.  But the faith I have in my own uncertainty and doubt is as strong as anything in which you believe absolutely."  Please.  That's just plain silly.

Uncertainty is the state of not knowing for sure and doubt is tantamount to non-commitment.  Bottom line, agnostics are neither here nor there.  That's not conviction, and it's sure as shit not faith.

And as for courage, its inclusion is so profoundly moronic that I won't justify it with a response.  

Agnosticism is easy and safe, and that's perfectly fine and well.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with shrugging one's shoulders and saying "I don't know."  You're honest.  Mazel tov!  But you earn no brownie points for taking a stand of neutrality or non-committal indifference.  So please get off your moral high ground horse and quit claiming to have more faith in what you believe than atheists do.  You can't possibly have faith in something that you neither accept nor reject.

I'm done with ya.  Now go outside and play with your brother until I call you for dinner.

Fun Cool Facts

The probable total number of people killed in the name of god or because of some byproduct of religion: MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS

The probable total number of people killed specifically in the name of atheism (i.e. because they refused to reject any/all gods): NONE

Before we continue, for those of you with piss-poor reading comprehension...

First, I never denied that certain secular communist countries had an affinity for committing murderous atrocities.  (Okay, you read a history book.  Mazel tov.)  But one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Now go back and read the second sentence on this page again.  My wording was quite specific.  I wrote, "...because they refused to reject any/all gods."

We all know that throughout human history millions upon millions of lives have been taken in the name of god -- including the refusal to ACCEPT someone else's god.  Atheists REJECT all notions of god.  Got it?  It's a very fair comparison and the crux of the point I was trying to make.

gb-03 non-violent islam.jpg

However, don't try to marry my statement to scattered historical acts of genocide by communist regimes.  Remember, 95% of the the world population believes in a supreme being in one form or another.  Following your logic, virtually all of humankind (if murdered at the hands of any atheistic governing body) would have been killed "because they refused to reject god."  And that is an utterly laughable postulation.  If some guy opened fire upon a crowd at a football game, could you fairly argue that he killed all those people because he was a football fan?  Or because they were football fans?  Of course not.  One has absolutely nothing to do with another.  Maybe he was just some wacko who lived near the stadium and wanted to kill as many people as possible in front of a live viewing audience.  Similarly, if a communist (leader) had no specific belief in any god, it does not logically follow that anything he said or did was motivated by atheism.

FYI, did you know that Stalin "hated" religion so much that in 1951 he awarded "Stalin's Prize" to an English clergyman named Hewlett Johnson?  [Source: WikiAnswers]

H I S T O R I C A L   A C C O U N T

Theist with weapon or torture device asks, "Do you believe in my god?"
   No.
If you don't accept my god I will kill you.  So I ask again, do you believe in my god?
   No.
BLAMMO! [dead theist]

W H A T   N E V E R   H A P P E N E D

Atheist with weapon or torture device asks, "Do you believe in any god?"
   Yes.
If you don't reject all gods then I will kill you.  So I ask again, do you believe any god?
   Yes.
BLAMMO! [dead theist]

Okay, the latter a silly example, but that's my point.  I'm trying to draw a clear distinction between one believer killing another for embracing the wrong god and a non-believer killing a believer for embracing any god.  Never happened.  Ever.

Political and socio-economic factors caused communist atrocities (against people who just happened to be believers), not theological ones.  Remember, NINETY FIVE PERCENT of the world population believes in a supreme being in one form or another.  I mean, who else exactly would you expect to be the victim of such atrocities?  The other five percent?  Find some intellectual honesty, please.

No one ever cut off someone's head or flew a commercial airplane into a New York city tower while yelling "There is no god!"  (FYI, they yell "ALAHU AKHBAR!"  God is great indeed.)  Tell me, when was the last time an atheist strapped a bomb to his chest and blew up a nightclub because the people inside didn't embrace evolution?  Listen to this executioner's decree and delude yourself that atheism has taken more lives.  How about a couple of small-scale insignificant conflicts known as the Crusades and the Holocaust?  Those had nothing to do with religion at all, right?  All that mayhem and murder must have been over a lost bar wager.

Theists, especially Christians, hate this fact and try to dismiss it with silly arguments about oil fields and communist regimes and other such nonsense, but there's no getting around it.  Sure, I'll happily admit that religion has done (and still does) some wonderful things for society (like charity and other humanitarian efforts), but religion as a whole has also taken more lives than any other cause in the history of mankind.

ATTENTION SELF-DECEIVING CHRISTIANS
OR ANYONE ELSE WHO NEVER OPENED A WORLD HISTORY BOOK

The Christian fundamentalist mind functions at a very primitive level.  For example:

HITLER  = BAD    
ATHEIST = BAD    
HITLER  = ATHEIST

This is why so many Fundies believe (or at least want to believe) that Adolph Hitler was an atheist.  Sorry, kids.  He wasn't.  Not even close.  He was in fact a friend of Jesus.

This following is an excerpt from a speech that Hitler gave in Munich on April 12, 1922.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."

Click here for more proof that Hiltler was a Christian.

As they say in law, res ipsa loquitur.  ("The thing speaks for itself.")  You don't have to like it, but it's a fact, Jack.  Yeah, I don't like it much either.

But for all those deluded and misguided armchair historians who love to argue that people have been killed in the name of atheism -- an utterly laughable position, I offer up this comment (an email excerpt) from Cliff Walker of Positive Atheism Magazine:

Had you studied Russian history and culture, you would not be saying something like this. But you have not studied Russian history and culture; instead, you are cloaking your hatred and bigotry as a pretense for knowledge of Russian history and culture. And had you been a student of Russian history and culture, you would be talking about Communism combined with a certain Russian cultural idiosyncrasy. You certainly would not be talking about atheism. This is because atheism is simply the absence of a god-belief, regardless of the reason, regardless of the vehemence (or lack thereof) with which the atheism is held, and regardless even of the atheist's own awareness (or lack thereof) that she or he is an atheist. As such, atheism transcends all ideologies (except theism) and is almost always incidental to each of these ideologies.

Most importantly, there's no explaining any of this to a person who would do all this without first checking the facts -- an armchair historian, sociologist, and philosopher, all wrapped into one, if you will. Communism, when practiced as a religion, combined with Russian culture, was the fatal combination. Atheism was incidental to the whole thing. Had Stalin held his atheism like I hold mine, he would have (1) never been accepted as a leader of the Soviet Union, and (2) never permitted the execution of even a single criminal or rebel.

Ah, but Stalin was much more of a Communist than he was an atheist. And Stalin was much more of a Russian than he was either a Communist or an Atheist. His atheism was incidental to both -- if he was even an atheist at all! Yes, I said if he was an atheist, because we don't know what Stalin's real feelings were. He did not start out as the Premier of Russia but grew up as a boy and advanced his way through the Soviet military. During any phase of his growth, education, military service, and political leadership, for him to admit any religious faith could have been fatal to his goals, fatal to his leadership, and probably even fatal to his body at one point. If he was religious, then he, like virtually all who suffered under that regime, kept his mouth shut tight. Atheism was enforced because it was the most scientific and because it is almost impossible to form an atheistic movement of any kind (particularly a rebellious movement), whereas religions are very conducive to swaying the membership over to specific ideas and loyalties and thus make dangerous enemies of the state.

In other words, the Communists leaders chose atheism: atheism neither created nor encouraged Communism!

Of course, trying to explain any of this to people whose understanding of atheism came from the pulpit, from an apologetics video, from radio talk shows, or from television shows (not necessarily "The 700 Club"), would be like trying to administer medicine to the dead, apologies to Thomas Paine.

For this reason, I will keep my reply short and sweet so that our readers can be inspired to pick up a scholarly article (or three) on Russian history and Russian culture (or perhaps even hold some lengthy dialogues with Russians, as I often do, seeing as how I live in the Russian section of Portland, Oregon).

Perhaps our readers will then be able to see what it took for a man to be held as an effective leader by the Russian public (as if the Soviet ballots ever listed more than one candidate for any given office).

The question in that culture and in those times is this: How many criminals and "rebels" and such would a man need to slaughter before the Russian populace would hail him as their powerful leader, march in a parade, and sing patriotic songs about him, etc.?

But explaining this is a waste of effort, which is why my sending this to you is but a mere formality, done in honor of Positive Atheism's policy and for no other reason. It is not my burden to provide for you an education in history, culture, or atheism.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect, had intended for us to forgo their use."   Galileo Galilei

Copyright © 2004 The Godless Bastard. All Rights Reserved.