Atheist Nomads: Episode 67

Yeah yeah yeah, busy with school, blah blah... Seriously, mid-terms have been hell. I barely passed one of them by the skin of my ass (algebra, of course) but I'm still okay. I've been a very busy lady indeed, aside from school I've been experimenting with a different kind of project, and I also had the pleasure & privilege of appearing on the Atheist Nomads Podcast: 

Here, have a listen ^_^

I've been lying low from my usual YouTube channel lately, there are only a handful of things that I've really been comfortable discussing on that channel: I've been trying to stay the fuck away from Gamer-Gate because not only do I NOT have the entire story, but I don't feel like fending off ignorant fuck-boys for the rest of the semester. I WILL formally discuss it at some point, just NOT NOW.

In the mean-time, here are links to the aforementioned "Story of Z" posts from the podcast:

1. HERE
2. HERE
3. HERE, and
4. HERE

Critique: The UofAR "Teaching Religion"

I had the pleasure of attending a recent discussion event at the University of Arkansas here in Fayetteville. And yes, I say "pleasure" even though the event had it's pitfalls, it still had a measure of intrigue and remained surprisingly calm for an age of seemingly ever-rising tensions between different religious communities. I admit, I went to this event with some half-baked expectations and anticipation of some kind of a debate or a panel, I was hoping that this was going to be a bit more in-depth than the rather vaguely written event flyers had advertised. 

Still unsure about what exactly was supposed to go on at this thing, I made an attempt to acquire a bit more information. About a week before this event was held, I took a moment to approach Dr. Lucas Delezene (Biological Anthropologist and guest speaker, I'm in his Introduction to Anthropology class) to try to get a bit more information from him about this. Despite his enthusiasm for public discussion about science, at the time he didn't have much more information about the even than I did: It would seem that the event organizers wanted someone well qualified to discuss "teaching the controversy" (this will come up later, keep reading) and so they dropped this right into his lap. Even in lieu of having little more than the other participants' names for information, though, he seemed genuinely excited and optimistic about whatever the outcome would have been from this, and with a smile he recommended that I attend: Which I did, and the following is just a rudimentary break-down of everything that happened during the "talk."

Unfortunately, I was unable to catch the name of the first speaker: She did mention that her area of expertise was the history of Christianity during the early Middle Ages. 

During her portion of the talk, she showed the audience a brief power-point presentation about the history of Jesus as a historical figure: To include images taken from several different mosaics of everything from an asexual youth being baptised all the way to your typical bearded white guy images, just to demonstrate the fluidity of not only the image, but the "message." And even to my surprise, she threw in an image of an ancient Viking version of Jesus being crucified... to a tree. Not just any tree, the World Tree of old Norse legend. Kinda made me think and reflect on how people who peddle notions of "Absolute Truth" really have no idea what they are talking about, literally AND figuratively. Modern Christians would have had the historical Jesus arrested for vagrancy if they had seen him today, and that is assuming that a flesh-and-blood Jesus ever existed (which, to my dismay, I don't recall them discussing.) So yes, to a point religion DOES have a place in academia as objective subject matter and not as indoctrination: It's important that we understand that these myths are an important reminder of where we came from as a civilization, but also that there's a clear and present danger in looking fondly on "the good old days" as many modern fundamentalists seem so very eager to do. Apparently, last time they had an event like this one, one entire portion of the room was solidly "occupied" by a local Christian fundamentalist sect.

The second speaker at the event was Dr. Timothy Landry, a cultural anthropologist who had spent a great deal of time in West Africa & the Caribbean studying Voodoo. 

Before I begin this part, I'd like to point something out that annoyed me greatly about the entire event: All but two of the of the speakers seemed to have no concept or consideration for time whatsoever. So about five minutes after the first speaker's ten minutes were long done, Dr. Landry was finally able to proceed with his presentation. Straight of the bat, our eyes were bombarded with stock images of commonly known Voodoo practices such as dolls and animal sacrifice. And I say bombarded because these pictures were flashing and repeating at quite a rapid pace: Doll, blood, candles, bone, the word SATAN, a black woman wearing a headdress, a chicken, something on fire, the word EVIL, etc... you get the idea (It was actually pretty fucking metal.) Why did he do this? To prove a point about stereotypes. He continued about the "truths" in stereotyping people and cultures to be incomplete, an easy point to prove with such a stereotyped practice as Voodoo. Admit it, as soon as you saw the word Voodoo in this post, you chuckled at the thought of dolls and dead chickens. He proceeded to ask the general questions about what we, in the West, typically think about when we talk about anything pertaining to religion. What IS religion to us, really? I typically think of modern myth and folklore surrounding figures like Jesus, Mohammed and Tom Cruise, and laugh my ass off at how improbable and silly their ideas are.

But Dr. Landry didn't discuss "religion" in those familiar terms: As far as practitioners are concerned, Voodoo isn't a religion. If you trace the practice back far enough in history, the word "Voodoo" in of itself simply means "Spirit" guiding you along a path or providing instruction. There are no literal "God" figures in Voodoo, only other spirits and their own unique demands and practices. They don't exclude figures like Jesus or Buddha, they include them as more "spirits" that impart mortals with guidance and wisdom. Yes, they practice animal sacrifice in many of their rites, but I had no idea that the meat was to be shared among the participating community afterward (something that the Bible forbids, by the way {Acts 15:29}) But they don't get their rocks off spilling the blood of animals, not like some of us might tend to think of it, because they consider it an act of honor and love to do so: The guiding spirits, or Loa, get what they want and the community gets a sanctified meal afterward. Now I know what you're probably thinking right about now, "Eew! What a bunch of savages!" I'm sure they probably have some very interesting things to say about eating communion crackers or rolling around on the floor mumbling gibberish, A.K.A., "Speaking in Tongues."

And while religion, ANY religion, is not grounded in fact, it is really easy to caricaturize ideas that we don't understand and then use them to demonize an entire group of people: When I DO criticize Islam, I try to be really damn careful to distinguish between the ideas and beliefs from the people that hold honestly believe them. I enjoyed Dr. Landry's eye-opening talk very much, but as far as I'm concerned my usual policy of criticizing religious belief stands: People have rights, ideas do not. Therefore, no idea is above reproach or mockery, especially when it come to the evils and ignorance of their followers. THIS brings me to the next presenter... 

Dr. Lucas Delezene has been teaching the same Anthropology course (to include the one I'm currently taking) at the University of Arkansas for the last four years. 

Now I did mention earlier that "teaching the controversy" is going to pop up again in this blog post, I'll get to that shortly. Dr. Delezene's work in Anthropology has been very hands-on for most of his career, he's gone out on expeditions and digs in the American Southwest looking for ancient human remains: He's repeatedly noted that Arizona is one of his favorite places to work, especially the Grand Canyon area. His job, in terms of this "talk," is actually pretty simple: In terms of teaching the controversy is concerned, there really isn't one. If there's one lesson that EVERYONE can take out of the Nye vs Ham debate, it's that the matter of physical reality is not something that is this hotly "debated" controversial subject, like religious fundamentalists would have you think. What's real is real, and as scientists like Richard Dawkins have repeatedly pointed out, the scientific process helps us to discover and describe observable phenomena, something religion has failed to do with any measure of accuracy. Dr. Delezene briefly described a concept that I was only loosely familiar with, something called "Non-Overlapping Magisteria." That is, loosely, that science and religion are not necessarily in conflict because they are basically two very different things: Science deals in facts, whereas faith deals in values. Values are subjective and fluid, religious or otherwise: Facts are facts and that's that, pieces of one fantastic puzzle being assembled that we are coming to understand as REALITY.

The process of cognitive dissonance can be difficult, sometimes even painful, for students coming to the University from religious backgrounds and families. Having one's deeply held ideals and beliefs challenged is rarely a pleasant experience, and can be downright frightening for young people who aren't yet used to it. Out of about 2000 or so students that he's taught over the years, he said that only a handful of them were ever hostile toward him in this regard (He also noted that at least one of them later apologized to him over it.) Science and evolution are not magic, science doesn't aim to "prove" or "disprove" anything like theists seem to think, it is the method by which we test, observe and discover things about our world, our origins (hey, like evolution and anthropology!) and our universe. I don't recall if Dr. Delezene himself openly identifies as an atheist or a skeptic, I'd have asked him myself but it didn't seem appropriate at the time to do so. Regardless, he intricately and beautifully summarized religious "conflict" in regard to his own scientific and academic profession much better than I'm doing on my humble little blog.

There were quite a few people that got up and left not long after Dr. Delezene's presentation, I'm not entirely sure as to why this happened. I'm guessing, emphasis on GUESSING, that there were people in the audience who just wanted to see if he would just "blast creationist idiots" during his talk or not, to whatever end. Either way, the room suddenly felt much "larger" than it was when this whole thing began, and then the next presenter took the stage. 

Dr. Sidney Burris is one of, if not THE, senior chairmen of the Honors Program at the University of Arkansas, and he's aparrently spent a great deal of time studying Tibetan Buddhism in Northern India.

He's met the Dalai Lama at least once, and he talked a great deal about him. In fact, that's pretty much all he talked about for well over half of his presentation: The Dalai Lama and some of the stuff that he did. He mentioned Thich Nhat Hahn's writings a few times during the duration of his speech, but that's about the long-and-short of it. And this is right about where I started to get really annoyed with the entirety of this event, when Dr. Burris seemed to deviate so drastically from the commonly followed (and STILL aimless) format of this event: How does religious practice directly affect your ability to teach your respective area of expertise? Because a great deal of his presentation was talking about other people's work, mostly that of the Dalai Lama. Don't get me wrong, I learned a lot about Buddhism as a system of ideas, AND a lot about the Dalai Lama as a person, but I can't shake the notion that I could have just as easily learned all of this from YouTube: To include all of the popular Dalai Lama quotes that I can pull off of my Facebook and Twitter feeds at any given moment.

For real, that's all he did the entire time was talk about the Dalai Lama, and then proceeded to do so even after he had gone over his allotted time: Which, in retrospect, I probably could have forgiven if he had a point to make.

Understand that I intend no disrespect to Dr. Burris himself in my critique here, but damn dude: YOU are on the Honors Committee...?

Last but not least, Professor Jennifer Hoyer, who is an expert on Jewish culture and literature.

I'd like to say first, that I don't understand much about Judaism or Jewish culture: I was never formally brought up as a Jew, even though I am one according to my ancestry. This was part of Professor Hoyer's problem as well, teaching a subject matter so drastically unfamiliar to so many people. It saddens me to say that even I was a bit confused by her presentation, but that's not the least bit her fault: I am just as unfamiliar with Jewish terminology and practice as many of her incoming students are. What a unique predicament that must be, to not only be an expert in a subject matter that so many people don't understand because they've never been exposed to it, but having the task of trying to explain it to a room full of people. Well, there's ME sitting in the audience feeling the steaming breath of my own ignorance breathing down my neck, but I'm okay with admitting that publicly. There's A LOT that I don't know and don't understand, after this it would just seem that Jewish culture and literature are among those things. 

And that's kinda the point, really: It's hard to teach about a culture and it's literary accomplishments without establishing a proper context. Now I don't mean using "context" to justify carrying out atrocities, in this particular case I'm talking about written works like poetry, novels and stories. Public perceptions of Judaism often seem so "narrow," according to Professor Hoyer, that people often forget the thousands of years of discussion and dialogue around it and within it. According to Jewish tradition, each time the scriptures are read, they change in value and meaning according to the person reading it. In the sense that two people can look at the same peice of art and get two very different ideas from it, sure. Naturally, that doesn't make anything that any holy-book actally says the least bit true: But in terms of poetry, literature and art, that's hardly the point. Those things are all about culture and interpretation, they thrive on differing opinions. Maybe that's why I love religiously themed artwork even though I despise their doctrines. No one, to MY knowledge, ever suicide-bombed a crowded public market after visiting the Sistine Chapel.

IF the University ever holds an event like this in the future, despite this particular one not being terribly exciting overall, I'd still go.

Not only am I optimistic that maybe they can all agree on a common format or theme for which to discuss, but that there could perhaps be a little bit more engagement between the speakers themselves as well. True, the event was never advertised as a debate or discussion panel, but perhaps the error was mine in ASSUMING that it would be: I let myself down, in that respect. 

The entire event was polished off by a reception at the Inn at Carnall Hall here on campus: There was tasty cheese, awkward silences and a dude sitting two seats away from me that wouldn't shut up about the Columbine Massacre (and I still have no idea how he got on that topic.) 

I had my cheese, revised my notes from each presentation, and now here I am posting this entry several days too late as usual.

7-Oct-2014 Correction: It's been brought to my attention that one primary reason why many people left the talk after Dr. Delezene's presentation had nothing to do with anticipation or ideology, but due to time constraints and prior commitments: Largely brought on by the fact that the first speaker went WAY OVER her time, which presented some measure of inconvenience for others. At least for some, my "guess" turned out to be inaccurate. My apologies.

Obligatory Atheist Q & A

We are so common on the Internet, our forums, discussion pages, and YouTube channels are seemingly everywhere. I really shouldn't have to do this, but I feel like I do. I find myself being asked some rather nonsensical questions as of late, as well as a few pretentious holier-than-thou types claiming that they know this and that about what I actually think and feel (Fun fact: THEY DON'T KNOW SHIT.) And while most of my conversations with people are actually rather pleasant, the UNpleasant ones seem to be happening somewhat more frequently since I started school. Shit happens, I guess.

So here it is, YET ANOTHER list on the Internet. 

• "Why are you atheists always so angry?" I may use a lot of colorful language in my posts, and yes I have some anger as a human being, but for the most part that doesn't have anything to do with my atheism and anti-theism. If you were trapped on the other side of the globe for a year surrounded by people who, for the most part, didn't give a flying lizard clit if you lived or died, especially when something happened that actually put your own life in danger and almost no one did anything to help, YOU'D be angry too. And while my experiences in Iraq were a big part of what brought me to shedding religious belief, I also have to give credit to Richard Dawkins and George Carlin for ultimately convincing me that it's okay to NOT have an imaginary friend.
• "Why are you so disrespectful against others' beliefs?" Ah, see, here's where people get confused about a fundemental element of life in the civilized world: People have every right to believe as they wish, so long as they aren't opressing or harming anyone else. I could give a shit less what people believe or if they believe anything at all, that doesn't absolve anyone's thoughts, beliefs and especially actions from criticism. HUMAN BEINGS (and some would argue animals as well) have rights, THEIR IDEAS do not. I am a very real flesh-and-blood person, I have rights under the laws of my country of residence and the Geneva Convention. If you punched me in the face for no good reason at all, I have every right to drag you to court and have you prosecuted over it. Let's say that I believed in a floating purple octopus that gave me friendly advice from time to time and that ONLY I can see it. If someone sent me a message on Facebook or Twitter saying that the very idea of my floating purple octopus was stupid, it might hurt my feelings but there's not a damn thing I can do about it. Why? Because criticism is not a crime, and that's what separates the developed world from countries like Saudi-Arabia, Ireland, Brazil and other countries where criticizing religious belief can land you into legal trouble.
• "People have the right to believe what they want, y' know!" That they do, just like I have every right to critique, question, or even mock the ever-living piss out of it IF I WANT TO.
• "You think you're so much better than ________...!" In the case of some recent events that I had a hand in unfolding, it shouldn't exactly be a hard pill to swallow in saying that yes, I AM A BETTER PERSON than a certain misogynistic, self-loathing, racist bigot who thinks of women as little more than breeding/pleasure automatons and openly called for the genocide of all Muslims; THEN had the audacity to not only ignore my VERY CLEAR WARNING to never contact me again (which is grounds for a stalking/harassment lawsuit, I might add...) but sent his cyber-homunculus to call ME the hateful one because I called them both out on their bigoted, self-righteous, holier-than-thou bullshit: Yes, I can honestly say that in that ONE EXTREME CASE, I am a much better person than to stoop to their level of shit-baggery. Any sane and rational person should have no difficulty whatsoever with evaluating such a situation and arriving to a similar conclusion. On the whole, though, my criticisms of religion as well as the behaviors of many religious people aren't because I want to "feel better about myself." I see a problem, I analyze it, and I call it as I see it. I also do my best to NOT resort to Ad Hominem if I can help it.
• "Debate me, EVOLUTIONIST! Or you're a coward!" Speaking of needing to feel better about one's self by way of insulting or degrading others, not every atheist out there is a scientist (even though an overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States openly admit that they don't believe in God.) It shouldn't have to TAKE a scientist to engage common fucking sense. Some people need EVERYTHING explained to them because they can't seem to figure it out on their own, and if asked an honest question I don't normally have any problem with providing an honest answer. Sometimes, that answer is going to be "I don't know." No human being on Earth knows absolutely every goddamn thing, and that's fine. If you want to debate with someone about science and evolution in particular, go find an actual scientist willing to mop the proverbial floor with your half-baked ideas. I'm just a college student.
• "You're angry at God!" No more than I am at the tooth fairy. And it's very "ungodly" to make presumptions against a person's character of whom you know nothing about, one might take such statements as an accusation without any evidence: There's no possible way that you can know what another person is thinking or feeling, so provide some evidence or just don't say dumb shit like this. That kind of behavior is called being a judgemental asshole, something that Jesus had very specific warnings about.
• "You know God exists, you just love your sin!" Again with the presumptuous accusations... Really, I think any statement such as this one isn't actually an argument at all, it's a baiting tactic designed to catch me off guard or provoke me: "I'm going to accuse you of being something you aren't, therefore God." Please, don't waste my time with this bullshit. If you have to accuse people like this to prove your sense of moral superiority, then your morals are shit.
• "You're taking the Bible/Koran/Rede/Dianetics out of context." If you want to claim that such texts are the unerring and perfect word of your chosen deity, you can't ever use this phrase in an argument: You're not going to sit there and tell me about gay sex being an abomination against God while wearing mixed-fabric clothing and stuffing your face with coconut shrimp. Even if you just like the light-hearted lovey-dovey messages of Jesus without all that icky Old Testament stuff, you can't ignore his condonement of slavery (Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2 and Luke 12:47-48.) I'm using the Bible for this example because it's the most common holy book in the United States, and as such the majority of my conversations along these lines are with American Christians. I have just as much disdain toward willfully ignorant proclamations coming out of the Koran, the Rede, the Upinishads or others as I do the Bible: Fun fact, I have read ALL of those.
• "It's ironic that atheists talk so much shit about religion when they don't believe in God..." Yes, in much the same way that doctors talk about things like cancer when they would like nothing more than to see it's eradication. Also, many atheists talk about religion in the same way that police officers talk about things like drugs, murder, y'know, crime in general... WHY? Because just like cancer and crime, religion DOES wreak it's own distinct form of havoc on civilized society, especially when it so strongly influences they way people vote and behave.
• "Stop persecuting me!" If you're an American Christian, you're an idiot for saying this. No one is breaking into your home in the middle of the night, raping your mother and sisters, murdering your entire family right in front of you, burning your house down and putting you into a camp. Y'know, like what fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Jews, Catholics etc have been doing to eachother for centuries and even today. Saying this because you didn't get your way in an election or legal matter is just plain asinine and untrue. You have no grounds comparing a tantrum to an actual atrocity. 
• "You can't draw Mohammed! He's sacred to Muslims!" Sacred to MUSLIMS, not to ME: I am not a Muslim, ergo I am not subject to their religious rules, so... 

• "Why do you feel the need to criticize other peoples' beliefs?" Because when I get people telling me that I'm "lost," call me a "sinner," or going to an imaginary place just because I don't subscribe to their particular brand of socially constructed misery, I AM GOING to call them out on it whether or not they like the idea. How is it perfectly acceptable to threaten someone, mostly children but other adults as well, with hellfire and eternal torture unless they agree to and openly endorse a specific brand of bullshit, yet I'm somehow the asshole because I challenge their bullshit claims? 
• "Oh well THAT'S just the extremists that do that, it's not ALL _______s." There's a term called enabling: Anybody who has friends or relatives with addiction issues is probably familiar with the concept, it basically means that while you WISH someone wouldn't do a thing, when they do the thing anyway you sheild them from the consequences of their actions because you THINK you're "saving" them. Dismissing extreme behavior as irrelevant is a form of enabling and it's irresponsible as fuck. If "only a few" McDonalds employees and restaurants had been systematically abusing children for the last several decades, meanwhile McDonalds as a corporation repeatedly tried to cover it up and shame the victims instead of actually correcting the problem, Micky-D's might be out of business in a matter of months.
• "If you left the church, then you were never a TRUE Christian/Muslim/Jew/etc..." Then by your own bullshit rules, for all anyone really knows, neither are you. Furthermore, there'd be no conceivable way for you to be able to accurately tell the difference anyway, so this is ultimately a bullshit statement.
• "So-and-so who did X Y or Z horrible thing wasn't a TRUE Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu, etc..." I shouldn't have to explain what essentialism is OR the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy at this point. Again, you don't get to dismiss someone's actions or identity because they don't happen to coincide with what you consider to be correct behavior. 
• "So EVERYONE who believes in God is a moron according to you?" Not at all, I have many friends and relatives with whom I disagree about a great many things, to include the existence and/or relevance of God(s) or an afterlife. I rather like having friends that disagree with me on things like this, not only does it keep the conversation enjoyable and challenging, but it's kinda like a reality check for me: Every so often, I'm wrong about stuff. 
• "Hitler was an atheist!" No, actually, he really wasn't. He was a murderer and a horrible person, but most certainly not solely because of his beliefs (though, from his own words, that didn't help things.)
• "Stalin was an atheist!" And he was still a shit-head. It's not your beliefs, or in atheism's case absence thereof, that make you a good or bad person: Your ACTIONS toward others determine what kind of person you are, not your IDEAS. However, it should be noted that ideas and beliefs DO directly influence one's behavior, hence why many atheists and anti-theists have such a big beef with religion in all of it's forms. 
• "If you don't believe in God, then where does your morality come from?" It's very rare that I actually get asked this anymore, but it's worth noting because the few times I DO get this question the conversation seems to deteriorate very quickly afterward: If you need an imaginary friend to tell you that not only are rape/murder/theft WRONG, but give you half-baked reasons as to exactly WHY they are wrong, then I have to call YOUR moral reasoning into question because it demonstrates a lack of critical reasoning. If you were told by your parents growing up that it's okay to break into other people's houses, you do so, then the home-owner shoots you in the face (and MAYBE you die as a result) you were still in the wrong because your reliance on authority figures to guide your actions clearly failed: Just because someone appears to have a position of power DOESN'T mean they're right about everything. Just ask the last asshole that tried to break into my house! But to answer the initial question, mutual respect shouldn't exactly be a difficult concept to grasp. My parents brought me up never to do upon someone else what I wouldn't want done upon myself, as in "don't hit people unless they hit you first" to give an example. True, I'm not always "nice" to people 100% of the time 24/7, but that doesn't mean that I seek to actively do them harm.
• "If you don't believe in God, then what will happen to you when you die?" Cremation.
• "Aren't you scared of being sent to Hell?" Aren't YOU scared of being sent to Mordor? THAT is what you sound like when you ask that dumb shit.
• "Don't you want to go to Heaven?" Don't you want to go to Las Vegas? I can go to Las Vegas, I've been there before. Las Vegas is a real place, it's existence can be demonstrably and conclusively proven, whereas Heaven or Hell cannot.
• "But the Bible/Koran?Misc. holy text says that God(s) exist(s)!" I have in my immediate possession an autographed photo of Neil Armstrong, I had the honor & privilege of meeting the man and shaking his hand in 2010. Neil Armstrong has since passed away, the photograph coupled with his signature verify that HE, the real flesh-and-blood human being, actually existed at one point in time. This physical evidence can be examined, tested and peer-reviewed. A holy book written centuries ago, however, can no more verify the existence of the people that claimed to have written it nor confirm the existence/accuracy of it's subject matter. A holy text is no more proof of the existence of a deity or afterlife than a Batman comic would be proof that Batman/Bruce Wayne is a real flesh-and-blood human being like Neil Armstrong was.
• "But people still get good morals out of religion." Even IF that were true (see my previous explanation about where moral reasoning really comes from and why appeals to authority are bullshit) that doesn't necessarily mean that those "morals" are actually any good or have practical, real-word application in the long term. Not gambling because it's a waste of time and money isn't necessarily the same as not gambling because your imaginary friend doesn't like it: One reason is practical and sensible, the other doesn't make any sense.
• "Why can't you just believe in SOMETHING?" I can no more force myself to ignore my critical reasoning process than I can force my taste-buds NOT to recoil at the smell and taste of onions. In the end, I can only ever be myself. 
• "Deep down, you really believe in God." Why? Because YOU want me to? That's rather arrogant, don't you think? Again, that's an empty assertion and a false accusation: There's no way that you can say anything like that with any measure of certainty, so don't fucking say it.
• "You worship the Devil!" I'd gladly worship Tom Hiddleston's throbbing cock, with my eager mouth, if I ever got the chance (as well as his informed consent.) Because unlike the very real Tom Hiddleston, the Devil is just as imaginary as your so-called God. When you really think about it, if either of THOSE TWO did exist, the Devil can't really do a damn thing without God's foreknowledge and consent: Which means that the so-called supreme embodiment of everything evil and sinful exists because God purposely allows it to, and not only that, knowingly gives him the go-ahead to do horrible things. Kinda says something about what kind of a passive-aggressive cunt God is, doesn't it? 
• "I know you're just begging to be 'SAVED!'" That'd be about as true as saying deep down, you'd love a giant rubber cock in your ass. Maybe you do, maybe you don't: Unless you give me explicit and clear informed consent for me to go ahead and whip out that ol' strap-on, I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT ANOTHER PERSON TRULY WANTS OR THINKS, because NEITHER DO YOU! Fucking Christ on crystal meth, I hate accusatory assertions! 
• "But I'm not a bad person for believing in God..." As previously mentioned, what you believe in of itself doesn't determine this. It's how you behave toward others that makes you a good or bad person. And using religious belief as an excuse to behave in a way MOST people consider wrong or illegal, doesn't de-facto make your action GOOD: It just makes you a weak-minded twat.
• "But... but... JESUS/MOHAMMED/L. RON HUBBARD!!!" Um... Cthulu, Zalgo, Slenderman, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, blah blah fucking blah. Excitedly proclaiming the name of your chosen holy figure to reaffirm your stance really doesn't mean anything at all, it just makes you look like an ignorant asshole.
• "You atheists are all just condescending know-it-alls!" Some of us certainly are, most of us don't try to deny or dismiss a couple of fucking losers that bear the banner of atheism out in the open for their own means and ends. For another example of atheists being jerks, go onto Tumblr and look up what an M.R.A is. The difference is that for the most part, I don't think anyone is trying to brush them aside with the ages-old excuse "Oh well they're not a TRUE atheist" in quite the same way that religious people do for those of their respective faith who misbehave. 

There will probably be more at some point in the future, no guarantees at this point as I have been VERY BUSY with school (and my so-far straight-A record can attest to this.)

Essentially, no idea or belief is above criticism or reproach, especially when said ideas and beliefs are used as an excuse to justify acting like a total ass. Eventually, I think religious belief will become so wishy-washy and watered down, or so extreme and disgusting, that most reasonable minded people will disregard it entirely and just live their fucking lives. 

The eventual iradication of religious influence might not necessarily solve all of the world's problems, but it'd probably knock a decently sized chunk out.

Get Help, A.S.A.P.

What you're about to see is probably going to make your jaw drop from disgust, but I think you should see it nonetheless. These are screen-caps of some kind of mental/emotional breakdown from some dude that I deployed with in Iraq. Before this jerk used to come to my room late at night and hit on me CONSTANTLY (to include following me to my room a couple of times, then begging me not to tell his wife about his behavior) it's almost hard to believe that we were at one point, friends. That was a different time and he was a VERY different person.

NOW look at him... 

Gee, who's fault do you think THAT is...?

After having read these for yourself, you may find it curious to know that this bigoted insanity came from the mind of a black man (hash-tag "self-loathing")

Folks, as much as I shit-talk organized religion for it's en-masse absurdity and brazen endorsement for such hateful fucking behavior, at least I can honestly say that I've never stooped to the level of wishing death upon a group of people that I don't like. And I DEFINITELY don't have the arrogance to blame other people when I get called out for my occasional bad behavior (it has happened before, I'm an adult and I'm not ashamed to admit it.) No, I'm not sorry for posting this all over the Internet: It NEEDS to be seen, addressed and taken care of. 

Barring my inherent inability to forgive people who remain unapologetic for any wrongdoing they've done upon me, Jamie is also, obviously, very sick and needs help. 

Soldiers, there's a lesson to be learned from this: Never ever EVER piss off your P.A.O. 

24-JULY-2014 UPDATE: Nice try, Jamie, but that passive-aggressive bull-shit doesn't work on me. Thank you for proving me right about your psychosis, though. Don't ever try to contact me again.

Atheist Imprisoned, Faces Imminent Death

Mubarak Bala is a Nigerian atheist currently being held against his will at a mental hospital in Kano. Last week, he was severely beaten and confined to a psych ward in a part of Nigeria known for being oppressed under sharia law by Islamic militants (no confirmation so far that Boko Haram is responsible for this). When the hospital staff FINALLY permitted his family to visit him, his mother managed to smuggle his phone into his room for him: That was the last time she was seen alive.

People are probably sick to death of being asked to sign petitions from Facebook and Twitter, but THIS IS A REAL PERSON who is facing being savagely murdered FOR THE IMAGINARY CRIME OF DISAGREEING WITH PEOPLE!

Godless Mom's blog has further instructions on how you can help #FreeMubarak (not the Egyptian, the Nigerian)

You can also sign the Change.org petition, and don't forget to check out Virtuarat as well.

PLEASE SHARE, UP-VOTE, TWEET, REBLOG & REPOST THE SHIT OUT OF THIS! A human being's life is in danger and we need to get the word out!

~   ~   ~

22-JUNE-2014 UPDATE: A Human Rights attorney has been contacted on behalf of Mubarak Bala and is working on building his case

While his friends and family welcome any and every effort made to spare his life, I urge you to KEEP SHARING THIS and GET AS MANY SIGNATURES AS YOU CAN!

~   ~   ~

23-JUNE-2014 UPDATE: The Canadian branch of The Huffington Post published an article featuring Mubarak's situation. The Change.org petition is at about 1,400 signatures so far, please don't give up!

~   ~   ~

23-JUNE-2014 BREAKING: According to MSNBC, there was an attack on a hospital in Kano, Nigeria. Oh I do hope that it's not the same one...

~   ~   ~

24-JUNE-2014 UPDATE: I'm happy to report that the explosion mentioned in the previous update WAS NOT at the hospital where Mubarak is being held. Also, a Human Rights lawyer was able to speak with Mubarak in person recently at great length, the lawyer (who wishes to remain anonymous) said he is otherwise physically well despite the dire situation. I will keep updating as often as I reasonably can.

~   ~   ~

25-JUNE-2014 UPDATE: Here's a clip of "Deezer234" talking about Mubarak's situation on a radio broadcast (The video feature for this blog seems to be down for some reason.)

~   ~   ~

29-JUNE-2014 UPDATE: This is the latest report from NBC News regarding Mubarak's state of being. He's being given a lot of drugs and having difficulty sleeping.

~   ~   ~

3-JULY-2014 BREAKING: According to Godless Mom, Mubarak has FINALLY been released from his involuntary commitment and is getting ready to make a statement to the public soon!