Wednesday, December 28, 2005

The Offspring Murder Club Gets Some New Members

Again thanks to Blacksun for posting about this earlier.

In an earlier post, I formed The Offspring Murder Club. This is a sad, shameful club where membership is strongly discouraged. Yet, there are many pro-afterlifers that are doing everything in their power to join this club, and predictably enough, they are using their pro-afterlife convictions as motivation for murdering their own children!

Recently the club acquired some new members. A total of 9 members of a Mexican family are suspects in the ritualistic slayings of two daughters, one a 7-month-old and one a 13-year-old. Not to mention a dozen or so sacrificed farm animals. A judge recently sent 8 of the family members to a mental hospital.

The article states in no uncertain terms what the family's pro-afterlife worldview caused them to believe about the daughters:

Officials said the parents, grandparents and aunts of a 7-month-old and 13-year-old hacked the baby to death and fatally stoned the teenager earlier this month after they became convinced the girls were demons or possessed by the devil.

Emphasis mine. So what exactly does fervent afterlife-belief serve as a catalyst for? It serves as a catalyst for one to believe that those closest to you are possessed by evil spirits, which gives you motivation and even justification for slaying them. Then it gets you committed to a nuthouse.

And these aren't any simple slayings. These are hardcore blood orgies among family members. Is a blood orgy between family members considered incestuous as well? Sorry I just had to ask it. Here are some more details from the article if you can stomach the visual:

After being tipped off to the killings by an anonymous phone call, officers traveled on foot to the family's hamlet and found the baby girl mutilated and the body of the 13-year-old tied to a stake and battered to death.

What is it that allows one to believe that one's infant and teenage daughters are a supernatural threat to oneself? Immaterial afterlife belief, that's what! Congratulations again on joining The Offspring Murder Club, you religious locos.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Kill The Filler: Winter Solstice Greeting

This week has been insanely busy for me, as it no doubt has been with many of my blog readers. Christmas is coming. Or Winter Solstice. Or whatever you call it. And I, along with hundreds of millions of other Americans, been busy shopping for presents.

On top of that, I’m taking a road trip to visit relatives this weekend. So don't expect any more posts from me until next week, after December 25th. And I apologize for this post being 99% filler.

I would like to close off this post with a little materialistic heartwarming. When you are celebrating the holidays this year, remember that the important things in life, love, family, friends, sincere communication, eggnog, etc... are all purely materialistic things that exist within and between material entities in a material universe.

If you want to celebrate the holidays, celebrate the joy of life and existence in this crazy crazy cosmos. To celebrate another dimension of immaterial spirits chained to an infinite and static existence only serves to cheapen and devalue the existence we are in right now. The only -and most important- existence is this one right here and right now. So celebrate it accordingly. Ooooooh, Heaven is a place on Earth.

Merry Christmas!

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Another Pro-Afterlife Mother Slays Own Child

Thanks to BlackSun for posting about this first and bringing it to my attention.

Dawn Serrena Young recently joined Dena Schlosser, Andrea Yates, and other women of faith in what I have decided to call The Offspring Murder Club. Congratulations Dawn in murdering your own daughter. You are part of a very exclusive club that requires enormous amounts of religious conviction in order to join.

As I've noted before, Religiosity is more common among mothers who kill their children. While Christians have definitely taken the points lead in the The Offspring Murder Club, Dawn Serrena Young has literally burst onto the scene and made a strong showing with her blend of Voodoo and Santeria. Will the Christians be able to maintain their lead, or will they be eclipsed before the end of the year?

Read this snip... its so messed up:

A Eugene woman has told police that she killed her 17-month-old daughter to protect the baby from spirits.

Young was arrested Nov. 23 after she crashed her pickup truck into parked cars at a Red Bluff lumber store. Police found her covered in blood from self-inflicted chest wounds.

She later confessed to killing Ruby by suffocating her with her hand, police have said. She led Red Bluff detectives to an area near the Sacramento River, where Ruby's body was found.

I think Dawn missed the bulletin that said suffocating your own child is not an effective means of protecting it. Imagine a secular version of this logic, "Hey son, I have to protect you from the influence of drugs and gangs and bullies, so I'm going to shoot you in the head."

Now I want to get serious. The problem here is that these people believe in religions that claim that there is an afterlife dimension; an existence after or beyond this one, and that entities can move between the two. Dena Schlosser, Andrea Yates, and Dawn Serrena Young all shared the same delusion: They didn't understand that death = death. These women all believe that their children are still in existence in another dimension known as the afterlife.

Afterlife ideologies literally redefine the word "death" because they remove the state of non-existence from it. To pro-afterlifers, death no longer means the termination of a consciousness, but the transportation of it to another realm. The word "death" loses its power and meaning, and instead becomes a mere transition. I hope that I've stressed this enough at the risk of redundancy, because it is vital to understand it. I think that if you closely examine the phrase, "life after death," the contradictory nature of the afterlife becomes quite clear.

Now I would like to finish off this post with a call to all of my blog readers who are proficient with Photoshop. I need a JPG image in the shape of a banner or bumper sticker that says "Kill the afterlife, not children." As far as backgrounds go, I'm open to most anything. Maybe some color transition looking thing, or some kind of image would be cool too as long as it doesn't distract too much from the text. I really hope someone is up to the task, because if not, then I will have to make it myself and I already know that it won't be a pretty sight. Can anyone help me out?

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Religious Atheism?

Today I read an article by Lloyd Eby of the World Peace Herald entitled, "Viewpoint: The religion of atheism." In the article, Lloyd Eby argues that atheism is itself a religion:

Religion has to do with what a person thinks or believes about first or ultimate things. German theologian-philosopher Paul Tillich (1886-1965) was especially insightful and instructive on this, saying that religion has to do with what he called "ultimate concern." "Our ultimate concern," he wrote, "is that which determines our being or not-being." Furthermore, "every human being exists in the power of an ultimate concern, whether or not he is fully conscious of it, whether or not he admits it to himself or others." In this sense of religion, religion is unavoidable because every person does have an ultimate concern and therefore has a religion.

The first mistake that Eby makes is that he tries to equate religion with belief itself. Eby thinks that religion is an "ultimate concern," and since everyone has an ultimate concern, then everyone has a religion. To Eby, it is not possible to have a religion only because he mistakenly equates the concept of religion with the concept of mere belief (regardless of what the belief is).

If Eby is correct about this definition of religion, then doesn't the word itself become superfluous? Why even talk about religion when the word belief, or the phrase "ultimate concern," will suffice?

To help illustrate my objection to Eby's article, I would like to use an analogy: hair. Let's equate hair with religion. There are different hair colors and styles that represent different kinds of religions. So what would atheism be? Atheism would be baldness. With this analogy, one could indeed be bald (or "without hair") and therefore have no religion. But Eby wants to redefine the definition of the word "hair" so that it instead is synonymous with the word "scalp." This causes all kinds of problems, and the most notable problem being that the word "hair" would no longer be usable to identify whether or not anyone has any actual hair on their heads.

To look at the analogy more technically, the word "hair" is a positive claim in that it denotes the existence of hair on one's scalp, while the word "bald" is a negative claim in that it denotes the absence of hair. Eby is attempting to remove the positive and negative distinction between the theistic and the atheistic in the same way that redefining "hair" would remove the distinction between having hair and being bald.

But regardless of any attempts by Eby to remove the positive and negative difference between theistic and atheistic claims through the redefining of the word "religion," there still needs to be a way to differentiate between the two. Redefining the word "religion" creates a vacuum in which another term must take its place in order to fill the void. What happens if we let Eby get his way? We need to find a replacement word.

I would suggest "faith" as a replacement word. If Eby is right, and everyone is indeed "religious" even if they are atheists, then we can help differentiate between camps with the word "faith." The positive and negative uses of the word would be "faithful" and "faithless" accordingly.

But what would happen if both Eby's shifting of "religion" and my shifting of "faith" were to take place? I have no doubt that the Ebys of the world would try to redefine "faith" so that it includes the faithless too! These people are constantly trying to include atheists in the "religion" camp, in part, to help share the burden of proof, and also in part to remove the distinction between camps because it makes theists uncomfortable to hear atheists use the word "religion" as a label against them. It is another way for theists to say, "You make fun of us for being 'religious,' but you are actually in the same category, so you are just as silly as we are!"

Atheists most definitely have an argument advantage through their lack of religion, and this is because of the burden of proof. The only way to share that burden is to remove the positive and negative distinction between atheism and theism, and the only way to do that is through the redefinition of words, which of course removes the meaning and the defining powers of those words.

In reality, there isn't much for us atheists to worry about. This is because the faithfuls' attempts to redefine the word "religion" will likely not succeed if only because it makes the word powerless and superfluous. In addition, there are likely many theists who will not be aware of the burden of proof and will not want to be placed in the same "religious" category as those who have no faith. And finally, even if the redefining of "religion" does succeed, it will create a vacuum, which will have to be filled by another word out of pure semantic necessity. Essentially, a new word will "take over" the definition that the word "religion" used to have, and the word "faith" looks like a good candidate. To be sure, the faithful would likely attack whatever word fills that vacuum, but it doesn’t matter, because the vacuum will always remain, vacuums tend not to want to exist, and there will always be more words -or even new words- to fill that vacuum.

No matter how you cut it, there will always be a need for a word like "religion." Simply redefining the word that fulfills this need will not remove the need itself. Lloyd Eby will probably have to learn that the hard way.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Normal Bob Smith Comes to Hellbound Alleee Live

Normal Bob Smith, creator of the famed Jesus Dress Up magnets, will be on the Hellbound Alleee Live show this Sunday, December 11, at 2pm Eastern time. You can tune in via Freethought Radio or our Shoutcast stream.

Normal Bob Smith has been persecuted by multiple Christian groups for his art, he has been featured in the critically acclaimed documentary Bob Smith, USA, and his radio show, NoBS Radio, is broadcast on the Hellbound Alleee station. Normal Bob Smith also has a hilarious collection of hate mail correspondence on his website, and it's up to 246 pages as of this writing.

So be sure to tune in to the live broadcast this Sunday!

Monday, December 05, 2005

Shout Out

I would like to use today's post for a couple of shout outs. Recently, Francois Tremblay and I started a blog known as The Radical Libertarian. We currently have 5 writers for the blog, and more may join in the future. It is a blog that discusses political and philosophical issues from a Libertarian and rational individualist perspective, and being that it has some of the most radical positions in today's political spectrum, it is aptly named. So check it out. If you are an atheist, you will be intrigued and inspired by it's pro-individual, pro-science views.

The other shout out goes to the Hellbound Alleee show. Hellbound Alleee has two weekly shows, a one-hour recorded show, and a two-hour live show. Archived shows are available for download here, where you will find a wealth of relevant atheistic topics and a plethora of distinguished guest appearances, with names like David Eller, Zachary Moore, Normal Bob Smith, Matt Slick, Brendan Powell Smith, Derek Sansone, Jake Doelling, and even myself! To listen to the show, just hit the play button at the show's home page. You can also tune in at Freethought Radio, where the recorded show is on Saturdays and the live show is on Sundays. The live show features call in guests, contests, and a chatroom where listeners can discuss the show and talk with the hosts. There are many exciting upcoming guests, including David Mills, author of the bestselling book Atheist Universe, so be sure to tune in!

This concludes my shout out session.

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Afterlife Concept Devalues Earthly Existence; Celebrates Death

No surprise here. I've been saying this since I started this blog, but it’s nice to have someone else say so. In this case, John Bice from has an article with the same name of this post. You can find it here.

Lets look at some of the things Mr. Bice says:

If no afterlife exists, our lives are finite, unique and precious. There are no second chances or rewards; when we die, we're dead.

Alternatively, if an eternal and infinitely preferable life exists subsequent to this one, human life is diminished. An everlasting and flawlessly idyllic afterlife, overflowing with ineffable delights, means that our earthly existence — no matter how long it lasts or relatively good it might be — is insignificant and less desirable in comparison.

More than one Christian, when pressed, has admitted to me that they're essentially "biding their time," avoiding sin and waiting for their eternal reward. How sad.

This is music to my mind. Why isn't Mr. Bice writing editorials for the New York Times? I have become an instant fan of him. And he continues:

Perhaps this explains why many religions regard suicide as a grave mortal sin. Without such prohibition, certainty of belief in heaven could prompt highly faithful people to shorten their earthly lives and hasten their trip to paradise, which would translate into fewer congregants.

Viewing the evolution of religion from a Darwinian perspective, as a meme, one would expect successful modern faiths to discourage suicide and promote sexual reproduction, which is precisely what we see. Suicidal cults, or faiths that discourage procreation, are at a tremendous competitive disadvantage for passing on their beliefs.

Look! He's even talking about memes! And he's right about suicidal cults vs. non-suicidal cults. Where is Heaven's Gate now?

And now I'm going to compare suicidal Jihadists to Rapture Ready forum members. Check this out:

A fascinating Time magazine article, "Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber," offered a glimpse at the mentality behind such attacks. "The happiest day of my life," was how Iraqi Jihadist Marwan Abu Ubeida described feeling after being added to a long list of suicide bomber volunteers. Marwan enthusiastically declared, "I can't wait … I am ready to die now." Only blind religious faith, or insanity, can provide such joyful excitement to kill and die.

Marwan Abu Ubeida says he can’t wait to die. Boy does this sound familiar. Where have I heard this kind of talk before?

I pray that it was a sign to you because I'm ready for Jesus to come get us. Today would be fine with me.

That's Rapture Ready-speak for, "I can't wait ... I am ready to die now," just like the Jihadist said.

Some of you may not like this comparison, for the Jihadist wants to kill himself while simultaneously killing enemy infidels, and the Rapture Ready person just wants to die, period. But to focus on this is to miss the point. It doesn't matter if the Christoid or Jihadist wants to die in the act of killing people, or just die, plain and simple. The point here is the same one that both Mr. Bice and myself have been stating. That the afterlife devalues Earthly existence and celebrates death. Both the Rapture Ready Christoid and the Jihadist want to die. And they want to die because both of their superstitions champion a dimension that doesn't exist. To top it off, they champion an imaginary dimension in which the only way to get there is to have your very existence exterminated!

For all their talk about values, these fundamentalists (Christoid or otherwise) sure don't know what the fuck they are talking about. They obviously need help, so let's give them a hand. Let's tell them that instead of killing themselves, they should kill the afterlife.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Catholic Church Must Destroy Itself to Save Itself

Let me start off with a disclaimer: I have no problem with homosexuals (or heterosexuals). What I do have a problem with is hypocritical religious institutions that condemn homosexuals yet are infiltrated with them from top to bottom.


The Vatican says sexually active homosexuals and those who support "gay culture" are unwelcome in the priesthood unless the candidate has overcome homosexual tendencies for at least three years, according to a church document posted on the Internet by an Italian Catholic news agency.

This of course is no suprise. Although I do think its rather strange to see the Vatican constantly condemn and reject homosexuals on paper, yet they shuffle around and protect homosexual Priests in practice. Most likely because those in charge of managing the Priest population are likely gay themselves.

And it would seem that I am correct:

Estimates of the number of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, a former seminary rector and author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."

Wow. 25 to 50 percent. How do they think they are going to enforce such rules, especially when the assigned enforcers are likely gay too? According to many organizations and groups, including SNAP, the Philadelphia District Attorney, and the Church's own lawyers, nobody is kicking anybody out for being gay. All they do is shuffle the Priests around and protect them from legal persecution when they commit pedophilic rape. Also consider that they are facing a severe Priest shortage and need all the recruits they can get. They will take the concept of "don't ask, don't tell" to a whole new level. It boggles my mind to think how many self-hating homosexuals must be in the Priesthood.

The Catholic Church needs to destroy itself to save itself. Scratch that. It just needs to destroy itself, period. How can the Church do that, you ask? Simple: Just keep doing what it's doing right now. If they actually start enforcing this anti-gay rule, however, it will surely collapse much faster. I can't wait to see it crumble to dust. I really hope it implodes within my lifetime. Die you Goddamn Church, die.

Crossposted at Goosing the Antithesis.

Monday, November 21, 2005

The Afterlife is Dying, One Dance Party at a Time

About three weeks ago (before my whole strep throat debacle) I went to see world-renowned DJ Donald Glaude spin at club Circus in Los Angeles. The party was thrown by Spundae. It was an absolute blast. If any of my readers are into clubbing and reside in the Los Angeles area, I suggest you check out the Spundae events at Club Circus.

While I was dancing in front of the main stage, I noticed a hip looking guy in his late twenties or early thirties. He was dancing near me with his date, and he was wearing jeans and a black tank top. Because he was wearing the tank top, his arms were exposed, and he had a handful of tattoos on both his arms. The reason I noticed him was because one of his tattoos literally jumped out at me. On his left bicep was a tattoo of an atom symbol with an "A" in the center: The exact logo of the American Atheists organization!

Needless to say, I was very pleasantly surprised. I quickly got his attention and pointed to his tattoo and told him "that's awesome!" He smiled and started telling me about what the symbol was and what the different parts of it represent. Although I was already very familiar with the logo and what it meant, I didn't want to cut him off. After he explained the tattoo, I told him that I write for a few atheist blogs and am heavily involved in the freethought radio show, Hellbound Alleee. He said that was cool, and I then left him alone so that he could resume dancing with his attractive date.

As if the night wasn't great enough being able to dance to the intense house music of Donald Glaude, I got to see an atheist with an atheistic tattoo prominently displayed on his bicep. What a cool night!

Now, there have undoubtedly been atheists in America since America was founded. But what about proudly displaying that type of affiliation on one's arm? What I mean is that this young man is doing something that he could not have done a few generations ago without severe consequences. 200 years ago, this man would have been persecuted for that kind of display, even in America. 100 years ago, this man would have been blacklisted for such a display. Even 50 years ago this man would possibly have been blacklisted, and most likely ostracized from his community.

Nowadays, you can still find yourself in a bad light for this kind of display in certain rural parts of America, but even then, not to the degree that you would have found yourself in 50 years ago. And nowadays in most parts of America you can proudly show off these kinds of tattoos without fear of persecution or too much grief from your local community.

Attitudes are most definitely changing, and they are changing for the better. I bet that 50 or 100 years ago, there were no atheists in America with atheistic tattoos. But today there are very likely more tattooed atheists than just this one guy.

The afterlife is dying, one dance party at a time. Now let's all go out and dance to celebrate! I will be dancing my ass off with some fellow atheist friends in celebration on December 3rd, to the transcendent trance music of Ferry Corsten at club Avalon in Hollywood. If any local atheists plan to be there, let me know so we can meet up at the club. I'll buy you a drink.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Strep Throat > Faith

Last Thursday I came down with Strep Throat. If you’ve ever had it before, you know how painful it is. I was in such discomfort, that I had to ask my Mom to drive me to the emergency room so I could get treatment. In fact, I haven’t driven my beloved Mustang in almost a week, and boy do I miss her! The rumbling of the V-8, the smooth shifting 5-speed, the surge of torque that pushes you deep into the leather seat…

Where was I? Oh yeah, Strep Throat! Sorry, these medications tend to make me a bit out of it. But I contend that an atheist on strong medications and suffering from Strep Throat, such as myself, is not as “out of it” as a healthy, sober, person of faith.

Why do I say this? Well, on the way back from the hospital, my Mom told me a story about how, when she was 15 years old, she acquired Strep Throat herself. Now before I continue with this story, I must give you a little background on her parents (my Grandparents). They are very loving, yet very religious people. My Mother’s parents are, in fact, the people who indoctrinated me into Christianity when I was about 4 years old. What 4 year old wouldn’t believe everything their kind and loving Grandparents told them?

Anyway, back to the story. My Mom acquired Strep Throat at age 15. What did her parents do at the onset of my Mom’s illness? They prayed. They had the local preacher visit. They prayed some more. They had the local preacher visit again. They had her anointed. They had the whole congregation pray for her repeatedly. Did I mention that a whole lot of people were praying and anointing and exercising the power of their faith?

Well, my Mom continued to suffer from Strep Throat for over a month! Consider that in my case, I went to the hospital after 3 days of symptoms, and after my antibiotics treatment, I am expected to be fully functional by Wednesday. Assuming that I do recover by Wednesday as the Doctor told me, I will have had a total of 7 days of downtime, and it would have been less had I decided to go to the hospital sooner (which I should have).

My Mom suffered from Strep Throat for over a month because her parents never took her to see a Doctor. The preacher, the congregation, and all those prayers and anointments couldn’t do what a bottle full of pills could do. Obviously, Strep Throat kicked the absolute shit out of their faith. Strep Throat 1, Faith 0.

What is Strep Throat? It is a bacterium that infects your throat. It is a purely material entity. And what are antibiotics? A purely material medicine designed to fight the infection. And what is faith? Belief without logical proof or material evidence. When you look at the cases of both my Mom and myself, faith was the big time loser.

Nowadays, my Grandparents sing a slightly different tune. Of course they are still very religious, but today they would take a sick child or relative to the hospital instead of pray for them. They have definitely learned their lesson. And as a result of their “education,” they most definitely have less faith today than they did back then. Of course, my Grandparents will insist to my face that while today they would take someone to the hospital, they still have “just as much” faith as they did before. They, of course, are wrong about that; they are in denial. Either they lost faith in the power of prayer for healing their sick children, or their faith in prayer is now trumped by their knowledge of medicine. Either way, their faith is necessarily compromised. If it wasn’t, then they would still subscribe to the faith healing method.

Faith will never heal anything. Faith will never perform as well as anything material. In fact, the only time faith ever does perform, is when it creates a placebo effect, which is material anyway. So here we are full circle: faith just doesn’t perform.

Faith is the only leg that the afterlife has to stand on. Logical proof and material evidence are the only legs that anti-afterlifers like myself have to stand on. And from the stories presented above, its pretty clear which legs are the safer ones to stand on.

Anything supported by faith is, in fact, not supported at all. Using the (powerless) power of faith won’t cure you of illness, nor will it make the afterlife, or God, exist.

Monday, November 07, 2005

God or Not #2

The second God or Not carnival has just been executed at Eternal Revolution. There are over 25 killer posts. The battle lines have been drawn, and each author picks a side and then attacks with violent ferocity, attempting to annihilate the enemy.

I must say that I am impressed with this installment, and I'm not just saying that because my submission is the first one linked. There's lots of pictures to enhance the visual experience, as well as a musical/lyrical theme to set the mood. And with musical selections from such artists as Radiohead and U2, truly this carnival is destined for greatness.

So get marchin' over to Eternal Revolution and engage! Read the entries, think about the issues, and then speak your mind. That's right, this is a "hands-on" experience, and that means leaving comments. Like what the bloggers have to say? Give 'em some "hearts and minds" and let 'em know how you relate. Got a bone to pick? Then bust out the "shock and awe" and drop a few bombs!

Thursday, November 03, 2005

It’s a Bird! It’s a Plane! No, it’s a Miracle!

Here it is, the third of November, and I totally missed my chance to post something for Halloween. I have no excuse, but I do have an explanation: alcohol. This Halloween was very partied out, and the weekend of drunken debauchery took its toll on me. I took two days off work to recover, and it still wasn't enough. I actually had some of my blog readers submit material for me to use for Halloween (really good stuff too), but I dropped the ball. It seems stupid to post Halloween related stuff three days after the day passed. So here I am to offer an apology to those who took the time to send me material only to have me fumble. I am fallible, especially when I'm hung over.

Okay, enough of that. Now we move on to afterlife killing. My Christian friend and fellow blogger Chad at Eternal Revolution wrote a post about miracles, and I couldn't pass up the opportunity to respond, especially how I just finished reading Zachary Moore's post about Irreducible Complexity.

In his post on miracles, Chad quotes Tim Challies, who proposes that the "laws of nature" should be looked at as regularities rather than laws:

It seems to me that Christians would do better to understand the laws of nature in terms of regularities rather than laws. When we speak of laws, we understand something that is inviolable…

The alternative, I believe, is to understand “the laws of nature” as regularities rather than laws. In this way a miracle is no longer a violation of the laws of nature but an exception or an anomaly. A miracle is merely a break from or exception to divine routine. In this sense God did not violate laws of nature when He used Moses to hold back the waters of the Red Sea. Instead, God governed that part of His Creation just a little bit differently for just a little while.

I would disagree with Tim's definition of "miracle." To me, a miracle is a violation or breaking of a natural law, like a fire burning that doesn’t consume fuel, or a flaming chariot that soars through the sky, violating at least two laws.

But what’s more important here is that Tim and Chad are trying to categorize everything that happens in the universe as part of God's divine plan (of course). What these two Christians don't realize is, that natural laws are recognized by humans through experimentation, falsifiability, quantifiability, and all other kinds of material-based processes of learning about the realm we exist in. We conduct tests to find out about natural phenomena, we derive formulas and mathematical equations, and use these to make predictions.

The problem with miracles is that they are unfalsifiable or unscientific in that they are unexplainable. What I mean is that we can use science and materialism to explain, for example, the quantity of water required to flood the entire world (think Noah's flood) and the law of conservation of matter/energy which states that the water had to come from somewhere (not just ex nihilo). However, the flood of Noah violates the law of conservation of matter/energy. In fact, the global flood of Noah is inexplicable in that the best we can say is "god did it." We cannot say how he did it other than to say "it was a miracle" which is just another way of saying "it is without explanation."

Miracles are a non-answer. Let me demonstrate by asking a series of questions: How does a miracle work? It works by God's doing. How does God do it? Miraculously. Well how does a miracle work? By now we are going in circles.

If I am to claim that fire needs to consume fuel in order to continue burning, then I must be able to back this up with facts. In science, we have specific formulas and explanations of the process of a fire that consumes fuel. We can measure this process and use equations to make predictions about it. We can study the substances and make predictions about burn/consumption rates, which substances are flammable and which aren’t, etc... But with a miracle like a fire that doesn’t consume fuel, or water that comes from nowhere, there are no formulas or processes by which we can falsify, make predictions, or even begin to understand or explain the step by step processes of how these miracles work. Miracles are literally a non-answer.

If someone answers a mystery with another mystery, then he isn't answering anything at all. Nothing about a "miraculous" process can ever be hoped to be understood beyond the acknowledgement that the miracle in question is not understandable. Miracles are a lie in that they claim to explain something with a non-explanation by definition. Miracles are a contradiction. The problem with these Christians is that they don't seem to understand the concepts of what science is, what evidence is, and the importance of being able to explain or account for the claims that one makes, especially claims of miraculous events like those found within Christianity.

Near the end of the post, Chad says:
Am I proving the existence of miracles with these quotes? Of course not. But it should at the very least turn upside down our preconceived concepts of miracles (even those of us who believe in them) and perhaps make them a little more understandable (dare I say “rational”?) to skeptics.

I contend that for a miracle to appear rational to a skeptic is impossible, and here’s why:

For a skeptic to consider a miracle rational, the miracle would have to be scientifically explainable in that the process or act of the miraculous event would have to be traced from the first to last step and the entire claim of miraculousness would have to be falsifiable through some testable means. But if that were to be done, then the miracle would, by definition, no longer be a miracle. It would instead be a natural, material, and explainable event.

Allow me to explain using an analogy. Lets say that a miracle is a magic trick, and God is a magician (think David Blane or Penn & Teller). So a miracle would be like David Blane floating in the air or Penn & Teller making a rabbit pop out of an empty hat. Now these magic tricks are "magic" precisely because they are unexplainable and they seem to violate the laws of nature. But on shows like "Secrets of Magic Revealed" in which a masked magician sells out his industries secrets, we see that the floating in air and rabbit tricks are explainable by invisible wires or platforms, and secret compartments and such. At this point, they cease to be magic tricks! They simply become illusions or demonstrations that deceived the viewer as to what actually happened. They make you think someone is floating in the air, but in reality he is still subject to gravity and there is merely a wire holding him up. Hardly magic anymore. Or the rabbit came out of a secret door under a table or inside the hat. Again, hardly magic anymore. The explanation of the magic trick literally removes the "magic" from it.

These concepts can also be applied to the afterlife, believe it or not. The afterlife is a miracle in itself insofar as it is an untestable, unfalsifiable, and explainable phenomenon. Whether it’s a claim of a miraculous Heaven or a miraculous hurricane, no "miracle" stands on it's own two legs under the scrutiny of a skeptical and scientific inquiry.

Regardless if you call them magic tricks or miracles, these supernatural events are, by definition, completely unsupportable by any skeptical or scientific means. The only way these miracles and magic tricks can be believed in is through faith. And faith is nothing more than belief without logical proof or material evidence. In other words, it is a gullible belief without justification.

Now I cannot help but wonder, is Chad consistent? What I mean is, while he believes in the Biblical flood story, does he also believe that David Blane can levitate? Or does he believe that Penn & Teller can materialize rabbits ex nihilo? Why not? I mean, if miracles are what Chad says they are, then why wouldn't he believe God to be working through Blane, Penn, and Teller to make these abnormalities of the "guidelines" of nature occur? I told him I was making a post about this, so hopefully he can come in here and tell us.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Atheist Presupposes Theist's De-conversion

Actually, I'm not really presupposing a theist's de-conversion. I just thought it was a catchy title for today's topic. In the comments section of my last post, my good friend Dawson Bethrick from Incinerating Presuppostionalism pointed out to me that one of the Christian blogs on my hit list, Atheism Presupposes Theism, seems to have fizzled out. No I take that back; it literally disappeared!

Now it's not uncommon in the blog world for a blog writer to lose steam and let their blog languish and die. The Libertarian Defender is a recent and unfortunate example of this phenomenon. The blog starts with an explosion of energy, activity, and quality writing, but then that energy dries up and the blog withers and dies. This is not the case with Atheism Presupposes Theism. In this case, the blog has literally been removed from the blogspot server! That means that the owner of that Christian blog had to delete the entire blog deliberately, which reduces the weight of the "ran out of time/steam" explanation. Click on the link yourself to find out.

Due to the death of Atheism Presupposes Theism, I have crossed it out on my Hit List. I think it makes it look more like an actual "Hit List," don't you? About one week after I started my Hit List, a blog on it fell. Is this some kind of sign or omen? Look out theists! Don't make me put your blog on my Hit List! But in all seriousness, we don't know why this blog disappeared. While I do think that deleting the blog rather than letting it collect dust gives some weight to the theory that the author recanted his position (consider the withering of The Libertarian Defender vs. the deletion of Atheism Presupposes Theism), it's still very possible that he simply didn't have the time or energy to continue blogging, and chose to delete the blog rather than let it linger. We don't have anything conclusive. Perhaps someone out there reading this knows what happened and would like to tell the story in the comments section?

In the unlikely event that the author of Atheism Presupposes Theism actually did pull a Michael Stipe and lost his religion, I think credit would have to be given to Dawson, also known as Bahnsen Burner. You should have read some of the things he said in the comments of that blog. In fact, you should read the things Dawson writes every time he tangles with Christians anywhere on the Internet. He is a proverbial Navy SEAL in the war of ideas, and it's always a pleasure to read his material.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Cenk Uygur: My Hero

Who is Cenk Uygur? I never heard of him until The Raving Atheist did a blog post about an article that Cenk wrote for the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post is also where you can find numerous articles by best selling atheist author Sam Harris.

But anyway, back to Cenk. Why is he my hero? Because he dropped a bomb on the godidiots:

It is a chilling fact that most of the world's leaders believe in nonsensical fairytales about the nature of reality. They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true. We are driven to war after war, violence on top of violence to appease madmen who believe in gory mythologies.

These men are called Christians, Muslims and Jews.


We live in a world full of insane people. Sanity is an island battered in an ocean of frothing delusion. The people who believe in science are the minority. The people who believe in bloody fairytales are the overwhelming majority.


[Referring to George W. Bush] But like most of the others, he believes Jesus died for his sins. That idea is so perverse and devoid of logic it should shock the conscience.


Jesus is said to have said on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Because Jesus was insane and the God he thought would rescue him did not exist. And he died on that cross like a fool. He fancied himself the son of God and he could barely convince twelve men to follow him at a time when the world was full of superstition.


If a man today killed his only son to show how much he loved other people, he would be considered a madman, locked in jail and earn society's contempt. Yet we think this is some sort of noble act by our Father in Heaven.

There is more. Much more. I wish I could post the whole thing, but I'm probably pushing my limits posting as many snips as I already have. Not since reading Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" have I enjoyed reading such an assault against the mental illness known as religious superstition. So go read Cenk Uygur's article, please.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Christian Apologist Inadvertently Supports My Arguments

You may have noticed that I recently added a new links section to my blog. It can be found on the right-hand side, and it is called "Hit List." In this new "Hit List" section I am adding links to pro-afterlife blogs, mostly of the Christoid variety (sorry I just had to use that phrase again). Included in this links section is a blog called The Good Fight. Thanks goes to Dawson Bethrick from Incinerating Presuppostionalism for the heads up on this Christian blog.

The owner of "The Good Fight" blog is Tom Wanchick. He wants to combine Mixed Martial Arts with Christian Apologetics to become the Ultimate Christian Warrior. Sorry Tom, but Paul Manata already has that title. Unless Tom can come up with a catchier battle cry than Manata's "Reap the whirlwind," I don't see how he can get his big break.

But enough about that. Let's get to the real topic of this post. I am claiming that Tom Wanchick inadvertently supported the arguments I've made in my Kill The Afterlife blog. To sum up my blog's arguments up in a nutshell, simply read the description below the blog title:

"The concept of an afterlife is inhumane and immoral. Belief in the continuation of your "soul" or consciousness after death is wishful thinking. Belief in an afterlife devalues the one life that actually exists: this one."

But what is it exactly that Tom wrote? How did he inadvertently support my arguments? To answer that, take a look at this post. Allow me to quote a few snips:

The church...Scripture...disbelieved that any human person is really good...everyone is sinful and bad...deserves eternal punishment...

[N]o humans are good...

[P]eople are truly bad and deserving of Hell, as Christians hold...they are morally bad and much so that they deserve eternal torment... Humans don't, after all, deserve good lives.

I only quoted the parts where he talks shit about humans, but if you go to Tom's blog and read the entire post, you will see that I am most definitely not taking anything he said out of context. In the comments section of his post, I replied:

Look at what you wrote! Your superstition has definitely messed you up good. Is this some kind of anti-Evangelism?

The best you have to offer from your religion is that people are bad and deserving of Hell, and we should all be thankful that we were redeemed by sacrificing and destroying the only human that WASNT deserving of Hell? Thank you for proving the things that I have been saying in my blog.

Christianity destroys self esteem, praises destruction, worships a bloodthirsty god, and can only provide a brutal carrot-stick moral code from an arbitrary dictate.

I started this blog making claims and accusations against afterlife belief and god. Then I used scientific studies to confirm my claims from a scientific perspective. Then I used news reports of Christian and pro-afterlifer behavior to support my claims from a psychological perspective. Then I used quality of life studies to support my claims from a social perspective. And now I am using Christians' own apologetic methods to support my claims from a religious perspective! My position has been consistent and has been backed up by evidence from scientific, psychological, sociological, and now even religious sources. The evidence, the logic, the proof, the reason, the truth, is on my side.

Kill. The. Afterlife.

Monday, October 17, 2005

A Hemorrhage of Faith

God Blogging Workshop Spreads Faith, reports I think their title is factually incorrect. God blogging hasn't been spreading faith according to the latest numbers on religiosity in the developed world. In America, for example, the nonreligious percentage of American citizens doubled in the last ten years.

That's right folks. Afterlife belief and God belief are disappearing from the West at an incredibly high rate. To be sure, the pro-afterlifers (mostly of the Christoid variety) still have the upper hand in terms of sheer numbers. They are the definite majority. But they won't be for long if these trends keep up. What happens if 10% of the American population loses its religion every ten years? It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

I've noticed something about atheist and theist blogs. They don't tend to change too many people's minds. I like to think of Kill The Afterlife as being an evangelical anti-afterlife and anti-god site, but I haven't deconverted anyone with this blog to my knowledge (I have deconverted people in real life but that's a different story). Mostly these religious and anti-religious blogs give ammo for the soldiers, so to speak. These blogs serve as rallying points and battlegrounds where the opposing sides duke it out.

If you know anything about how to change people's minds (I'm not saying I know much about this, but I know a little: I got a close friend who is pursuing a masters in psychology and has given me some pointers on this topic), then you would know that the first thing you need is a trust between you and the person whose mind you want to change. This is hard to build if the person is aware that you are specifically trying to change their mind. That obviously doesn't make it any easier. It also makes it harder to change someone's mind through a text medium; face-to-face interaction is far and away the best medium in which to perform your de-conversions. Not surprisingly to me, face-to-face is how I have performed all of my de-conversions.

From the looks of it, we now have a Christian blogging obsession, with all these Christbots serving as cheerleaders for each other. I'm not saying that atheist blogs don't serve the same purpose, but at least they tend to keep their comments sections open and uncensored (wink wink - you know who I'm talking about).

So what are we left with? A quantifiable hemorrhage of faith in the developed world. People are losing their religion like Michael Stipe (Think R.E.M.). Will these Christian blogs turn the tide? In a word, no. Only face-to-face interaction, with a trusting bond between the parties involved, will bring more sheep into the fold. And according to Bobo's World, SNAP, and the Philadelphia District Attorney's office, those Close Encounters of the Clergy Kind aren't going too well.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

He Doesn't Want to go to Heaven

This is absolutely heartbreaking. And incidentally, why are so many religious officials caught doing homosexual things? I mean, the one profession that totally forbids gays seems to attract so many of them! But I digress...

Darren L. Moore, a Sunday School teacher, was sentenced to 20 years in prison recently for forcible oral sodomy of a 7 year old boy. Jesus Christ! What the fuck is wrong with these people? Looking back at my youth, I'm starting to think that I was lucky to have not been molested by anybody at my church.

Now here's the kicker. Here is where it ties in with the afterlife:

The mother of the victim told the court, in a pre-sentence report, that her son didn't want to go to heaven because that's where Moore told him he was going and he wouldn't feel safe with Moore there.

Emphasis mine.

I'm speechless. This is a smart kid, in my opinion. It also brings up all kinds of theological issues. Let's assume that Mr. Moore will get in to Heaven. I mean, why wouldn't he? He will surely repent and be forgiven by Jesus while in prison. And what if this kid stays Christian all his life, but doesn't want to go to Heaven? What if he is saved, and deserving of Heaven, but doesn't want it?

Think about the craziness of having a criminal and the victim both end up in Heaven. What kind of Heaven would that be? Forcible oral sodomy won't bar you from salvation. And if the victim is faithful to Jesus his whole life, does he have any choice of destination other than Heaven when he dies? Would he choose Hell? Would he choose "non-existence"? Would these options even be available? What if the victim requested that Moore be cast in to Hell, but Moore was already saved and forgiven and in Heaven? Is a Heaven even really Heaven if the victim has to be in the presence of the bastard who forced him to provide oral sodomy at 7 years of age?

Are there too many question marks in this post? Will you tell me so in my comments?

Credit goes to Bobo's World for informing me of this story. By the way, if you don't read Bobo's World every day, you should start.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

They Pray for Armageddon

I made a big mistake today, and almost lost my breakfast as a result. I was bored and decided to lurk on the Rapture Ready Bulletin Board for a few minutes. The first thread I saw was entitled I believe God used a white horse to answer my question. Just look at the original post in this thread:

I just woke up because my dogs were barking and I let them outside. I looked to see what was riling them up and there were two horses in my back yard, one brown and one white. Now, I know they are my neighbors so I didn't think anything strange about it except the white one just stood there and wasn't eating grass. He was perfectly still for a good 10 minutes, so I felt compelled to wrap a blanket around me and walk out there. (I have 2 acres and he was in the very back) I got half way there and stopped. The light from the telephone pole was shining on him, but I was in total darkness where he couldn't see me very well, if at all and he didn't act like he knew I was there. My dogs kept barking at him and the brown one was eating grass and stomping at them getting aggravated, but the white one just stood there perfectly still like a statue. I had asked God a few days ago if He could give me a sign if Jesus is very close to coming back for us. I also said that if it's a sin to ask for a sign, then please disregard this request. LOL! I asked God while I was out there standing looking at the horse if he is using this horse as a way to answer my question or am I just overblowing the fact that they simply got out of their pasture. As soon as I asked that, the white horse turned his head and looked at me and started walking toward me. He walked right up to me to let me pet him. Up to that point, he acted like he didn't even know I was there and I hadn't made any noise or said anything outloud to bring attention to myself, but as soon as I asked if this horse was my sign I was asking for, he walked up to me.

To clear up a few things, I know Jesus will come back on a white horse at the end of the tribulation and not the rapture. But what makes this special to me is that I had been talking to my husband about that same white horse a few days ago and how Jesus will come back in the end on a white horse and how horses are mentioned so much in the bible that God must really have a special affinity for them.

I came in and felt like I had experienced something wonderful and I told God that I'm going to keep it to myself because when I tell other people, they squash my feelings and tell me I'm just imagining things. But God told me to come on here and tell my story for those who want to know it and who will be blessed by it and to ignore those that will scoff at me because they will find out soon enough what's what.


As if that wasn't insane enough, take a look at the very first response to this thread from another member:

I pray that it was a sign to you because I'm ready for Jesus to come get us. Today would be fine with me.

That's what these people do all day! They look for "signs" in any old normal everyday event, or even in natural but not-so-everyday events, and fantasize about the end of the world. They really believe that motionless horses are messages from God, and their fellow Rapture buddies share their delusions! They are very scary. Or very pathetic. Actually, I think both.

I also recently got word that Pat Robertson thinks that all these recent hurricanes and earthquakes are signs that we are in the end times, and that Jesus is coming very soon. All I can say is that I sincerely hope that Pat Robertson is holding his breath.

As for all these other death-worshipping Christoids, I wish there was some way to save them from their delusions. It's not like they have a very good chance of being deconverted, since their desire to believe is so incredibly strong, but it would be nice if they at least stop fantasizing about a global Armageddon and maybe appreciate this existence on Earth a little bit more, and work to make it better. Most Christians don't spend so much time obsessing about the rapture. Most Christians spend the majority of their energy being concerned about this life and this existence (as they should), and work to make it better. Most Christians are good productive people the majority of the time because of the fact that they don't obsess over their delusions of some grand Armageddon all day long.

I think its safe to say that these Rapture Ready cultists are hardcore, extremely devoted Christians. I think it’s also safe to say that most Christians aren't as intense, as devoted, or as insane as the Rapture Ready variety (though they still have a mental disease). And finally, I think its very accurate to say that the better Christian you are, the shittier person you are, and vice-versa.

Afterlife-belief is poisoning the minds of our fellow humans, as Karen at Rapture Ready was so kind enough to demonstrate for us. It is a fantasy that has infected the minds of our peers and threatens the existence of all of us life-loving freethinkers. We've got to kill it. Kill it dead. If we don't, then Karen and her fellow Christoids in the White House will bring about an Armageddon of their own (or did they already?).

Friday, October 07, 2005

Would You Want to Know?

I don't believe in the afterlife (no surprises there). But if there is in fact an afterlife, would I want to know? Absolutely. I would much rather know the truth than to adhere to an incorrect belief simply out of pride or desire. But what about a theist who believes in an afterlife? Would they want to know if they were wrong?

In past posts I have argued that an eternal life would have no value. I have argued that having a finite amount of time in one's life makes that life much more valuable than it would be if it was an eternal life. Still, the thought of my consciousness expiring (most likely in less than 100 years; a relatively short time) doesn't exactly give me comfort. So why do I adhere so strongly to a non-afterlife worldview? Because I believe it is the truth. I would rather ingest a cold hard spoonful of reality over a spoonful of sugarcoated bullshit any day, because I value reality over my own desires of how I'd like things to be.

But what about the theist, the pro-afterlifer? I've previously argued that there are no theists in foxholes, because every time a pro-afterlifer's life is in danger, they work very hard to remove themselves from that danger in an obvious act of self-preservation. They act as if their consciousness is finite, despite their claims of believing the contrary. I think that in many instances, the theist adopts the pro-afterlife stance out of a desire to not have to face their own semi-subconscious knowledge that their life is indeed finite. The thought of their consciousness being only temporary is unsettling to them (as it is to me to a lesser degree). The key here is that, unlike me, the pro-afterlifer values his/her own desires over reality. They would rather ingest a spoonful of sugarcoated bullshit rather than a spoonful of cold hard reality. And as a consequence, they (or their religious authorities) spend hours and hours coming up with rationalizations to convince themselves that what they are ingesting isn't sugarcoated bullshit.

I personally believe that most pro-afterlifers wouldn't really want to know. I also believe that most of them would deny that they wouldn't want to know. And I believe that most pro-afterlifers get around this intellectual dishonesty by trying really hard to convince themselves that the afterlife really does exist, and this way they can lie to themselves by believing that they do want to know the truth, and that indeed, they already "know" it, for the truth to them conforms with their desires.

To test this belief of mine, I have started a thread in the General Apologetics section at Christian Forums dot com asking Christians if they would want to know the truth if there was no afterlife. I don't expect too many good (read: well thought-out) answers, after all this is Christian Forums. But that's okay because Christian Forums provides what I believe to be a very accurate demographic/cross-section of the English speaking Christian body. This is the Christian message board for the everyday Christian, and it will expose just how much, or how little, these people even understand these concepts.

So next time you are in communication with a pro-afterlifer, you should ask them this question. In addition (assuming that you the reader is an atheist), you should ask yourself this same question but in reverse: If there was an actual afterlife, would you want to know? I think most atheists can honestly answer "yes," but I don't think most pro-afterlifers can honestly answer the same, and this only serves to undermine the validity of their position.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Primacy Revisited

A nod to Francois Tremblay for bringing this study to my attention.

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.


The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies."


Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.


“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

This matches up exactly with what I have said in previous posts here, here, here, and here. The evidence is on my side, and it keeps piling up.

The verdict is in: We are far better off without any religious beliefs, without any belief in god(s), and without any afterlife belief.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Your Friendly Neighborhood Exorcist

The Vatican's Rome University is looking to recruit new exorcists in the fight against demonic possession. Included in the article is this little sentence:

Students also attend classes in psychology so that priests can distinguish between "real cases" of satanic possession and illnesses such as schizophrenia.

And that's good, because we would hate to have yet another case in which a schizophrenic nutcase sought religious assistance instead of medical assistance, therefore resulting in the deaths of either themselves, or nearby innocents, like their children. Andrea Yates, Dena Schlosser, or Anneliese Michel (whose story served as inspiration for the recent movie "The Exorcism of Emily Rose") come to mind.

Apparently the Vatican still thinks demonic possession is a big problem. That's funny, because I couldn't find any Government statistics on demonic possession anywhere (anywhere outside the Vatican website, that is). First I ran a search for "demonic possession" over at, the United States Government web portal. I found nothing relevant, just some stuff about drug possession, which is hardly the same thing. Why isn't the United States Government tracking this serious issue? Maybe the United States Government is in cahoots with the demons? Maybe the United States Government is itself possessed? Or is it possible that the theory of demonic possession is just as legitimate as Phrenology?

My quest for Government statistics on demonic possession had experienced a small setback, but it was by no means over. I figured my next best place to look would be at the Europa website, which calls itself the "Gateway to the European Union." The European Union currently represents twenty-five European nations that have served as the traditional and historical backbone of superstitious afterlife-belief (mostly of the Christian variety) for over a thousand years. Surely they would be intelligent enough to track vital demon possession statistics! I ran a search, and surprisingly got these results:

Your search on "demonic possession" matched 0 of 2051163 documents

Zero results out of two million, fifty one thousand, one hundred and sixty three documents? Well this certainly doesn't solve my problem! All it does is increase the extreme nature of my two possible explanations: Either there is a really, really big conspiracy of demonic possession that stretches across the Atlantic, or the Vatican is full of monster-in-the-closet, afraid-of-their-own-shadow, retards.

Finally I decided to search the official Vatican Website itself. I entered my search phrase, again "demonic possession," and I found six hundred and eighty eight results! They were mostly relevant results too, unlike the irrelevant drug possession results that Firstgov gave me. But what does this say? Well, it says we can at least know that the Vatican believes their own shit.

If the Vatican thinks that demonic possession warrants a call for new exorcists, then obviously they think it’s a significant problem in the world. And if the Vatican is a sovereign nation-state, then shouldn't other Vatican-friendly governments be tracking this kind of phenomena as well? Shouldn't the US and the EU be cooperating in detecting and fighting demonic possession? Shouldn't the US and EU at least release some information, or maybe pass legislation, on what constitutes demonic possession so that their citizens can be informed of the facts?

Or, is it just possible in some crazy way, that the Vatican doesn't have any evidence to back up its apparent view that demonic possession is a real phenomena? I think that if the Vatican does properly diagnose who is demonically possessed and who is just nuts, they won't need any exorcists ever again. It is clear that all these recent cases had religion serve as an impediment to proper treatment, and if medical care was administered instead of religious voodoo, these people (and their children) would still be alive.

If the only difference between a case of schizophrenia and a victim of demonic possession is an aversion to religious objects and speaking in funny tongues, then I'm afraid that many more Andrea Yates, Dena Schlosser, and Anneliese Michel cases will pop up in the future.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Aaron Kinney @ The Atheist Hour: Aftermath

My guest appearance on Gene Cook’s radio show, The Atheist Hour, has just finished. I appreciate Gene having me on his show, I appreciate the questions that the callers had, and I enjoyed the dialogue. I would definitely be open to being on Gene’s show again if he ever wanted to bring me back. I feel that the dialogue was positive, constructive, and that there was ample mutual respect between everyone who participated. I really enjoyed the show, and I hope that the listeners also got some understanding of my atheistic worldview.

My thoughts on the show: I think I made a good point about the sacrifice of Jesus, how it (and all sacrifice) is morally wrong, and how two wrongs don’t make a right. In other words, having an innocent person such as Jesus or a six-year-old girl serve punishment for the crimes of another, especially by being killed on a cross, is never right. I conceded to Gene that a parent might want to sacrifice himself in favor of their child being punished for a crime, but I noted, and maintain, that it would not be just in either case, and any impartial observer (like the rest of society) would surely not agree that justice has been served when a parent serves the punishment of a murdering child, allowing the child to walk the streets free and forgiven.

Undoubtedly, the Hitler reference was brought up. While the kind Christian caller Dustin said that my moral position and arguments were a breath of fresh air (thanks!), he insisted that I could not get from an objective observation of reality (like Hitler’s genocidal campaign) and determine that it is against objective moral values.

I kept coming back to the value of life, and I think that’s what all these questions were reducible to: Why, as an atheist, should I value life? After the mid-show break, I stated that the question of “why should I value life?” was just as much a problem for a Christian as it is for an atheist in that there is no more reason to follow God’s word than there is to follow natural law based on reality and causality. Gene is a good radio host, and is good at making it seem like he adequately answered my question, but he only managed to push the question back one level, and I tried to point that out as well. Allow me to paraphrase:

Aaron: Why do you value life?
Gene: Because God tells us to.
Aaron: But you’re only pushing the question back one level. Why do you care if God tells you to?
Gene: Because he says that life is good and following his rules is good.
Aaron: But why do you want to follow his rules?
Gene: Because of the punishment he has in store for us if we don’t.
Aaron: But why do you care if you get punished? Why do you avoid punishment?
(From here the question will repeatedly get pushed back unless the Christian admits that they want to follow God’s rule for the same reason I want to follow objective values based on natural law: we both innately want to sustain our consciousnesses and allow them to thrive due to our evolutionary programming).

I think it’s clear by now that the problem they claim belongs to my worldview (that I can’t account for objective values) actually is a problem for their worldview! During the entire show I didn’t hear a sufficient answer for my question: Why does the Christian want to follow God’s rule and avoid punishment from God? Their only answer is to push it back one level.

Now as for me accounting for my values, I was able to mention evolutionary programming, and I said that an “ought” may not even have to come into the picture, because life itself (the definition of life that transcends any given species) wants to sustain, spread, and thrive. Therefore my worldview can account for objective values because of the evolutionary programming. In some ways, it might even be considered a materialistic, evolutionary “presupposition,” and if this is true, then it would be obvious that the Christians are borrowing from my worldview (the evolutionary programming) to justify their desire to value life, God’s law, and not getting cast into hell when they die.

Now remember folks, this was Gene’s show, and Gene is a pastor. That means that I’m on the Christian turf. I will not be getting the last word here, and I didn’t. Gene ended the show with a strawman, and it was basically along the lines of “an atheist can’t account for values or the desire to live, but a Christian can through God’s word, through his love for us, and through the desire to follow his rules.” But as you can all see, I have just demonstrated that it is the materialistic atheist who can account for the desire to live, and it is the Christian who “borrows capital” from the materialistic atheist’s worldview by using their built-in evolutionary programming every time they say that it’s a good thing to follow God’s law and avoid his wrath.

If anyone wants a copy of the show, register for free at Gene’s website Unchained Radio within the next week as it will be available for free download for a week. Alternatively, you can request it from me here in the comments section, and I will see what I can do. If anyone comments about the show, or criticisms of my arguments, etc… Feel free to post them here!

Crossposted at Goosing the Antithesis.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the MP3.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Aaron Kinney @ the Atheist Hour

This coming Sunday, September 18th, at 6:00pm Pacific Standard Time, I will be making a guest appearance on Pastor Gene Cook’s show The Atheist Hour at Unchained Radio. I think you have to register at the site to be able to listen to the show live, and don’t put registration off to the last minute. I attempted to register but haven’t received the confirmation email yet. So if anyone has any problems listening to the show on Sunday, post a comment here and I will give you a link you can download it from.

Derek Sansone’s appearance last week was interesting. I was unable to activate my registration and listen to the show live, so I had to have a friend provide me with a copy of the show. Derek is a moral relativist (something that I’m not) and I think the Christians enjoyed attacking him on that issue, themselves being oblivious to the fact that they are also moral relativists!

Hopefully I will get a chance to plug the Hellbound Allee show and my two blogs, as well as adequately defend and explain my materialist/objective morality/atheist worldview.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Geek Proves Atheist Wrong

This afternoon, I received an email from Jeffrey Czerniak. I promptly wrote him a reply. Both emails are reprinted below. First Jeffrey's email in blockquotes and italics, then my reply in just blockquotes (to help differentiate between emails). If you haven't already read my previous blog entry, Museum of Geeks, I suggest you do so before reading this post or either email.

Well, let me start out by saying that I really like your blog, and I didn't mean to make it sound like I don't. I linked to you back when you were just starting out (see, and I read your first couple of entries with great interest. I liked the way you framed belief in the afterlife as a devaluation of earthly life.

Thus, I was saddened to see that you make me sound like a douche on your website. "Museum of Idiots" is the title of a They Might Be Giants song, and it was meant to refer to idiots like Rudolph. I did not read the entry I linked to, but it was because I was laughing so hard at the title, I didn't think the article could top it in terms of entertainment value.

So yeah, I like your blog, my post was not meant to be taken ironically (for once), and I hope you can at least post this email so I can have my say.

P.S. I've detailed my rationale before for not having comments on In short, I hope that people will comment on my blogposts; I just don't want to pay the bandwidth charges to host their opinions. That's why I have trackbacks, so that people can write their own blogposts and link back to mine.

P.P.S. Another reason I don't have comments is that I don't want to be sued. See the following websites for a disturbing trend:


Now for my reply:

Hey Jeffrey!

Thank you for replying to me so quickly. Let me give you a little bit of a story. I’ll try to make it quick.

I found your blog linked to mine through technocrati. When I first read your post, it seemed crystal clear to me that you were making fun of my blog. I also acquired the immediate *hunch* that you didn’t actually READ my blog. I was going to ignore your post but then I got an idea that I could use it on my blog to make a point about evidence and conclusions by 1) questioning whether you made a judgment on my blog by only reading the title, and 2) if I got a reply from you, I thought I could use it as "evidence" that would either confirm or correct my guesses about your post.

Well, halfway through composing my blog post, I started to second-guess my first analysis of your post. I re-read your post and thought that maybe you weren’t making fun of me but were complimenting me. After all, you DO have Jesus' General linked from your blog page :) But the title of your blog post "Museum of Idiots" made me think that there was like a 75-80% chance you were insulting my blog. I thought you might have been a religious liberal and didn’t take kindly to my blog content, politics aside. I figured that a compliment was a long shot (I did had a "They Might Be Giants" CD in the past, I never looked at the case and am unfamiliar with actual song titles; I only know the songs by their number on the CD so I didn’t get understand your post title). So halfway through writing the blog entry I decided to admit that I wasn't sure and I wanted to suspend judgment until I got more evidence. I also decided to email you and see what you had to say. Now that I re-read my blog post, I realize there is an implied tone to the blog entry even though I thought I was suspending judgment and creating a good scenario/lesson about evidence.

I am going to make a new post tonight. I’m gonna post your email and say that I jumped a bit to conclusions, despite my proclamation of "reserving judgment." I am then of course going to make a point about evidence and perception and everything.

By the way, my comment about blogs not having comments was actually NOT directed at you (strange as it may seem) but was more directed at Paul Manata, Hashishan Prophet, and others who have wacky religious blogs that don’t allow comments. After recent posts by Manata regarding evolution and atheist philosopher Michael Martin, I got real steamed that he didn’t have comments on his blog anymore (and deleted the comments I had previously posted).

Sorry for making you sound like a douche. I do hope that you understand that the post you made was a little vague as to whether you were making a compliment or an insult, and that I did ponder at some length as to its true intentions. Expect a new post on my blog about this within a couple hours. Feel free to post on my comments as well and tell me what you think, even if it’s about your dissatisfaction with my post. The only comments I delete are spam :)

Aaron Kinney

I said it in my email and I'll say it again now. Jeffrey, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions, which I did do to a large degree, even though I claimed that I would reserve judgment until I got more evidence. It is quite obvious in the tone of my previous post that I was leaning towards the wrong conclusion, that I treated Jeffrey harshly, and that I did it based on insufficient evidence.

Look at that, everyone. Even atheists that claim to be rational and impartial can come to incorrect conclusions. I am definitely no exception. Since man has been able to think, he has thought wrong about things. We used to think the Earth was flat. We used to think that everything in the universe revolved around our planet. We used to think that women determined the gender of offspring. And unfortunately, most of us still think that an immaterial afterlife, usually governed by an immaterial God, exists! These afterlife and God beliefs come from a time when we believed all these silly things about astronomy and offspring.

It's time for theists, pro-afterlifers, and other superstitious people to accept the evidence and admit that they are wrong. The only way anyone can improve their knowledge about anything is to admit that evidence trumps faith or preconception, even if it’s their own faith or preconception. Some of us are able to swallow our pride, admit that we thought wrong, and learn from our mistakes. I was able to back when I lost my faith, and I'm able to now when Jeffrey shows me that I had the wrong idea about him.

If God or Jesus or Ganesh or some other deity reveals itself to me, I will again admit I was wrong. But there's the rub: I'm asking for evidence, and it's all about faith to them.

Monday, September 12, 2005

Museum of Geeks

In between receiving bogus email addresses from females, blogger Jeffrey Czerniak at made a post entitled Museum of Idiots which featured a post from my blog. The post from my blog that he featured is Rudolph the Redneck Christian Terrorist. It's one of my favorite posts because of its clever title (LOL).

Well, Mr. Czerniak doesn't seem to think so. He says that he doesn't need to read my blog post because of its clever title. Awesome! But I think that the title of his post, "Museum of Idiots," is much more clever. At this point I can't tell if he is criticizing my blog or not. His entry title has the word "idiot" in it, but he refers to my blog as "super-clever" and his links section has blogs like Jesus' General and Panda’s Thumb. Hmmmmmmmmm.

While I did like the title I chose, I didn't think that it was so clever as to convey the entire meaning of the actual post: That convicted Olympics and abortion clinic bomber Eric Robert Rudolph is a Christian that terrorized and murdered his fellow Americans for religious reasons.

On second thought, I wonder if he actually read the post? Maybe he really did just make a judgment by the title alone! I wrote him an email, asking him if he read the post and if the title actually conveyed the message sufficiently. I hope reviewers of my blog would at least be kind enough to read my blog before making a judgment on it. Come to think of it, I hope that all the human beings on this planet are thoughtful enough to examine the contents of any claim or piece of information before judging it. The fact that people don't do this often enough is the reason why activist atheists like myself even exist! Hey, I didn't reject the Bible before I read it, and I'm suspending judgment on Jeffrey's love/hate of my blog until I get more evidence. Look at that, we all learned something about critical thought!

By the way, I'd like to take this moment to say that I don't like it when blogs don't have any place to put comments. At least have one comments-open post a week. Who's with me on that one?

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Derek Sansone @ the Atheist Hour

On Sunday, September 11th (!), at 6pm, Derek Sansone will be appearing on The Atheist Hour, hosted by Pastor Gene Cook. It is an hour long show of discussion between an atheist (this week, Derek) and a Christian (Gene). The show also takes callers.

If you're interested at all in the battle of ideas between Christians and atheists, you should tune in to the show.

P.S. I will be appearing on the same show one week later, on September 18th.

(Crossposted at Goosing the Antithesis.)

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Kristian Katrina Konfusion

Pro-afterlifers around the world are pretty consistent in their views on Katrina. They all agree that it is a calamity; a sorrowful event; a bad thing. As I stated in my previous Katrina-related post, A Hurricane of Hypocrisy, it makes no sense for all the pro-afterlifers of different faiths to consistently view this hurricane as a calamity. And in today’s post, I am going to take a look at the dead, the survivors, and the pro-afterlifers (of the Christian variety) that mourn them.

Christians mourn those who died at the hand of Katrina. Christians tell the survivors of Katrina that they are lucky that God spared them. Funny view to take considering that the dead (according to Christians) are now in that blissful place known as haven for all eternity, while the survivors are facing disease, dehydration, starvation, displacement, and financial ruin. To be fair, maybe not all the dead are in heaven, but the Christian ones are at least, and New Orleans was most likely more Christian than the 85% national average for America.

Assuming that the Christian worldview is correct, it can be decisively said that the deceased are now much better off than the survivors! The deceased are hanging out with Jesus, now free from pain and suffering and sorrow for all eternity. But the survivors are literally swimming in pain, suffering, and sorrow for at least a few more months, if not years. Why do the Christians mourn the dead and consider the survivors lucky?

The Christians mourn the dead as if they were actually dead (as in really dead with no afterlife or continuation of consciousness past death)! A true death, without the continuation of consciousness, would be the only thing that could justify the degree of mourning that these Christians display for the deceased.

It looks very similar to a stolen concept fallacy to me. It’s as if they subconsciously know that death = death, and does not result in some kind of life-after-death (which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one). Consciously of course, the Christians do not realize this, nor would they agree with my statements.

I imagine that a Christian would answer that they are actually mourning the departure of the deceased from this existence. That would be fair, but it would also be very narrow-minded. It would have to ask them “Well, aren’t you happy that the deceased is now in eternal bliss? Shouldn’t you be happy for them? Who are you crying for, yourself or the deceased?”

Clearly, the Christian who argues that they are mourning the departure of the deceased from this existence would automatically be conceding that they aren’t crying for the deceased, but crying for themselves. And that, my friends, would also be an admission by the Christians that they are actually mourning the survivors of the hurricane more than they are mourning the deceased. Whoops!
Either way, the Christian would prove me right: that mourning the (Christian) deceased makes no sense.

So let’s wrap up:

1. Christians mourning the deceased more than the survivors makes no sense.
2. Christians mourn the deceased as if they knew (subconsciously?) that the deceased were really, truly dead.
3. If they are mourning the deceased’s departure from Earthly life rather than their ascension to heaven, then they are actually mourning for themselves (and the survivors) instead of the deceased.

There are no theists in foxholes.

Friday, September 02, 2005

A Strong Atheist's Case Against Christian Theology has written an argument against Christian Theology. I have agreed to publish his essay on my blog. I thought it would be fun to take a temporary departure from anti-afterlife arguments and publish a friend's anti-Christian essay. Those who know me, know that my favorite religious punching bag is Christianity. So enjoy Libertariandefender's essay, and trust that I will continue with more anti-afterlife posts in the near future.

A Strong Atheist's Case Against Christian Theology

I. *Representative* Scientific Objections to The Bible:

A. Adam and Eve story.

1. How did God create a female (Eve) from the male DNA of Adam's rib?
2. How did Adam and Eve successfully mate and produce offspring when, at most, they had identical DNA, and at least, they were twins?
3. How did a snake acquire the ability to speak in human language? How was this physiologically possible?

B. Crossing the Red Sea.

Stipulating: The sea is roughly 1900km long and at its widest is more than 300km. The sea floor has a maximum depth of 2,500m in the central median trench and an average depth of 500m, but it also has extensive shallow shelves, noted for their marine life and corals. The sea has a surface area of roughly 438,000 or 450,000km².
1. Stipulating that, how did Moses and the Israelites pass through it? After all, it was substantial enough to deluge Pharaoh's army.
2. If the sea was parted, how precisely was that done?

C. Jesus' resurrection.

1. How did Jesus rise from the dead, and walk around good as new, when after dozens of hours of being dead, he would be brain dead, with decayed muscles, bloated from gasses, with blisters on his skin and with millions of dead and useless cells, including dead and useless heart and kidney cells? It should be noted that brain death is irreversible in every instance. It cannot be turned back. It is permanent.

D. Noah's Ark.

1. How is it possible to hold all the world’s species in an ark with the dimensions specified? There are possibly up to 100 million animal species alone.
2. How is it possible to feed these millions of animals?
3. How did specific species and classes of animals become trapped on different continents? For example, most marsupials are only found in Australia. If the Noah’s Ark story were true, then we should expect a more homogeneous converge of species.
4. Why didn't many aquatic ecosystems die off from the massive change in salinity?
5. Why didn't many modern plants die out, as they should have?

Note: One may not cite "miracles" to explain any of these phenomena until the concept of "miracles" is shown to have a scrap of merit.

For Reference on Miracles:

II. Science's Take on Theism/Design/Creation/Divine Guidance:

A. Pervasive Atheism Among Eminent Scientists.
Information is from

In a survey of National Academy of Science scientists, 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. It should be noted that the NAS is the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States.

"Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."

From these figures, we can conclude: 93% of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Science are in fact agnostic or atheists. Indeed, looking at a chart that includes figures from earlier in the 20th century, one can only come to the conclusion that top scientists are more atheistic than ever before.

Expanded percentages (among "greater" scientists):

Belief in personal God 1914/ 1933/ 1998
Personal belief 27.7/ 15/ 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7/ 68/ 72.2
Doubt/agnosticism 20.9/ 17/ 20.8

B. Illogic of Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, Omnipotent Designer.
This is by Steven Pinker, Psychology professor at Harvard University, and appeared in Time magazine:

"Our own bodies are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer would have planned but that disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward, a seminal duct that hooks over the ureter like a garden hose snagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur.
The moral design of nature is as bungled as its engineering design. What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows."

C. Lack of Scientific Support for Creationism.

"...Taking into account only [scientists] working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory. This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief that they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science. Note that there are no creationist Nobel Laureates."

Note: The scientific community's opinion, in itself, does not constitute proof of anything. However, equivalency arguments, comparing scientific opinion to general public opinion, are transparently fallacious. One need only ask oneself how many people on a busy street corner have any idea what "homologous structures" are.

III. Objections to the Bible's Accuracy, Historicity, Connection to Reality:

A. Archaeological Fallibility.

Many times, Christians will falsely claim that archaeology supports the accuracy of the Bible. They continue that the Bible's historical account has many times been substantiated by new archaeological information. Those are untruths.

"Archaeology supports at most the general background of the Bible and some relatively recent details. It does not support every biblical claim. In particular, archaeology does not support anything about creation, the Flood, or the conquest of the Holy Land.

If a few instances of historical accuracy are so significant, then an equal claim for accuracy can be made for the Iliad and Gone with the Wind.

Archaeology contradicts significant parts of the Bible:

The Bible contains anachronisms. Details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E.

The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records. There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people.

There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all."

B. The Bible is Teeming With Errors/Contradictions.

"There are several aspects of the Bible that show it is not inerrant. These include factual errors, for example:

Leviticus 11:6 states that rabbits chew their cud.

Leviticus 11:20-23 speaks of four-legged insects, including grasshoppers.

1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 state that the earth is immobile; yet it not only revolves and orbits the sun but is also influenced by the gravitational pull of other bodies.

and Contradictions:

In Genesis 1, Adam is created after other animals; In Genesis 2, he appears before animals.

Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 differ over Jesus' lineage.

Mark 14:72 differs from Matthew 26:74-75, Luke 22:60-61, and John 18:27 about how many times the cock crowed.

2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 differ over who incited David to take a census.

1 Samuel 31:4-5 and 2 Samuel 1:5-10 differ over Saul's death.

The four Gospels differ about many details of Christ's death and resurrection. For example, Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 have different inscriptions on the cross.

Matthew 27:5-8 differs with Acts 1:18-19 about Judas's death.

Genesis 9:3 and Leviticus 11:4 differ about what is proper to eat.

Romans 3:20-28 and James 2:24 differ over faith versus deeds.

Exodus 20:5, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9 disagree with Ezekiel 18:4,19-20 and John 9:3 about sins being inherited."

C. Genesis' Incorrect Timeline.
Supposedly "infallible" Genesis has the natural timeline totally wrong.

"The creation account in Genesis 1 lists ten major events in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts and mammals; (10) man."

"The real order is: (1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere; (5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man and more of the various animals and plants."

IV. Logical Objections to Blind Theism (a.k.a. Debunking Pascal's Wager):

A. There is no point in believing in a God, even if one does exist, when one knows nothing about this deity's nature or expectations. For example, God could be benevolent and care about one's actions. Or, God could be malevolent and care about one's actions. Or, God could be benevolent and not care about one's actions. Or, God could be malevolent and not care about one's actions. Saying "I follow the Christian faith just in case God exists" is utterly nonsensical. That would be like somebody saying, "I follow the Satanist faith just in case a malevolent God exists." With limitless plausible possibilities, there is no way one can "be on the safe side" in terms of not offending God. And thus, Pascal's Wager is a loser.

V. Moral Objections to the Christian Conception of God:

A. God's apparent bloodlust.
I'll quote the Scripture:

Now the LORD had said to Moses, "I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely. Tell the people that men and women alike are to ask their neighbors for articles of silver and gold." (The LORD made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and Moses himself was highly regarded in Egypt by Pharaoh's officials and by the people.)
So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt-worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.
Exodus 11 (1-6)

Rather than doing something to the Pharaoh for refusing to let the Israelites go free, God chose to murder every firstborn son in Egypt. What did the poor slave girl do to warrant her firstborn son being murdered? Did the slave girl set the Pharaoh's policies? Did the slave girl's firstborn son set the Pharaoh's policies? Punishing children for the immoral society into which they were born is simultaneously cowardly and cruel. Worshipping the God of Exodus is worshipping a God who apparently engaged in casual infanticide. It is amazing to think that God, who presumably has a totally unlimited pool of options, decided the very best option in this situation was to engage in infanticide.