In order to illustrate that, below are two pictures of the odious David Barker – aspirational federal member for bigotry and ignorance.

Someone feed that man

Casting calls for Star Wars 7

Barker has been disendorsed – and rightly so – by the Liberal party as a direct result of his bigoted comments about atheists and Muslims.

http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/revealed-liberal-candidate-david-barkers-anti-muslim-campaign/story-fn5taogy-1225896534232

The disgraceful Barker describes himself as a “man of strong Christian faith”, and, in a state of apparent psychotic delusion suggested that he was “going to win this seat… claim it as mine and when I get in I will give my votes all of them to God who is on the side of the Liberal Right”.

He then went on to accuse non-Christians of “worshipping a false god”, attacking Julia Gillard for being an “atheist” and his opponent Ed Husic, for being a  “strong Moslem”.

At the same time, he described federal Liberal leader, Tony Abbott as “God’s mouthpiece in politics” before going on to say “I don’t believe God would have called me to run in this seat if he didn’t expect me to win,”

Clearly this man is delusional, a clear case for atheism if I have ever seen one. Perhaps he isn’t to blame however, he looks like he is merely half a chromosome away from being burdened with Down Syndrome.

It is hard to take someone seriously when they mention an Invisible Sky Monkey at the best of times, but when someone then goes on to say things like:

“I vote for freedom of worship if the worship is of Jesus Christ or The Jewish God anyone else well they are worshipping a false god anyway so who cares.”

“Voting should only be voluntary for Liberal and National voters the rest can not bother since with every vote they bring the nation closer to the brink of disaster and closer to the hands of a (sic)muslim country.”

“Someone get me into parliament … and watch me go. They will see my talent as the voice of … God himself.”

… it is obvious that there is something not quite right in the rats nest of synapses that they call a “brain”.

To summarise what this clown has said:

• An Invisible Sky Monkey speaks to him
• His Invisible Sky Monkey is the only real Invisible Sky Monkey
• Freedom is ok, so long as it is the kind of freedom that he approves of
• Only people who subscribe to his extreme views should be allowed to vote

It is scary that such a warped, delusional and bigoted individual was ever endorsed by a major political party in the first place. I could understand those twisted clowns at Family First or the CDP running with such an ignorant candidate, even putting him up on a pedestal and plastering Australia with posters of his deluded visage – but the Liberals?

A cynic might suggest that this kind of bottom feeding, disgusting individual; is exactly the kind of person who appeals to the traditional “aspirational” Liberal heartland (those inherent racists who don’t make enough money to be a Liberal voter though have delusions of grandeur and hope to one day be able to afford a bottle, not a cask of wine) – though one must give kudos to the “muscular Catholic”, the “mad monk”, Tony Abbott for the swift punishment that he dished out to the detestable Barker.

He was disendorsed and Abbot said: he is “gone, he’s finished”. “Attacks on people based on their religion have no place in this election campaign,”

A reasonably brave move given that he is running against an atheist and risks alienating the Christian right… actually, what the fuck am I saying, the Christian right are rusted on conservative voters come hell or high water. Still, I have to give credit where it is due, and Abbott is either maturing as a leader and a human being during this campaign or has some very talented advisors grooming him 24×7.

At the heart of the issue though is something that the slug like Barker himself raised:

‘But I don’t know if we want at this stage in Australian politics a Muslim in the parliament and an atheist running the government.’

Of course, a fundamentalist Christian is in a much better position to tell us what we can and can’t do in both our public and private life, because the one true god speaks to him and is on his side.

Religion has no place in politics, be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism, Scientology or any other kind of paranormal whackiness. Politics should always be based on pragmatism, logic and reason – what is best for the people no matter what their creed.

Odious, bigoted, ignorant, detestable cretins like David Barker have no place in our political landscape (or in civilised society) and we, one and all, atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, humanist, Hindu, Sikh, worshipper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster alike; should unite to ensure that these vile human beings are never afforded a position of power in our society.

Recently, a tweet caught my eye.

Posted by @mmaryannwright - it was a link to a story about two couples who were suing a hospital for failing to detect that their children were carrying the condition Trisomy 21

The allegation is that ante-natal testing was negligent and failed to detect the presence of the condition.

The parents claim that had they been made aware of the presence of the condition that they would have terminated their respective pregnancies.

The couples are suing for the depression, shock and anxiety that they have suffered as a result of having believed that they were to have a healthy child, free from defect; only to discover that they in fact were presented with a child with a chromosomal disorder.

They are also seeking compensation for the continuing costs of raising a child with such a disorder.

One of the children also suffers heart, kidney and thyroid problems and can’t walk.

The tweet that accompanied the link was:

These kind of people make me sick

That is her opinion, that is fine. I don’t know her personal circumstance, whether or not she has raised a disabled child or has a disabled sibling and as such, it would be wrong of me to form an opinion about her as a result of her tweet.

What struck me though was that in saying what she did – that they made her “sick”, she appeared to show absolutely no empathy for what the couples in question experienced.

To declare my hand (I am not going to say “pro choice” – such a misnomer) – I believe that people have the right to make an informed choice about matters which have the potential to impact their lives, adversely or otherwise.

I replied and the conversation want this way:

What I took issue with was the arrogance implicit in what this person was saying.

“These kind of people” make her “sick”.

No explanation as to why, just a judgement, no explanation as to whether or not she had walked a kilometre in their shoes, just a scathing character assessment that throughout the fragmented Twitter conversation, appeared to show a complete inability of this individual to empathise with four distressed human beings.

In her final comment to me; she said “I hope for your sake you’re trolling.”

The supreme arrogance of such a statement, along with this persons willingness to condemn people for being so terrible as to be desirous of having a choice; tells me a lot about her character, values and morals.

I will leave you to make your own assessment of this person – without knowing her personal circumstances, it would be wrong of me to perform an analysis of her character.

What I will say however is that nobody has the right to judge a fellow human being without knowing what that person has experienced, what their personal circumstances are.

Unfortunately a driving force behind the judgement of the actions of others is religion.

To suggest that abortion is wrong, that same sex relationships are abhorrent, that an unmarried woman is unfit to be the leader of a nation, that women are inferior to men – these are the constructs of religion.

Interestingly, and I am not suggesting that the person who tweeted the original tweet is religious, not for one moment – but the religious who condemn things such as abortion, homosexuality and the like forget that in their sacred text, it says:

Leviticus 21:

16 Then the Lord said to Moses,
17 “Give the following instructions to Aaron: In all future generations, none of your descendants who has any defect will qualify to offer food to his God.
18 No one who has a defect qualifies, whether he is blind, lame, disfigured, deformed,
19 or has a broken foot or arm,
20 or is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or has a defective eye, or skin sores or scabs, or damaged testicles.
21 No descendant of Aaron who has a defect may approach the altar to present special gifts to the Lord. Since he has a defect, he may not approach the altar to offer food to his God.
22 However, he may eat from the food offered to God, including the holy offerings and the most holy offerings.
23 Yet because of his physical defect, he may not enter the room behind the inner curtain or approach the altar, for this would defile my holy places. I am the Lord who makes them holy.”

For mine, this is the “sacred book” of the Christians vigorously promoting abortion.

Of course they had to get the “testicles” in there didn’t they? Jesus Christ – why are they all so obsessed with sex?!

As such, no true Christian can condemn abortion for “theraputic” reasons if they wish to claim that they honour the word of their god.

UPDATE

After I posted this, the tweets from the individual in question were (read from bottom up) somewhat amusing. I didn’t bite back and was quite nice to her, providing my email address should she wish to discuss the matter and offering her an unfettered, unedited right of reply on this page.

To date, she hasn’t accepted.

Defamation?

Some people claim that a Mexican gardener speaks to them.

Others still, assert that this (strangely Anglo looking, based on “artists impressions”) 2010 year old Jewish zombie asks them to do naughty things and vilify others in his name.

Well… they don’t actually have their own personal Jesus.

I do.

I don’t have much need for keys.

I live in a world of fingerprint and retinal scanners, swipe cards and security codes. I only possess two keys.

Still, they are important keys.

I have, for as long as I can remember; had a problem with losing and misplacing my two keys.

In the past two months however, I have never once misplaced them, lost them, been unable to find them or forgotten them.

The reason is thus:

Two months ago, a good friend of mine went to America -- land of the giant Jesus, where over half the population have a personal relationship with this wizard from ancient times.

America is the Mecca for Christians really. Creationism is rife, you can’t get elected to public office unless you speak to the invisible sky monkey (all credit to The Princess of Yesterday for that -- even though it angers my winged monkeys), there are excellent public services such as being able to write letters to heathens for them to read when The Rapture comes and you are whisked away to fellate angels on a cloud somewhere…

It is, I am told, a wondrous place.

Anyway, when my friend came back, he came back bearing gifts (and no, he is not Greek).

My swag of goodies included a poster of Chairman Mao and a Jesus keyring.

The Good Chairman was immediately framed and hung centrally in my lounge room…

Fuck me, that was spooky, as I write this, the haggard old woman on The Catherine Tate show mentioned Chairman Mao… god moves in mysterious ways.

Well fuck me twice… the next skit on the show just paraphrased a tweet from the aforementioned Princess of Yesterday -- “footprints on the heart”.

I think that Jesus *is* speaking to me… mind you the prick hasn’t given me the Powerball numbers yet.

Anyway, before I meander too far off track -- they were very thoughtful gifts, the kind that someone who has taken the time to get to know you, but loves a good wind up would give.

After hanging the Chairman up, I strung Jesus… er, attached my keys to the Plastic Saviour.

It isn’t just any plastic saviour -- it has a button that; when pressed, allows a bright light to shine out from ‘neath his robes. It is the kind of light I imagine that people see when they are dying and their brain is starved of oxygen.

It is most useful at times.

To get to the point though, ever since I affixed my keys to my own personal Jesus, I haven’t once misplaced them, never lost them, never forgotten them.

It is almost as if Plastic Jesus is my keys shepherd and they shall not want.

Whilst this trinket hasn’t yet made me lie down in pastures green, it has often lead me by quiet waters and never once abandoned me.

This has given me pause for thought, perhaps the zombie Jewish Mexican gardener cum carpenter who speaks to others is trying to speak to me.

Perhaps he is constructing some kind of living metaphor for me -- that where as once my keys were lost, now they are found; and, whilst he watches over them, never again shall they meander aimlessly through life…

It is all very confusing to me and I must confess (with thanks to The Catholic Church) that I am not waving but drowning.

Perhaps this is a sign.

Perhaps I have been chosen.

Perhaps soon I shall be given my sacred mission.

Perhaps I will reach out and touch faith…

I was inspired to write this little rant after having read this hilarious piece by “Pastor” Daniel Nalliah:

Religious nutter claims Australia is doomed because we have an atheist PM

Two screws loose and a microphone

Now you would be forgiven for thinking that the above link is a pisstake, but unfortunately; it isn’t.

Strangely though, I find myself appreciating the unprecedented audience that the Internet in its current form gives the religious nutters.

They, better than any atheist – Dawkins and Hitchens included – provide a potent deterrent to those wavering in their “faith” or those considering absconding from reason.

They also do a better job of parodying religious belief than the likes of the wonderful people over at Landover Baptist

The fellow who wrote the article on that site is also the fellow who claimed that his god murdered people in  bushfires throughout Australia. The reason? Because he was angry with homosexuals.

This fraud then goes on to say:

“Then we stretched our hands over federal parliament and prayed for ungodly leaders in parliament to be removed and righteousness to be restored”

“Many Christian Leaders believed that Kevin Rudd was God’s man for the hour and promoted him as many Christians voted for Labor in that election.   Unfortunately, due to a lack of spiritual discernment by much of the Church , Kevin Rudd was elected as PM.  He was not God’s choice, but the people’s choice.  God gave the people what they asked for”

Yes with a maybe, no with a but.

Preach to me, preach to me now - 1902 GODHATESFAGS

This kind of rubbish, the “it is god’s will” or the “he is omniscient but gives us choice” type argument is not only illogical, but it makes it impossible to have a reasoned, logical conversation with anyone of religious belief.

Those of us who have engaged in debate or discussion with fundamentalists know that it can be frustrating – and is, indeed, ultimately a waste of one’s time.

It isn’t just the fundamentalists though, that it is pointless attempting to discuss “faith” rationally with.

Faith, by its very nature, is incompatible with reason.

Why? For many reasons, but one of them is:

Because there is always a caveat.

In the case of Nalliah, his twisted caveat invokes free choice in the face of omniscience.

He is loathe to admit that when he and his deluded friends talk to their imaginary friend, nothing more than a reinforcement of their own delusions is achieved – yet who is he to question the whims and fancy of this all knowing, all wise sky pixie?

Instead of admitting that he is delusional, or that he is – point blank wrong – it is so much easier to invoke the tired old cliché of “god works in mysterious ways”, or “he is testing his people”.

Put simply:

• - Nalliah and his deluded flock prayed that the godless heathens would be removed from power
• - The most pious and piously arrogant Prime Minister we have ever had assumed office
• - Said PM, Kevin Rudd – conducted pressers from his church every Sunday morning
• - Said overtly pious PM was replaced by, gods forbid, an atheist (and a woman – let not that significance go unnoticed)
• - Ergo, Kevin Rudd was a tool of Satan and has been replaced by a heathen who will lead all Australians toward a fiery pit unless they vote for the fundamentalist Catholic Tony “The Mad Monk” Abbott

This is his god’s plan.

Nalliah is obviously missing several vital synapses in the rats nest that he indulgently calls a brain, but how is he any different than the “moderate” believers who cherry pick from the bible citing such inanities as “well, it is an anecdote, a message on how to live your life”.

No.

You either take the bible chapter and verse or you don’t take it at all.

At least fruitcakes like Nalliah and his flock have the courage of their insane convictions and completely ignore modern science, wisdom, proof, evidence and logic in favour of the superstitions of ignorant shepherds of aeons past.

The worst kind of believer is he or she who decides instead to attempt to flirt with modern knowledge yet tentatively clutches at the straws of ancient ignorance through a disheartening fear of their own mortality.

If you think that that is harsh, ask a “moderate” Christian if they believe in the story of Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, if they subscribe to everything mentioned in Leviticus.

I would be willing to bet my left testicle that they present to you a caveat.

The “moderate” Christians will look you in the eye and tell you that their god didn’t answer their prayer for a child dying of leukaemia because it was “his will”, yet will happily turn around and claim that their prayer for rain or the success of a friends child at a job interview was granted.

Doesn’t sound like the will of an omnipotent being to me.

Of course we know better than to stone homosexuals and adulterers to death in this day and age (do we?), though yes, this man called Jesus died and rose again, turned water into wine and raised a man from the dead…

Yes, of course, and bushfires, earthquakes, tsunamis and the like can’t be explained by science – they are of course a sign from a sky pixie unhappy with same sex attraction, abortion or an atheist Prime Minister.

Personally, I am excited about the elevation of Julia Gillard to the office of Prime Minister of Australia.

I don’t give a toss that she is a woman (or more importantly, a ranga), unmarried and childless – how do any of those things impact on the ability of a person to conduct themselves in the best interests of the nation?

They don’t, but we are, of course, going to see the tired old clichés that revolve around such issues wheeled out ad infinitum by the unthinking majority; particularly those of a conservative bent.

Such ignorance has already been displayed by a percentage of those commenting on a humourous article by Carrie Miller on The Punch:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/gillard-is-doing-it-for-all-the-unmarried-barren-atheists/

Miller is obviously pre-empting the drivel that will be sprouted by the ignoramuses who actually seem to genuinely believe that ones contribution to society can be mesaured by the amount of children they have or their dedication to “traditional Xian values”.

To those “good Christian people” who would argue that Gillard being unmarried and childless poses a threat to the very fabric of society, renders her somehow unfit to govern, I would ask one simple question:

- How many of their popes over the past several hundred of years have been married or fathered and raised children?

I suppose that that is where I feel that the bleating about those matters should be put to bed.

Onto the mumblings about Ms Gillard’s alleged atheism or agnosticism.

Why does that matter either?

In the 2006 Census, the religious affiliations (or lack thereof) of Australians was recorded like this (courtesy of abs.gov.au):

Total Xians – 12,685,836

of the total Xians, the following denominations were somewhat lacking in numbers:

Baptist    316,738
Jehovah’s Witnesses    80,919
Mormons    53,199
Hillsong    219,689
Salvation Army    64,200
Seventh-day Adventist    55,251
Uniting Church    1,135,427

A total of 1,925,423 vocal Xian minorities.

Of the non Xians, there were:

148,119 Hindus, 340,392 Muslims and 88,831 Jews.

Those who identified as having no religion number an impressive 3,706,555 and those who don’t list a religious affiliation are at 2,223,957.

In all, there are more “heathens” in Australia than there are Hindus, Muslims, Jews and fundamentalist Xians combined.

You will often hear politicians trotting out the loathsome adage that we are apparently a “Christian nation”, yet the figures don’t bear that out – particularly when one considers that less than 20% of all Xians in this country attend church on a regular basis.

Personally I feel that a lack of religious affiliation is a positive in a leader, particularly when the alternative option has allowed his fundemantalist Catholic views to influence his policy making when he was health minister under Howard and tried to prevent the legal use of RU486, the “abortion drug”.

Certainly, when Tony Abbott, the “Mad Monk” has also gone on the record saying that he “feels threatened” by homosexuals becayse they challenge “orthodox notions of the right order of things”.

http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-gay-people-challenge-right-order-of-things/story-e6frfkvr-1225838477260

Do we really want to go down the George W Bush path of allowing the separation of church and state to become so blurred with a Prime Minister who will allow his policy decisions to be shaped by his unwavering belief in superstitions from several thousand years past?

Do we want to regress and enter a dark age in a modern Australia whereby homosexuals are demonised, woman are not permitted to make their own choices – or do we want a progressive, modern Australia where reason and logic are valued above superstition?

Had Rudd stayed in power, I would have been unable to vote for either of the major parties and would have parked my vote as a protest, somewhere else.

Now that we have a clear and decisive choice – between a strong, dedicated, hard working, pragmatic, disciplined ranga and an emotional, superstitious, fundamentalist loose cannon – my decision has been made quite easy.

My tip – Labor with an increased majority at the next election (to be held in August).

PS – I reckon that Julia would look a lot better in budgie smugglers as well

It didn’t disappoint and I look eagerly forward to the next episode.

Safran , a cynical, skeptical Jew, has mastered the art of being “offensive” without managing to offend. No matter how controversial his pranks and stunts are, it is almost impossible to become outraged by anything that he does.

I think that that may possibly be because he seems so fragile, non threatening, nerdy, and to a point, almost timid.

Of course it is all part of the act and one which has seen him get away with such stunts as running naked past the Wailing Wall, apply for membership of the KKK after telling them he was a Jew and go doorknocking in Salt Lake City, Utah -- telling those who opened the door that there was no god.

That said, the ABCs director of TV warned “sensitive” viewers to stay away from the show.

I don’t think that it would get an airing in places like the US or Iran…

Below is a promo video for the series and underneath it, a link to an MP4 of episode one of the show for those who live outside Australia.

Enjoy.

Race Relations -- Episode 1

Acts 9:11:

And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth

Praise be to the superstitious peasants that wrote it and those re-wrote it all those years later in one of the earliest recorded examples of censorship.

This is clearly evidence of a prophecy of some kind and I must devote myself to investigating just why this ancient tome was able to predetermine the existence of both the internets and my cat so many many years ago.

Actually, no I shan’t, I shall just deify my cat and claim tax exempt status for my website and associated costs  and then I shall go about ignoring the rest of the sacred text because it doesn’t suit me.

Hmm, I like this whole religious idea…

I prefer direct evidence, logic and reason.

It is interesting to note though, that in the past 48 hours, there seems to have been a pattern of what appears to be a deliberate attempt to silence critical opposition to reason.

Firstly there was the sustained and continuing DDoS attack on the atheist convention website http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/.

Due to the technical nature of what has happened here, with the attacks moving to the IP after the domain name was null routed and then the new IP being subsequently attacked, one could make the assertion that this was a targetted attack on logic, reason and freedom of thought by those who feared it in some way.

There is an article in The Age on the attack on the atheist convention website.

Today, we have seen the twitter trending topic “no god” suddenly disappear and be replaced with “know god”.

The “no god” topic, started by a theist http://www.examiner.com/x-8776-Boston-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m10d20-No-God-war-raging-on-Twitter seemed to backfire when rationalists, humanists, secularists, atheists and free thinkers decided to have a bit of fun.

Religious types became somewhat outraged by this, though in their outrage, assisted the topic in trending by repeating the phrase and adding the #nogod hashtag.

A war waged, with the theists becoming increasingly upset and leading many people to speculate that twitter had censored the “no god” topic due to pressure by religious organisations for fear that they may offend them.

As we know, one is not supposed to question “faith”, it just isn’t polite to suggest that a grown adult has conversations with themselves inside their own mind (unless of course they have a certificate).

Perhaps it wasn’t due to pressure by the theists, perhaps it was just due to “operational reasons” and the amount of fail whales that began to appear as the topic trended, but both of the aforementioned events raise an interesting point:

Why do religious types feel so threatened by people advocating logic and reason and daring to question their unsubstantiated “faith”?

The DDoS attack on the atheist convention website is clearly the work of persons or groups who are offended or outraged by the thought of a viewpoint that differs to their own and, instead of engaging in robust debate in a supposedly free society, they seek to silence any opposition to their view.

Perhaps they have gnawing self doubts and are terrified that and exposure to critical thinking, reason and logic will disrupt their blissful ignorance or perhaps they are just conforming to the theistic stereotype that makes a wonderful argument for the “slippery slope” that leads to such wonderful things as theocracy.

The outpouring of outrage by theists when “no god” was trending is another example of this. Instead of engaging critically, there was, to paraphrase the Nazarene; “much wailing and gnashing of teeth”.

Typical of the “very christian” sentiment espoused is this lovely piece:

“@PrttyBella All #nogod supporters shouldve been ABORTED & im against it but ima have 2 do an exception #GOODISGOOD!!!!!!!!!! ( #No God )”

One does wonder why a group, so convinced by their beliefs and “faith” that some of them are willing to die for it (and all of them are content to abdicate reason) would need to behave in such a manner that seeks to silence their opposition, rather than one that seeks to prove their postulations.

One possible reason could be that they know that their position is untenable, and, like a petulant child that covers its ears and screams out “lalalalalalalala” when faced with a request that they wish to ignore; have chosen to create white noise and interference instead.

It is sad that human nature has yet to evolve to the point whereby we can all engage critically and without fear; and that some people use the technology that science has bequeathed us with to engage in modern day crusades.

An evaluation of the trending topics in this debate can be seen here:

http://religionlulz.blogspot.com/2009/10/twitter-censorship.html

Footnote: It seems as if the “Know god” trending topic has now been given the ability to search for either “no god” or “know god” from twitter’s website:

http://twitter.com/search?q=”Know+God”+OR+”no+god”

The topic name as represented on the site however has been changed from “no god” to “know god”

Conspiracy theories aside, that seems somewhat suspicious.

Faith.

How do I know that believing is easy?

I used to believe; for a very short while. Until I was eight. About the same time I stopped believing in Santa, I also stopped believing in a god.

Prayer was comforting, it gave me the sense that merely by thinking repetitive thoughts that those people whom I cared about and indeed myself would be kept safe by some invisible, magical being.

It was also nice, when people I loved passed away, to think of them watching over me and that when I too passed away, I would see them again.

Actually, that isn’t comforting or nice, it is really pretty sick and twisted and a complete abdication of rational thought.

This isn’t the time to discuss a topic which has been done to death however.

What I am interested in tonight is becoming a theist again.

Yes my fellow heathens, heretics and godless ones; you heard me correctly.

I am prepared to become a theist.

Of course this comes with a caveat; what doesn’t these days?

I am hereby offering my reason, my logic, my rational thought, my reality as a prize to any theist who can meet a very simple challenge.

Show me that I am wrong.

The rules are quite simple, all you have to do is prove that something in the list below is true beyond any reasonable doubt, using logic, reason, critical thinking and rationality; and I will convert to your poison of choice.

There has to be an asterisk in there somewhere, and of course there is.

• If you wish to quote a holy text as irrefutable proof of your supposition, you must be able to demonstrate that you abide by *everything* within that text and view it as the literal word of your deity without exception.
• Anecdotal evidence is not permitted. We all know some guy who knows some girl who had this aunty who chewed peppermint leaves and beat cancer.
• You must demonstrate a knowledge of the complete history of your religion of choice.
• You must provide compelling evidence for your lack of belief in pagan gods and goddesses and/or the deities of other religions.

Quite simple really…

Anyway, my list, prove any one thing on this list in accordance with my rules and I will convert without question:

• Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven
• Homosexuality is evil
• The holy spirit exists
• Believers will be rewarded with immortality upon death
• Marriage is a blessing from god that can only exist between a man and a woman
• Jesus existed
• A sky god created the world
• A god exists
• Humans have a soul
• atheists are immoral

That is it, a few to choose from I think.

If you want to take up the challenge, please leave a comment below.

Without digressing too much into matters of my mental state however, I shall forge on with the train of thought that I briefly alluded to a mere paragraph ago.

I watched an old episode of Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit” last night from season three. It was called “family values” and the objective was to lay to rest the notion that the “traditionally accepted” nuclear family comprising of one man, one woman and offspring; was the only acceptable form of a family.

In their own inimitable way, they did a wonderful job of laying waste to the conservatives of our world have touted as being the only acceptable kind of family unit.

It would be surprising if anyone with a differing viewpoint was swayed, however compassionate and compelling the evidence though…

They canvassed various scenarios:

• a lesbian couple raising children
• two married couples who cohabited and had an all encompassing communal love
• “normal” marriage
• a “gay converter” (who apparently used to be gay – and in reality still is, he wasn’t foolig anyone)

They took views from people on both sides of the fence, and for mine, it did more than just highlight that we are a society that consists of many varied lifestyles, choices, beliefs, relationships, creeds and sexualities; it gave rise to some feelings of deep anger.

The anger was borne of the extrapolated consequence of the fact that there are some sections of society who deem it appropriate to discriminate against people based upon their sexuality.

Fear not dear reader, this isn’t going to turn into a gay bashers bashing rant, though that will form a pivotal point of the hypothesis that I will eventually meander around to.

I am straight (much to the disbelief of people in some of the establishments I frequent) and would probably class myself as being around 0.5 on the Kinsey Scale – the only reason that I wouldn’t be a 1 is because the thought of homosexuality is just a little too messy for me to get off on it (that and a lack of sexual attraction to men) though the notion of balls slapping together during double penetration has some kind of drunken kinky appeal – but enough of that.

Even though I personally find the thought of sucking another mans cock unappealing, does it mean that I should be outraged at the thought of two consenting male adults to whom it does appeal; offensive?

Of course it doesn’t.

Fuck me, I am kind of envious that it is something that doesn’t appeal to me – imagine those nights on the piss with your mates when none of you picked up and all ended up back at someones house playing Playstation or Euchre or just dribbling shit into the wee hours.

How much better would it be if you were all bi and could just fuck one another before retiring?

Anyway, that isn’t my point.

My point centres on two issues:

• hypocrisy
• intolerance

I will make some assertions here:

- I have never met an atheist who:

• is homophobic
• opposes polygamy
• believes that morality is defined by sexuality

- Conversely, a large percentage of the Christians I know:

• are homophobic (thank you Leviticus)
• oppose polygamy (except for the Mormons if they count as Christians)
• believe that morality is defined by a sun god and a dusty old book

To wander off for a moment…

The primary issue I have with organised religion is not the concept of an old bearded man who sits up there in the sky:

• casting judgement
• exhorting his followers to commit acts of vileness
• demanding obedience and obsequiousness
• sanctioning bigotry
• encouraging the abdication of responsibility
• giving his minions the desire to attempt to cast scientific though back thousands of years
• threatening all those who use reason to disbelieve with an eternity of sodomy in hades

… and everything else that one could argue a deity encourages in feeble of mind…

My primary issue with organised religion is that; without question; it engenders hypocrisy.

This has always been my foremost concern – probably because I was raised a Catholic, but that is a tale for another day.

Without meandering too much further, this hypocrisy can be illustrated in no better way than in the issue of tolerance/intolerance.

The push to repress homosexual men and women does not come from the secular portion of society, it comes from the theistic portion.

It is based not upon the teachings of “Jesus” with whom many of them (men included) claim to have a “personal relationship“, nor on any of the “teachings” of the new testament, rather it is based on the anachronistic diatribe of the old testament, particularly Leviticus.

I wont go into it here, @Monicks has already posted a superb article on it here – but the point is that the outrage shown by modern day Christians toward same sex attrition and unions is based upon the ramblings of uneducated, superstitious peasants.

It isn’t because these supposedly moral people who follow the teachings of a man who paradoxically said advised both:

“If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also” (Luke)

and

“I come not in peace, but to bring a sword” (Matthew)

… choose to discriminate based upon sexuality, or indeed discriminate at all:

It is because they bleat constantly about tolerance of their beliefs, their “faith”, their religious views and how terrible it is that they aren’t allowed, in a secular society, to foist them without restraint upon others; yet refuse to offer other people the same sanctity that they themselves seek.

They demand “religious tolerance”, so long as it refers only to their particular flavour of fairytale.

Whilst we live in a supposedly secular society, you can’t buy take away alcohol in some states in Australia on “Good Friday” because the Christians want us all to sacrifice something for their beliefs.

Every year, we hear some Christian religious leader on television and radio bleating about how “Christ has been taken out of Xmas”.

We hear Christian political leaders droning on and on about how marriage is the “sacred union between a man and a woman and needs to be respected”.

The leader of the Catholic church in Australia, a certified bigot, Cardinal George Pell refuses to give communion to gay Catholics and yet demands respect for the “Christian traditions” of Easter and Xmas (despite the fact that they were plagiarised from the pagans) by secular and non Christian society…

Is there a pattern here?

Do unto others only as I wish to do unto them, so long as it fits in with my rigid and antiquated, arcane belief structure and doesn’t contravene the contradictory teachings of superstitious peasants from many thousands of years ago, despite what we now know about morality and science.

It annoys me greatly that people are capable of demanding respect for their “faith” – something that they have chosen to immerse themselves in despite all logical evidence to the contrary, yet refuse to respect people based upon the sexuality that they were born with; and to play devil’s advocate; that their god created them with.

It is the “do as I say, not as I do” mentality, the inherent hypocrisy of so many religious types that annoys me more than their illogical belief structure, their fear of their own mortality.

What annoys me more though, is the damage that this hypocrisy has on innocent, moral, decent people who are merely living out a life in accordance with the way that genetics and evolution designed them.

My final word on the matter is:

If religious types want secular society to respect and tolerate their beliefs (which it has been for hundreds of years), then they need to reciprocate and begin tolerating others.

They could do a lot worse than following the example of @FatherBob.