

### A book written by P.J. Lowry

##  OUTSPOKEN:

Confessions of a Devout Atheist

### Published at Smashwords.com

### Copyright 2013, P.J. Lowry

### License Note:

Thank you for downloading this ebook. This book remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes.

If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download their own copy at Smashwords.com where they can also discover other works by this author.

Thank you for your support.

I guess there's no better place to start.

In the beginning there was... nothing.

I'm just guessing here because I wasn't really around when it all started. Truth is nobody was. We can't even agree on where the beginning started as the answer changes depending on who you ask. According to some scientists the universe is billions of years old, which long predates not only our species but the planet that supports us. This is where we come to the theory of the big bang, the moment when non-matter turned into matter and the universe just came to be. Then we have the side of those who are religious, who happen to believe that this plane we inhabit is only six thousand years old and was the product of a creation that only took seven days to accomplish. Without a shred of evidence (unlike evolution that has countless fossils and data to back up its claim) we can pretty much go with the conclusion that the whole idea of 'creative design' is pure, unadulterated, grade A bullshit. Until someone can come forward with something other than faith, why on earth should anyone ever consider it?

Let's get this one out of the way first: Faith is not evidence. Not a single court of law accepts hearsay as evidence, so why should we the public accept that when selecting which higher being (if any) to worship? If you want me to believe that there is an almighty intangible parent figure that shakes a hand at us from over three thousand years ago, living in a celestial place in the clouds to party with your soul with it's all said and done, I'm going to need a little more than faith to believe these extraordinary claims. To paraphrase the late great Dr. Carl Sagan, "no one should ever be afraid to pursue the extraordinary, but extra ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

People have tried to call my atheism something that runs on faith. It does not because my decision to not follow religion was made based on a lack of evidence. I refused to follow because there is no enough evidence to suggest that anyone should follow any religion. There is just about as much evidence to support these fairytales then there is to follow tales about seven dwarves, a galaxy far, far away or one ring to rule them all. We don't follow those stories because we know they're fiction and I choose not to follow organized religion for the same reason: they are not real based on an absence of evidence.

But that isn't where it all started for me. The beginning of the end for religion started in Sunday school, which was every Sunday morning in the school that I attended my first four years in. It was ironic that my Sunday school was being hosted by a public school, something I doubt you'd see happen today but mine was. It was just down the street from my house and I'm sure my parents loved the idea of dumping the kids onto someone else every Sunday for a few hours. My parents had three boys, myself being the middle child, and while I am sure they enjoyed every little break they got, it wasn't meant to be for very long. I got bored of these classes, didn't pay attention and even started trouble to prevent myself from dying of boredom. Finally my parents were told that I wasn't welcome in Sunday school anymore, I was too disruptive and didn't respect the class to the point where it would affect their ability to 'spread the word' to the other kids. With one kid coming home, my parents failed to see why they should bother letting anyone go and we all came back home and never went to Sunday school again. My older brother is agnostic now, and I suspect the same for my little brother so I guess I could take responsibility for it but I can't assume that. There is a good chance my brothers have their own story and a different path they took to get to where they stand today so I won't assume that anything that happened in my life defined their non belief.

The reason why I can't assume that is because leaving Sunday school didn't make me an atheist as that didn't happen until many years later, but I am sure it was the first of many dominoes. We never went to church mainly because I think we were so busy during the week that my parents needed every moment of the weekend to catch up on all the other normal stuff parents do around the house that they couldn't afford time for God. There's a very good chance that my parents reluctance to attend services prevented my young and impressionable mind from being systematically brainwashed into believing something that just isn't so. For that lucky break, I truly should take a moment to be thankful to my parents for not dragging me out there every week like so many unfortunate kids were forced to for most if not all of their fragile and impressionable childhoods. I was baptised an Anglican but I never willingly participated in any other functions after that. In my early teens I had began to question everything around me and at that point it was only a matter of time.

I can clearly remember when I made my first stand for atheism. When I was in high school, here was a group of teens that I hung out with every morning before class started. We had to take the bus to school and as a result we were there almost an hour before class started, so we hung out and chatted about everything. We used those mornings to talk about everything we could think of from sports to politics and eventually we did come to religion. When religion came up, I usually didn't say much but when I was finally asked where I stood on the issue that was the earliest time I can remember rejecting religion completely. I flat out said that I didn't believe in fairy tales and that without evidence to the contrary, I never would believe these stories either.

"You're an atheist?" one of my friends then asked.

I paused for a moment and pondered the question. I had been questioning religion and its legitimacy for a while now, but never had accepted any labels that came with it. But sitting there in the hallway in front of my locker, in front of only a few friends, I had accepted the only label with regards to religion. I had indeed become an atheist.

My mother didn't take it very well and my Dad could care less. She blamed herself for not making time for church, resulting in my eventual rebellion of it. Turns out she was partially correct, as the lack of systematic brainwashing as a young child prevented me from becoming a follower of the church and gave me the space and time to think and work things out myself. She might consider that a bad thing but to this day if given the chance I would thank her for not dragging me out there every week.

Almost a half a year after I declared myself an atheist, my mother asked me to attend a Christmas service with her. I didn't like the idea of going anywhere near a church, on Christmas of all days but no one else was going with her and I didn't like the idea of my Mom going out alone, especially since it was snowing out there. So I went to church that cold and frosty evening, and I wasn't the only one. That church was packed to the rafters, standing room only. Was this a church or Maple Leaf Gardens? This is where things went amiss. The minister who was preaching that night was performing to a full house, one he hadn't likely seen in a while. I don't know about you, but if I saw that kind of crowd only show up for Christmas, while I'd wonder where they were the rest of the year I wouldn't be angry at them for showing up today. Chances are many of these people were like my mother, working twelve hours a day to support her family and make ends meet. They didn't show up because they didn't want to; hey had obligations and just didn't have the time. They wanted to be there and when they finally got a few days off from work, what did they do? They showed up to church rather than stayed home and drag eggnog with rum in it. There was also a snow storm raging on outside so there was more than enough excuses not to show up, but this place was packed, standing room only.

To this minister, this could have been the opportunity of a lifetime. Not only to spread the word to a record number, but give everyone a preview of the stuff they'd been missing all year. He also had the chance to pass around the collect plate and make a killing, likely more than double and it wasn't even Sunday! If he nailed this performance tonight, there was a good chance some people who were standing and hurting their legs to be there might be convinced to make the effort to show up this coming Sunday and every Sunday after that. My mother had hinted at it but moments later any chances of that happening went straight to hell, literally.

The minister started off his service by insulting those who decided to show up one day this year, calling them out for being absent every Sunday. He said that not only is he not fooled by their half assed efforts, neither was God. My first instinct was to laugh out loud. Here was this fool talking to a record crowd and the he felt the need to insult them? He should have at least passed the collection plate around first before putting his foot into his mouth because he must have lost a few bucks right there when he said those who showed up were not trying hard enough. Another reason why I didn't laugh was because of my mother, who was on the verge of crying. She had made a great effort to be there and had fought tooth and nail to bring out her atheist son to give him a chance too and it was all for naught. All this minister did that night was give me a ton of additional ammunition to slap religion around with, a lot more than I had before I went in. The final nail in the coffin for religion in my book (remember, this is my book) was when I left home and traveled to attend University. When I was attending Memorial University, I had even more freedom and more access to the information I needed to look into things a lot deeper than I ever had a home or in high school. I befriended a lot more atheists who were living in the dorms and gained a lot of knowledge from them. But the one place where I did a lot of my own educating took place at the University library. Rather than head downtown and drink myself unconscious or hit a movie theatre every week, I had more fun reading about the origin of the species, about science and other great accomplishments of the human race. I went through my own evolution at that library, turning from someone who didn't believe in God and religion into someone who would stand up and argue with anyone who tried to say so in opposition. This is likely when I became an outspoken atheist.

I was no longer content to just accept the truth for myself, I was ready to stand up for it should anyone try to accuse me of being a heathen or any other blasphemy to their cause. Not only had I seen the truth, I was willing to discuss it anytime and anywhere with anyone who was willing to listen. I wasn't going to start knocking on people's doors but should the conversation ever break out at the table or in a cafeteria, I was ready to drop the gloves and start tossing haymakers. Just for kicks, I started to attend courses in Religious Studies just to fill up my schedule when the course I wanted wasn't available. When I took my first Religious Studies course titled 'Introduction to Religious Ethics' which in itself is an oxymoron, my plan was to clash and have fun picking on the professor all summer. Then I found out that my professor was an atheist! That was a bit of a shocker, a non-believer teaching a course about religious ethics. I actually think my professor was thrilled to have me there. Every time one of the more 'religious' students challenged the professor on something, he was holding back cause his job was to educate rather than fight with his students. I actually took the time to challenge them on the merits of their questions, challenging their 'faith' and their church for what I thought they are: frauds. Sometimes about halfway through a debate, one religious person would challenge the professor on a certain issue, such as abortion for example and then I would jump in and a whole debate about theology and its authority would break out. There was one student who I clashed with often and usually a day didn't go by where we didn't lock horns on something. To them I was the militant atheist, dead set against what they believed in and fighting them tooth and nail. That was the first time I had ever really stood up to declare myself as a non-believer. The first time I actually went toe to toe with someone over organized religion and what they meant to me, which was nothing. Something awesome happened in that class, it was like a butterfly emerging from a cocoon. I was never going to follow a church again and to this day I never have. Sure I've stepped foot in one many times out of respect for my loved ones for funerals, weddings and what not. But today I remain as steadfast as I did that day when I stood up for myself in that classroom and here I am writing this book for the exact same reason. I'm not here to convert anyone or to lecture them. This is my own personal declaration of where I stand in this world. You might agree with me and keep this book on your self with the rest of your books or you might be preparing to burn this book at a rally without having read a single page. I have no problem with someone burning this book as long as they purchased it legally (thanks for the royalty) and as long as the fire serves some good purpose, like keeping you warm on a cold winter night along with any other materials you might object to.

As long as this book (or e-book) serves some purpose then it has been successful in my eyes. It is my dream (rather than a hope) that people will read my words and not accept them as a gospel but rather as a helpful suggestion to look at the world just a little differently than they did before and draw their own conclusions with a little common sense. If not, toss another on the fire and stay warm! Though I would not recommend tossing your I-pad or computer onto the fire if this is an electronic copy. That would be quite expensive to replace.

This is not a picture or statement some people like to hear based on observations made around the world but the feelings of the majority does not make it any less true. No one is born a Christian anymore than someone is burn a Muslim or a Buddhist. We become members of those 'faiths' over time whether we are dragged to mass kicking and screaming every Sunday by our God fearing parents or we choose to be born again many, many years later. It's not fate, it's a choice and it always has been. When a child comes into this world, they are all a clean slate. A blank canvas that is itching to be turned into a work of art as we take that canvas and turn it into something that either fits in or gets discarded. It's that kind of pressure that pushed things like religion into someone's life. We are pressured by many serious factors after we are born but it comes in after we are born. It's something that has to be programmed into our system and there are many factors that influence which path we're eventually forced to take.

One major factor that clearly dictates our path is location. Geography is a leading factor to decide what faith or lack there of one occurs in each person. I have told people in countless debates that the fact a major factor that helped me become an atheist was clearly the fact that I was born in Canada. Had I been born into another nation such as Italy or even Saudi Arabia, I likely would not have become an atheist or the odds of it happening were reduced greatly. I fully accept the fact that where I come from and how I was raised opened the door for me to make the choices I did. The fact that I was born in Canada can be attributed to luck because in any other place I likely would have been systematically brainwashed and praising God here, there and everywhere. That means this would have been an entirely different book just by changing where someone was born and raised.

Another factor that dictates where we go in life is our parents. The fact that I had two hard working parents that didn't have much time to do their jobs, raise three boys and find time after that for God. That didn't hurt either. Our house didn't clean itself and despite working their hands to the bone, my parents didn't deserve to spend what little free time they had being told once a week that they are sinners that need to be saved by someone who hasn't been alive for two thousand years despite the fact that he many have never existed in the first place. At this moment I'm not sure where exactly my parents stand with religion, but I suspect my father is agnostic which would explain why he never felt like attending church every Sunday morning. Then again I have two boys of my own and I find them a handful so the idea of taking three boys to church even Sunday wouldn't appeal to me either.

If there was a God up there who really, really wanted my parents to attend church, I'm rather confident that he, she, it or them could have made it happen. They could have provided my father with a winning lottery ticket which would have eased his workload, which in turn would have paid for a nanny to help ease the child care duties and then he would have had plenty of time to show up for church. We could argue could haves or ifs until we're blue in the face, but this is the stance I take when people keep trying to tell me that their deity has a plan. If that's true, then stop getting upset about anything because clearly if it wasn't part of the plan then you would think they'd take care of it themselves, right? Nope and the reason for that is quite simple: there is no God and more importantly there is no grand plan.

I prefer to think that we did this all on our own. We used to be a species of scavengers and we fought and clawed our way to the top of the food chain. The human race did something that is uncanny and likely never happened before in the history of our planet, to rise above the other animals and become the superior species above all others. That is our own achievement through the advancement of evolution, meaning that no Gods or any other supernatural elements had anything to do with it. This was our victory so we alone should enjoy it and bask in our own glory.

Another reason why geography is a major factor is because if clearly dictates a person's access to education. It's no surprise that the nations that offer the most education to their children also happen to be the nations that have the highest percentage of atheists in their populations. This cannot be seen as a coincidence and is something I plan to discuss further in a future chapter but the I'll give the Cole's notes version here: The more education that is provided to a child, the less likely that person is follow the farce that is religion and reject it. That's why I find it very ironic when someone refers to the faith as blind because in order to stop following religion you only have to do one thing: open your eyes.

One major factor that dictates what faith you are likely to follow is the role of your government. If you are living in a nation that promotes freedom, free speech and the freedom to choose where and what you do, your odds of embracing religious dogma reduces greatly. With this freedom comes the ability to explore, the freedom to think and in most cases free thought often leads to questions and that's usually when religion takes a downward spiral. Nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia and even the United States are prime examples of how influential governments can be when the allow religion to muck up their policies. Iran is a bold example of how forced religion can be when the head of your state also happens to be the head of your religion. Polices are based on religious dogma that was set thousands of years ago rather than common sense and the dawning of a new age. As a result women are oppressed, people have to follow the rules of religion or face traditional punishments and any rejection of the state sponsored religion can result in dire and often fatal consequences.

This is a prime example why the founding fathers of the United States sought to create the separation of church and state. They realized even back then that the mixing of the two would create dire consequences that would prevent the country from becoming a truly free and democratic republic. Despite claiming otherwise, religion has never been about freedom as its true goal is to force the masses into strict compliance and outright obedience. The whole concept of democracy and letting the people decide the policy is against what organized religion wants. That's why nations that are ruled by religious leaders are some of the most oppressed peoples on the planet. When you look at nations that give their people the most freedoms, such as Sweden and Norway, they happen to be the nations that have the highest percentage of atheists in the world. The observation you could make from that is quite easy; the less religious a nation is, the more democratic that country truly is.

So do you think I like the idea that some old fart in Rome can make one statement that could affect the lives of over a billion people on this planet? Would you be comfortable with that idea that inventions that could save people from life threatening diseases are being denied because your religious leader believes it's a sin to use stem cells? There are over forty million people in Africa that have HIV and/or AIDS and still the pope thinks using condoms is a bad idea and should only be used by certain people in certain situations rather than all sexual contact with anyone. This kind of reckless policy could kill millions, and still dogma from thousands of years ago is stopping countless life saving medical inventions and procedures to be released. They're being cock blocked by dogma that has no interest in helping people. Religion is only interested in helping itself. So when it comes to matters of health and survival, it would best to ignore what the Vatican has to say because they've been known to make decisions that are only in their own best interests rather than for the good of their flock. People might think their church cares, but let me assure you of something; if they had to choose between risking their own existence and tossing a few million people under the bus, they'd rather stand by and be complacent in the face of genocide rather than put their own neck on the line. The religion that preaches love thy neighbour would rather stand by and watch your house burn rather than risk their own home going up in flames.

Does that really sound like a religion and a God for that matter that truly loves you? This is not that kind of relationship. You have to think about this more as a relationship between a master and its slaves. They are your master and you are expected to do what they say, when they say it and without question. Does that sound like love to you? That sounds like ownership and there's no doubt; religion truly believes they own the people who flock to their congregations.

Picture this if you can. You live next door to a married couple. At first you think they're a very cute couple very much in love but that takes a turn for the worse when you see how her husband acts towards her. She's not given a voice in the household and is expected to do everything he says without question and strict obedience is demanded. If she questions anything, she is met with swift and harsh consequences. Is that your idea of love? Shutting someone down to the point where they are silent and obedient is the complete opposite of freedom and love, but this is exactly how most churches treat their followers as they keep their people in line with threats of eternal damnation in hell. Do as you're told or you're going to burn and be tortured for the rest of time. Following someone because you are afraid of them is not love but sadomasochism, a vile behaviour that should be looked down on by any moral society. Forcing people to be obedient by threatening them with something that isn't even proven to exist is evil, brutal and one reason why it's hard for the masses to break free from religious dogma and do the right thing for simple sake of doing the right thing, not because you don't want to burn in hell. This kind of coercion not something that people are born with, it's ingrained into them through years of systematic abuse and severe brainwashing. This is all forced upon young, impressionable children before they even learn how to think for themselves.

So when people try to tell you that we are born Christian, Muslim or whatever, they couldn't be more wrong. We are a clean slate at the time of our birth, an empty canvas with out a single swipe of paint. We are all born atheists and in order to become religious you have to be taught how through years of learning and being told how to act and think. Usually I like to use this wonderful quote from Stephen Roberts:

"We are all atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. Understand why you dismiss all the other Gods and you will understand why I dismiss yours..."

This is a quote I love to use when trying to describe the difference between myself and those who are of religion. There are hundreds of religions on this planet, and both of us don't follow over 99% of them. The only difference between someone who follows a single religion and myself is that last one percent. I wish those of religious faith would look at the other 99% and examine the reasons why they don't believe those religions. Stephen was right; it's the same reasons why I don't follow theirs. It's that simple and yet so difficult for many to grasp. Those who are forced to follow truly have my pity for they truly are the sheep, blindly following a Sheppard towards the slaughter. They are the true victims of the greatest con ever played on mankind.

What is truly stunning about those who follow organized religion is the clear ignorance they exhibit when referring to their holy works as a source of morality in their daily lives. Such a statement leads me to suggest that they never read the book in question or they just don't understand the meaning of the world morality to begin with. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, morality is defined as the following:

  1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour: the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed

  2. A particular system of values and principles of conduct.

  3. The extent to which an action is right or wrong: the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons

Those who look towards their holy scriptures, such as the bible for example, as their source of morality seems to smack of hypocrisy as there are atrocities described within it that would seem very immoral to those who would read them and attempt to follow its example. This is of course the religion that preaches forgiveness. The bible not only commands people to forgive, but also to refrain from judging or condemning people as well. Luke 6:37 couldn't be apparent when it states:

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

The doctrine is quite clear. People are told not to judge nor condemn people because that's someone else's job. Yet that never stops people from doing just that. Even though forgiveness is supposed to be a leading theme in the bible, you would be shocked to hear that there are at least a dozen crimes that the same book says people must be put to death for committing.

So much for forgiveness.

When you think of all the people who have been murdered in defence of this religion whether it be in the crusades, the inquisition or the even more horrific Salem witch hunts, it leaves observers to even question if this whole 'forgiveness' passage has ever been put into practice. Then there's the death penalty. I wish I was kidding but the very same book that claims you are supposed to forgive your enemy actually endorses capital punishment. Deep within that same bible that orders people to forgive those who sin (or trespass) against them, the following crimes are supposed to be punished by death:

\- Murder (Genesis 9:6)

\- False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:1-10)

\- Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)

\- Incest (Leviticus 20:11-12)

\- Worshipping other gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

\- Rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)

\- If a woman doesn't resist while being raped (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

\- Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)

\- Cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15-17)

\- Sodomy (Leviticus 18:20)

\- Working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14)

\- Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)

\- Cursing God's name (Exodus 22:10)

\- Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)

\- Loss of virginity by a woman prior to marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13)

\- Picking up sticks on a Saturday (Numbers 15: 32-36)

When looking at this brief list of examples, a few thoughts come to mind. So according to the bible, not only do we have to follow the Sabbath but we are not allowed to collect wood on Saturdays? Does this mean that all lumberjacks are going to be condemned to an eternity in hell for working on a Saturday? It's apparently all right to take part in prostitution as long as you are not the daughter of a priest. I didn't think priests were allowed to have daughters since they were supposed to be celibate but I guess this rule is in place just in case some of them can't control their urges.

I find it odd that a woman can be put to death if she is not a virgin on her wedding night but no where does it say anything about men. So I guess the groom is free to screw around with anyone he chooses before marriage as long as it's not with a man because homosexuality is punishable by death as well (Leviticus 18:22). Does any of this sound moral to you?

How can someone claim to use the bible as a source for morality when there are rules in there that are flat out immoral? Many of the above laws were abused to the point where innocent people were killed for being considered a threat to the institution? How can anyone claim this to be for this moral code when it was clearly written from one perspective (men) and clearly doesn't care about anyone else? Can someone really tell me with a straight face that this is the work of an almighty being that claims to love everyone?

I don't know about you, but to me this doesn't sound like a religion that supposedly asks its followers to turn another cheek or forgive people for their trespasses. It sounds more like a do as I say not as I do kind of religion put in place to keep the masses at bay while the con-men swindle them for their cash and crops while threatening anyone with eternal damnation of they even try to question the morality of it. Even when you look at the infamous ten commandments that the book claims to have personally come from God. When you look at them, some are about as ridiculous as a few of the crimes listed above that calls for people to be put to death. Let's start from the beginning:

1: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

First question that pops into my head when I read this: there are other Gods? Not only that, but it appears that the Christian God is one of equal opportunity because he, she, it or them don't want to be above the other Gods, just not be below them. How thoughtful! What's more odd about this clearly what isn't said rather than what is. God could have said something like "Yo, up here people... listen up!" but chooses to instead make the first rule more like "I'm # 1!"

With the reference to other almighty beings, it sounds like this God is making a polite request for exclusivity rather than condemning other deities. So basically this means I can believe or worship other Gods as long as I don't give them a higher status than this God. We're only on the first commandment and already we were seeing a lot of grey here. Seems very selfish that God would make his own status the first rule, especially when you would think things like don't kill or lie would be considered close to the top if not at the top of anyone's list of moral codes. But it's not our list, so let's move on here.

2: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them...."

There's a lot more to this commandment, but we'll get to the last little nugget a bit later and chew on this one for a moment. Here we have yet another commandment, the second in a row, used by an almighty being to cover his own ass and command loyalty rather than use his laws to promote peace, love and understanding. So far on this list all we've heard from this deity is "me, me, me..." which is starting to sound like a broken record. These are supposed to be laws for people to follow and become moral, do the first two really have to be about worship rather than telling people what not to do to one another? Check out the rest of the commandment:

"...for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "jealous" as:

  1. Fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of losing affection or position.

  2. a. Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious. b. Inclined to suspect rivalry.

  3. Having to do with or arising from feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness.

  4. Vigilant in guarding something.

  5. Intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity; autocratic.

So let's recap: Fearful, wary, apprehensive, bitter, envious, vigilant and autocratic. Are we starting to understand why the Hebrews preferred to take their chances with the golden calf?

Why is it that this God appears to have qualities and emotions that people dislike but we are required to accept and love this being? Anyone? Then we have the issue of the third and fourth generations. How would you feel if you were to stand trail for something that was done by your great, great Grandfather? Depending on order of birth, could you imagine someone being held accountable for something that occurred over a hundred years before they were born? This also comes from the same book that clearly states that "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16). Doesn't that just bake your fragile little noodle?

Clearly this contradiction is so extreme, it's easy for someone to step back and clearly think there was no way this was all the word of one person, let alone one God. At this point it's perfectly logical to stand back and think how could someone who claims to be 'all knowing' forget that there are two parts of the same book that completely contradict one another? This is where someone can start to draw a conclusion. They begin to lean towards atheism as one can conclude that both passages would suggest more than one writer and from that conclusion one can determine that it was in fact written by man and not God. There are eight other commandments but many of them are just as absurd as the first two. Even the one that tells people not to steal makes a fool out of many as countless Americans plant this law on land that was clearly stolen from the Native American.

Hypocrisy seems to be a very constant theme for those who are religious. Do not rape, yet a myriad of priests are shielded from prosecution after raping numerous young boys. Do not commit adultery doesn't seem to matter when these laws are only applied to women instead of both genders. Even thy shall not kill loses it's edge when countless people have been burned at the stake for things that the good book while condemning told people to forgive those who personally sins against you. When you look at all the death, destruction and atrocities that occur within the stories the bible provides, morality is the last word that I would use to describe what lies within it.

While many alleged Christians prefer to cherry pick the best 'moral' parts and choose to ignore the rest (such as picking up sticks on Saturdays) it leads one to think that this religion isn't as genuine as they would lead you to believe if they cannot even follow every law that lies within it. Either the whole bible is a work of God or it's all a work of fiction made by men who wanted to control the masses. The second is the more likely of the two, because there are many passages in the so called 'good book' that are grotesque, violent, racist, and even sexist. All things that one wouldn't expect to see come from a God that people claim to be all good and love everyone equally.

I happen to take serious objection to any implication that there can be no moral behaviour without religion, which is just erroneous. Common sense and reason can lead anyone to arrive at exactly the same suppositions throughout our daily lives such as honestly, fair play and so on. Without God I actually think there is a better chance for more intellectual advancement and more compassionate society if someone comes to their own morality rather than being ordered to do it like a child being told to eat their vegetables. If their religion is so moral, then why are most of incarcerated prisoners religious? The so called morality of the good book didn't stop them from becoming lawless criminals, where as Atheists in prison are almost non-existent. According to the Federal Bureau of Prison Statistics, less than a full percent (0.21% to be exact) of people currently incarcerated are atheists. This number smacks in the face of the whole theory that you need God in order to be moral, as the other 99% of prisoners are all of religious influence. Nearly all of the prisoners in jail are religious which would lead someone to logically conclude that religion is a very poor place to find morality if it fails to keep people out of trouble. Quite the opposite as the rules and anger it brings out of people leads to more crime, not less. Since less than a single percent of those who are in prison are atheist, that should leave the same person to conclude that it is possible for people to be moral without God because the majority of the atheists happen to live a much more moral life without religion than those who do. This should be considered evidence that God is not necessary for someone to live a good and moral life as a happy and productive member of society. That religious people are not accurate at all when they claim that religion is a requirement to being a moral person.

While many atheists never hesitate to mock and poke holes in into the alleged morality of the Churches, one reason why I do so is because of that assumed monopoly on all things moral by those who are religious. The recurring argument that I have heard from many theists in their support for religion is that "without religion (or God for that matter), we would have no morality or ethics" which is complete bullshit.

So without God there would be no morality? It's ironic how someone can claim a right on morality to begin with as their morality is based on a fear of punishment or the seeking of rewards. That is not morality at all, that is fear and bribery; two things that we happen to look down upon someone if they use that to gain influence within society.

Apparently if Saddam Hussein uses fear and the threat of death to gain obedience from his people, he's a very bad man. However if God uses fear of burning in hell for all eternity to gain your obedience, he loves you and is an all good being. How can one of these be evil and the other be considered morally good for doing the exact same thing? That is the true hypocrisy of the Church, the ability to shield something bad as good because it's being done of the name of God. Slavery done by countries is evil, but there are several spots in the bible where God states that slavery is all right by Him. If you were to read his alleged good book, apparently God believes in child sacrifice as he asked followers to kill their own children as a test of their obedience to him. Now I will admit God allegedly later stepped in and stopped the sacrifice before it happened, unfortunately the same couldn't be said for his own son, Jesus Christ. According to the Christian faith, God apparently approved of the sacrifice of his own child so that means we cannot accuse God of not practicing what He preaches.

If you are doing it only to avoid punishment, are you doing good deeds because it's the right thing or merely to benefit yourself? If you are only doing good only to please someone else, how is that moral? Clearly, it is not.

True morality comes from the head, not just from your heart. You should do things for others because it's the right thing to do, not because you want something in return. If I were to offer my son a reward for doing the right thing, is that morality? I don't think it is because it is nothing more than bribery. The same can be said for punishment if someone is not obedient. That is not morality if the reason for doing such things is out of fear that someone stronger will make you pay if you do not comply.

I'll give a more detailed example of what I mean. Sometimes I tell my son to clean his room and he refuses. To motivate him to clean his room sometimes I would offer a treat (like candy) or threaten to take away his computer privileges if he does not comply with my request. If my son chooses to clean his room, it isn't because he wants to have a tidy room, it's because someone is forcing him to do it against his will. Had my son chosen to clean his room out of a sense of safety to make sure there were no toys on the floor for someone to trip over and hurt themselves, it would be moral decision. A concern for someone else and the choice to take action to prevent someone he loves from being harmed. To choose because of threats or bribes is not morality; it is out of duress that he complies at all.

The same can be said for God and his offerings of Heaven and Hell. People should do what is right not out of an obligation for future safety or reward, but for the reason that actions taken are right to begin with. True morality such as the 'Hippocratic oath' which on paper looks very moral while not practiced as much as one would hope. I still give kudos to those who attempt to do no harm and wrestle with the ethics of what harm truly is rather than a group of people who preach forgiveness and then execute people for committing what they consider to be sins. Morality is more than just setting rules and abiding by them.

True morality comes from the ability to sometimes realize you made a mistake by setting rules that might be unfair and taking the time to revise them to be fair to everyone involved. Slavery is a great example of such morality as today most nations have abolished the practice. The only nations that continue the practice only do so out of some sense of religious superiority, claiming that their God gives the right actually own people. Many societies have now realized that people cannot be owned and that ever person is equal under the law. While this is never perfect, its closer to the way things should be then it ever was before. I hope that with time, understanding and a little more common sense, we'll all inch closer to that day the more we release ourselves from the shackles of religious dogma and start looking out for each other as brothers and sisters of one planet, one world.

To me, true morality comes from showing compassion to those around you and not doing things out of personal self interest. When everyone starts to work towards the goals of the collective rather than themselves, this world will have the crucial opportunity to live up to its full potential.

"God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within an organized religion!"

– Superintendent Chalmers (The Simpsons)

Prayers in public schools were still ongoing when I was in elementary school. It wasn't until I reached grade 10 when it all stopped. That was when the big case up here in Canada (Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board Of Education) brought that all to an end. It had always made me feel uncomfortable to stand there and watch as my classmates would all close their eyes and drop their heads while prayer was being broadcast on the intercom in every room throughout the school. I remember there being a handful of students who didn't want to participate and they left the room and stood in the hallways rather than be forced to participate. I really didn't think making people who were non-Christian stand in the hallways made that much of a difference since the intercoms in the halls still broadcast the same prayer for them to hear outside the classroom as well. It was a very disrespectful act, especially to those who were not Christian and I for one was glad to see this act of favouritism come to an end.

While many Canadians assume that the whole religion in school issue is behind us, that simply isn't true. Schools up here are trying just as hard to get away with whatever they can hoping that parents are either too busy or too tired from work to even notice what's going on in the classroom. Over a year and half ago, my oldest son came home with his weekly spelling words. At the beginning of each week, he is required to write a sentence about each word to help him understand the meaning and help him memorize the spelling for future tests. That week two of the words on his list were 'baby' and 'Jesus', and this list was handed out a week before the Christmas break. I sent a scolding letter to my son's teacher accusing her of religious favouritism and that since the Christian holiday was the only one getting its own special words that week, she was showing favourites and that was unacceptable. I informed her that if there were any future references to anything religious in my son's homework, I would not hesitate to get the principal and the super involved. I had informed her that the next time I had to protest about religion being taught in my son's public school, I would not hesitate to do so through an attorney. Turns out I wasn't the only parent who had an issue with Christmas being too religious in this particular public school. There was so much protest to the pushing of religion in religion in the classroom that the annual Christmas assembly that parents are usually invited to was cancelled that year and there hasn't been one since. Parents had no issue with exercises that were about Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman and other holiday tales but didn't want baby Jesus or God forced onto our children.

Another good example north of the border where religion is causing trouble in schools in Canada would be the school in the Toronto area that is allowing children of the Muslim faith to pray in the cafeteria. While I am against praying of any kind in school, the school isn't trying to promote religion in this case as the goal is to keep the kids in school for as long as possible and not miss any classes in the process. The problem is the amount of times a Muslim has to pray every day. Kids had to leave school in the middle of the day to pray and many of them didn't return to school to finish their classes afterwards. So the reason for allowing prayer in school this time wasn't to promote religion (at least I hope not) but to prevent kids from missing classes and staying in school to attend the rest of their day. While I still don't approve of any kind of organized prayer in public schools, I can see why some teachers would offer this suggestion for what seemed to be good reasons which was to prevent kids from missing a lot of classes for religious reasons. This issue has yet to be resolved, but I can see this one going to court as well. Christians are upset because they were barred from doing prayers in the morning and so if they can't pray in school, neither should anyone else. I know it sounds childish but to a degree I agree with them. If you're going to ban one creed from being allowed to practice in schools, you've got to ban them all.

Since I'm not in favour of any religion being practiced in schools, I say send them home if they really have to pray that often during the day and when the kids fail their classes for not coming back to school after prayers they can attend summer school and miss out on some really cool things. It's not the school nor Allah's fault these kids are not coming back to school to finish their classes. The school needs to leave the blame with kids for skipping out and their parents for not hushing them back to school to finish their classes when their prayers are finished.

While there are cases like this still ongoing in Canada, Prayer in public schools is still a huge battleground and hotly contested issue in the United States. Despite the fact that their constitution clearly states that the church and state should be separate, certain politicians still try to rally their numbers by using issues like school prayer despite the fact that it's return is unlikely because of some key decisions by their Supreme Court that set a very firm precedent. There are many court battles that are still ongoing in the US as students in public schools have no choice but to sue their schools in order to make them follow the precedent that was already set on their behalf. Football players are suing their school because they are being forced by the school and the team to pray before and after games, which isn't allowed to occur. There are no laws that prevent an individual from praying, but if schools or even just teachers or coaches ask students to pray, they are breaking their neutrality and discriminating against other students who are of different creed or are atheists. Individuals are allowed to pray or promote religion if they want to, that right is protected by the constitution, but the issue is the school itself which is supposed to remain neutral because it's funded by the government which is not allowed to pass or show favouritism to any religion, let alone one in particular.

There was a case a few years ago of a parent who filed suit against his child's school because he thought it was unfair to make his kid recite the pledge of allegiance because it has the phrase 'Under God' in it. The parent filed suit because he believed the term was a promotion of religion, which is a violation of the constitution's separation between church and state. The case went all the way to Supreme Court, but the court avoided making a decision based on the fact that the father was not the child's full time guardian and was not eligible to file the claim in the first place. So the decision was not decided based on the legality of the pledge itself, the Court decided to toss it out on a technicality likely because the Court knew that 'Under God' was an unconstitutional pushing of religion by the government. I'll get back to the pledge later, but it was clear by how the Supreme Court handled the matter that they didn't want to decide the matter also because of their own bias since there are symbols and pictures of religious dogma in the hallways of their own courtroom which are just as unconstitutional in the halls of a federal courthouse.

That brings us back to school prayer and the fact that it's being pushed on people who not only don't practice that particular creed but upon those who do not have a religion at all. Many folk of religious background, Christians in particular, fail to realize why it's wrong for prayer to be promoted in a public school. First of all, it's not very fair for a public school to broadcast or promote one particular religion when there are students who do not practice or follow the religion in question being broadcast on the intercom system. I've actually heard Christians respond by saying that it should be this way to promote their word of God (which they assume is the correct way) to those who are lost and following the wrong path. So according to these particular people, the forcing of religion and prayer in schools is not to promote religious freedom but to force that religion on others who do not practice it in an attempt to convert them.

That's why when someone looks up at a banner hanging in the hall of their high school that starts with 'our heavenly father' and ends with 'amen', they have every right to believe that religion is being pushed onto them because many Christians believe it's their right to convert the heathens. That person has ever right to feel discriminated against and it's the school's fault for not going out of their way to make sure the rules and the constitution is upheld as dictated to them years ago by the Supreme Court. The fact that parents and students have to stand up to the religious ignorance of school officials is upsetting to say the least. These people should have goes out of their way to make sure the law was being followed the moment decisions are made that effect the way the conduct themselves. These atheist students and parents who are suing their schools don't want to be the ones standing up for themselves, and if some schools just took the time to make sure their hallways were legally neutral it would not only it make people of different creeds or of no religion at all a little more comfortable but it would also save the school countless dollars in legal fees.

The American Civil Liberties Union recently won a big case against a high school as a judge ordered them to take down a banner that was clearly an unconstitutional sponsorship of religion in a public school. Months prior to filing the case, the school was asked to take it down or face not only losing in court but being slapped with enormous legal fees as well. Despite the ALCU's compassionate attempt to save the school's budget, they refused to take the deal and went to court. After losing a case that the school had little or no chance of winning, they're now on the hook for almost two hundred thousand dollars in legal fees. Schools have to be smarter than this as the precedent already set in court makes fighting any cases like this an uphill battle and it's nice wise to do those battles when the school and it's board might be left holding the tab when it's all said and done. The craziest part about this is parents in this district have actually asked the board to appeal the decision. Even though the result isn't likely to change... if they keep losing the legal fees will keep climbing and driving the board and school into the red if they're not already there. How are these parents going to respond when the find out that programs are being cut because the money used to fund them have to pay for a legal case they had little or no chance of winning in the first place? I doubt many will find that comforting.

Public schools, such as elementary and secondary are not the proper place to study theology of any kind. I don't mind theology being offered at a post-secondary level as long as its offered as an option rather than requirement. Yet if you want your kid to learn about God at an earlier level than that, it should not be paid for with public funds. There is already a place for you to take your kids if they want to learn about God and fables about them: it's called a church. You can drag your little ones kicking and screaming in clothes they don't want to wear but if you want prayer in school, send them to a private religious school that's not funded by the government. Both Canada and the United States are supposed to be secular nations, theocracies. Everyone has the right to attend a public or private school but if you send your kids to a public school, don't expect any religions to be endorsed. It's that simple.

Religious followers may not realize this, Christians especially, but prayer has no place in school or any other public place for that matter. Not only are these banners or any other sponsorship of religion in a public school unconstitutional but are also against the Bible, which states in Mathew 6:6:

"... when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Seriously people, even God Himself thinks that you should keep your religious dogma to yourself! Don't you think that might be the one time you should want to listen to for a change? To all the people who claim to believe God, why is this passage not remembered when you pick up signs and picket the funeral of someone you don't like? Why is this passage ignored when you're standing at a street corner handing out flyers and pushing your faith onto others without their consent?

This is one of many reasons why atheists have zero qualms about disregarding religion entirely. We watch with our own eyes people who claim to be religious and faithful simply disregard the passages of the gospel they don't agree with on a daily basis. So if they have little or no respect for their own scripture, why should anyone else? It's embarrassing to watch these people who claim to be devout Catholics do whatever they want, assuming they are moral and righteous people but are only cherry picking the passages they wish to follow. They are supposed to help the poor, something that Jesus himself promoted often, but rarely would you see anyone handing out change to the poor or make sizeable donations to help people who are less fortunate. There are many politicians on both sides of this border that claim to believe, but they have spent the better part of the last decade cutting aid to third world nations, in some cases some of the funding is completely cut from the budget and nations are cut loose to fend for themselves.

This is another reason why religion should be kept out of public schools. If people of faith cannot even follow their own code properly, then why should they even try to preach it to others and force it upon children? It's numerous contradictions such as this that make religion of any kind a complex mess that kids shouldn't be forced to get involved with until they are old enough to process it with an open mind rather than be systematically brainwashed before they are capable of thinking for themselves. But that seems to be the issue, doesn't it? Religion prefers to get their sheep when they're young and unable to present any kind of resistance and then hook them for life. They can try to deny it, but religion is pushed on kids way too early, as I already pointed out in a previous chapter. This is one reason why I also know that elementary school is too early for God to be introduced to your child. I think that children should be able to read, write and maybe even think long before any adult should toss something as complex and confusing as religion into the mix.

"There is a woman at the beginning of all great things."

\- Alphonse de Lamartine

An infamous phrase states that 'behind every great man, there is a good woman'. It is said by those who mean well but fail to understand it's just the same sexism that has ruled this planet for the two thousand years. Women are not meant to be behind men and that kind of thinking needs to be given the heave ho from the modern era. Some of the women I've met are not only capable of standing side by side with men, but they're fully capable and qualified to step forward and lead the way. A few years ago, we were only a few hundred delegates away from have a President named Hilary instead of Barack. The message I got from this was that seeing a lady sitting in the Oval Office is now only a matter of when rather than if. As a supporter of equal rights, I have no problem with that and hope that when it does happen, this President will fight better for the rights of women and men across the globe.

So where does the church stand on women's rights? In the dark ages unfortunately, stating that women are not equal to men. The shocking thing about this is that most if not all religions look down on women as inferior to men, which is just so archaic it's not funny. The church's position with women and their status has been rather clear from the beginning. But before we look at the alleged sexism of the Church and God, let's see the official definition of what it means to be Sexist. According to our standard dictionary, a misogynist is "One who hates women". It also defines the word "sexist" as:

"Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviours that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."

So are God and the church sexist? Rather that assume and lecture about what might be, let's check the alleged 'good book' for some quotes to answer that question. Let's start with Corinthians 14:34-35:

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

I'm not sure about you, but that speaks volumes to me about how women are expected to act when in church. They are not allowed to speak as God would prefer them to be seen but not heard from. And this comes from a book people claim to be the word of God Himself. And the hits just keep on coming in the book of Timothy 2:9:

"Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

I find it hard for those who claim to be Christian to get around that one. This passage's message is quite clear and extremely sexist: women are not allowed to teach or have any kind of authority over men. They are to remain silent and obedient. Next up is Ephesians 5:22-24:

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savoir. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

So according to the bible, women should not only be silent but submissive to their male counterparts? If that doesn't meet the definition of sexist, what on earth does?

There are many broader examples of misogyny that can easily be found within the Bible. It seems apparent from the examples listed above that God seems to want nothing to do with women. Apologists for religion try to state that this passages were made during more archaic times and that it doesn't stand that way today. I find that a convenient excuse as it goes against what the bible states. In Isaiah 40:8 God says that the word of the Lord will last forever and He says the same thing again in Peter 1:24-25. So according to the bible, God states that women are not only forbidden from speaking in church, teaching or having authority over men, but it's supposed to stay that way forever.

While the Christian Church clearly has an issue with women's rights, they're no where near the level that the Muslim faith is at when it comes to discriminating against women. The sexism from the Quaran is blatant and in your face to the point where women are treated as nothing more than slaves, property to be owned by men. While the Christian bible hints at the same treatment of women, in the Quaran is more direct and to the point. Let's start with the Quaran's most sexist comment:

A woman is worth one-half a man (2:282).

Wow, where do you start with that? According tot he Muslim faith, women are not only inferior to women, they are only worth half as much as a man. Not only are they worth less than men, the Quaran also states that men are to inherit twice that of females (4:11). The Quaran also stated that lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death (4:15). According to the dictionary, to be lewd means to be 'preoccupied with sex and sexual desire and to be lustful'. That means it's a sin for women to give into their primal urges. It's okay for men to be lewd, but if a woman does it they are to be under house arrest until the day they die. If this doesn't meet our definition of sexism that we listed that the beginning of this chapter, what does? Then we have 4:24 where the Quaran states the following:

"You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war."

So apparently adultery is a taboo for Muslims as well unless that woman is captured during a war. Slavery as we can see is clearly permitted by the Quaran but the statements also suggest that all the gang rapes going on in the war torn nations in Africa are all right because the women being attacked are slaves captured in battle. As sexist as the bible seems to be, at least they have rules that state forcing a woman to have sex is cruel and not allowed.

The Quaran also states that husbands only needs one witness to accuse his wife of adultery (24:6) and that the 'Wives of Mohammad' are not allowed to leave their homes (33:32-33) and apparently it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants (33:50-51) regardless if that woman wants it or not. A little controlling, aren't we Mohammad? Apparently if another man wishes to speak to Muhammad's wife, they must speak from behind a curtain and no one is permitted to ever marry one of Muhammad's wives (33:53).

Contrary to these beliefs, women are not worth half of a man. They should be and from here on always considered our equals. There are few that would even argue that what women can do with their body makes them worth more than a man and to argue against it would be fighting an uphill battle, one that I doubt many would be able to successfully accomplish. Women in this writer's humble opinion are not inferior to men, those who think they are would get an earful from me stating otherwise. There have been many times where I have witnessed men telling women that they are not good enough or worthy of doing the same thing that men do. My response it to stand behind that person and tell them the truth: yes you can.

My first wife flunked out her first semester of University. To be perfectly honest it was not her fault. She took too many courses and half of them were courses I would never recommend taking in the same semester and the work load was far too much for her to handle and she failed at her task. I've witnessed many men make that same mistake in their first semester as well so her failed semester had nothing to do with her gender. Had I taken the exact same schedule she did in my first semester, I am willing to admit that even I would have flunked out too. Yet that never stopped some men from jumping to conclusions and telling her not to try again because she was a woman and thus not smart enough to graduate from an institution of higher learning. This upset me a great deal and I voiced a clear opposition to it stating that she was more than smart enough to attend this university. I believed that if she managed her schedule and work load a little better the next time around, she would be more successful and pass her courses.

I did more than just state an opinion. I put my money where my mouth was by paying for her tuition for her first semester back. Not only was her return to university a success, she graduated four years later with a BA in Sociology. I had confidence in her ability and was proven right. My now ex-wife has never been and is still not considered worth half of what any man is worth. While we were married, I always considered my wife to be my equal. While that loyalty and support was never returned in kind, I still feel that way towards any woman I interact with.

Throughout history, the sexism that lies within books like the Quaran and the bible had led to centuries of discrimination towards women throughout our history. No one has to look further back than the horrid mistreatment of mid-wives and nurses to see how the sexist and misogynist views of the church caused these women who were only trying to help people in need of medical assistance led to charges of heresy and witchcraft. During the middle ages the patriarchal society and the Roman Catholic Church condemned female healers because of their immense influence within the community. Forget the fact that they were providing a sound service that saved lives and served the public, these brave women found themselves victim of unjust persecution, cruelly tortured and eventually burned at the stake after being labelled 'witches' by the a Church that was uncomfortable with their power.

Women for many centuries were being put between a rock and a hard place by the cruel and unnecessary sexism of the Church. They were the ones being forced to choose between the faith they were forced to become a part of as a child and their very lives. Many people of faith will attempt to pass the buck and say that these changes are all a part of God's will. It really isn't because there is no will to be extended. Just their own bias fuelled by centuries of hate and prejudice and one can only hope that this silly tradition will eventually pass with time.

Things such as slavery and animal/human sacrifices are clear examples of how religion is being forced to change with the times. What was once deemed all right by God has become forbidden by civil and moral societies. The same can be said for women as they are allowed to vote but are still not allowed to become ministers or priests in certain sects. The truth is women's rights have made great strides in the 20th and 21st century despite the fact that the Bible and Quaran forbid it. While it is odd that moral societies are distancing themselves from what is supposed to be God's eternal word, it's clear the human race has begun to reject God's very sexist and misogynist ways. We have ignored God's word by allowing women to teach our children in schools, something that is clearly forbidden in the alleged holy books. Women are also CEOs of some of our biggest corporations, doctors, surgeons, presidents of universities and are even allowed to freely speak in church. Women are also being elected to public office and have even become Prime Ministers and Presidents of certain nations.

This contradiction is the greatest example that the human race is starting to distance themselves from the laws of organized religion and even God. There is no ambiguity, this is all being done in defiance of God and we don't care. Moral societies are doing this because we all know women are not worth half a man and that this part of God's eternal word is unequivocally wrong. Atheists go one step further as we are secure enough to reject all of God's laws. While humanity isn't quite there yet, taking a stand for women and recognizing them as equal individuals is an exceptionally good step in the right direction towards creating a world without religion and God.

"Man created God in his image: intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent." \- Marie

Rather than just continue to lecture about how women are viewed by religious scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide an example of the kind of woman hating I discussed in the previous chapter. What I'm about to show you are some quotes from an online blog that I used to occasionally read and rarely agree with. This person and I were complete opposites on many issues, especially with regards to religion and it's take on women's rights. This blogger was (and likely still is) a die hard cut taxes till it hurts and Ronald Regan is my hero kind of Republican. That sometimes meant reading his entries were a chore and sometimes enough to make me want to punch a wall. I could hardly believe that there were actually people out there who thought like this. This blogger who I had been reading on and off for a short while had posted a lot of entries that infuriated people who wrote on the same site as well, resulting in some very intense debates as insults and other forms of flames were being tossed around.

This blogger (who I have very little respect for as a human being) became a father again one day for what I was under the impression for the second or third time. This blogger and his wife had a baby girl. During these times, one would usually want to extend their congratulations and express joy for the arrival of new life, even if you don't like the person. It can truly be one of the most incredible things you can ever experience in your lifetime. I wanted to put aside my ill will and do the same but for some reason I had a hard time mustering up the words needed to congratulate this person. I just couldn't do it.

The reason was because this man and his wife had a daughter. I don't have anything against girls but I felt this way because the child was (and likely is) going to be raised in what I think will be a home environment that is extremely sexist and bigoted. I don't think this little girl is going to get a fair chance to spread her wings and do something with her life as opposed to if she was born with outdoor plumbing in this particular household. I know it's not a very nice thing to say, but I have evidence to back up my statements. Here are a few examples of the blatant sexism this poor girl will be brought up with:

Exhibit A:

When asked if he would support his daughter if she expressed a desire to be a mechanic, he wrote the following:

"Probably not. We're going to teach our daughters how to be housewives. Before they get married they're expected to go to college and they're expected to pursue a practical career that they can fall back on if their husband dies. But I will not encourage my daughters to become mechanics. No one wants a mechanic who wears a dress."

Wow, how do you respond to something like that? All women should be housewives and should not be allowed to wear pants? Welcome back to the 1950's; where's Dad and the Beav?

While I wish this person was kidding, he actually was as serious as a heart attack. Women should only wear dresses, be in the kitchen and be obedient to their husbands. That's the kind of attitude religion inspires based on their treatment of women in the scripture. The whole idea that women should only attend college as a back up in case their husband dies. Seriously? That is just outrageous as there are countless women out there who have been able to pursue and become very successful people because of their college education. There are women out there who are even exceeding men in certain categories, proving that they are capable of using their education for more than just a backup. These days sometimes it might be in a couple's financial best interest if men use their college degrees as a backup in case their wife dies. These days more men are applying for paternal leave more than ever before as they want to go home and create a bond with their children.

Exhibit B:

When asked how he would respond if his son (or daughter) came to him and said that they wanted to marry their girlfriend (boyfriend) who happened to be a Muslim, this was his response:

"We will not accept the marriage of any of our children outside of the Christian faith. I will not allow my daughter to marry such a person, I wouldn't allow my daughter to even consider marrying such a person. If I have a son who goes off and does something like this, he'll be told to repent, he and his wife will be presented with the gospel and then they will be cut off."

A few things stood out for me in this answer. He stated that his son would only be asked to repent if he did something like this and threatened to be cut out of the family. Yet his daughter would never be allowed to even walk down the aisle and he would forbid her from marrying the one she loved. If she was a grown adult, I'd like to see how he would manage accomplish that, especially if she was no longer living at home at the time she wanted to get married.

The last time I checked, Las Vegas offers instant marriages to anyone who wishes to elope and get hitched as soon as possible. Anyone's daughter could fly down there and be legally married in less than twenty-four hours, long before her Dad ever catches wind of it, and then what? He can talk about putting his foot down but legally there isn't a damn thing he could about it. If that guy's kid really wanted to get married after they reach the age of eighteen, then he/she really wanted to could do so anytime they wanted. The fact that he would be more strict with his daughter than his son again proves how sexist and out of touch with the 21st Century this blogger really is.

Exhibit C:

In response to exhibit B, someone asked him this question: If your kid is in love and that person makes them happy, why would you care what faith they are? It's a very valid question: if they're happy shouldn't that mean something? This was his response to that person's question:

"I'm not interested in my children's happiness as much as I'm interested in their obedience to Christ. Short term happiness on Earth is meaningless to me, all that matters is faith in Christ and obedience to Him."

Attitudes like this are constant reminders to why I'm an atheist. Blind faith in any organized religion is one thing, but dragging young kids to church to learn something when they're too young to understand, comprehend or question is wrong. I actually think its child abuse. It doesn't seem right to me but that's what this poor child is going to be put through. If this person was living on a secluded ranch, and practicing this archaic attitude towards women away from society I'm pretty sure him and his religion would be classified as a cult.

Another thing that bothers me a great deal about that comment is the person's lack of interest in whether or not his children are happy. He clearly stated that "I'm not interested in my children's happiness" which is a horrible thing to say. I have two children and I care a great deal about whether or not they are happy. I want my children to grow up happy so that in the future, they don't become depressed, secluded and then suddenly feel the urge to shoot people from a tower with a high powered rifle. Raising a happy child is in everyone's best interest and especially the child's who deserves to not be pushed into something that will make them unhappy.

This blogger's attitude and treatment of women is a relic of the century that ended a little over a decade ago. This is why I had trouble mustering up the worlds to express my congratulations when he announced the birth of his daughter. All I could think about were these terrible things that were only spoken less than two years ago.

This person is without a doubt a bigot and as you can tell from the notes above is a chauvinistic swine because he doesn't believe that women should be allowed the same rights as men. How can you congratulate this person for bringing and daughter into this world when that is the kind of upbringing she is going to receive? To be told that she is not considered equal to her brothers or that her only purpose in life is to be a housewife to her future husband? Thinking about the upbringing this poor girl will receive is enough to make me sick. In my humble opinion, telling any child that they are less valuable than another person is also child abuse. This man should have his children taken away for forcing them to believe any of the bullshit he is shoving down their throats.

One thing this blogger doesn't realize is that children rebel. It's never a matter of if but when. To deny anything from a child will only result in a greater fall. When children want to rebel against their parents, they choose something their parents hold very dear and attack it. If you are a deeply religious person, the rebellion against that would be to buy a copy of any book by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens (or this book), read them a few times and go Atheist. The same can be said for the other side: children could attend church to spurn the Atheist, but really... who's being punished there?

I am not against my children attending church or even becoming a minister or priest for that matter. They are free to do whatever they want with their lives, as long as it's of their choosing. Its call free will people, and being dragged off every Sunday and having something systematically drilled into your brain as a fact when you're too young to question it is not free will. When my boys are old enough to process the issue and make their own choice, they'll be free to choose their own path regardless of it follows mine or not. I'll be cool with it as long as it's their choice and not something that's forced upon them.

While I don't have any daughters, my ex-wife and I have two amazing little boys. If we were lucky enough to have a little girl, we were going to call her Samantha Florence. My former wife and I would not have treated her any different from her brother(s) and she would have been free to pursue any career or passion that she wished as long as it was legal. My wife wears pants and jeans more often than she does dresses, prefers beer over wine and would have had zero problems with her daughter if she expressed a desire to become a mechanic. It just wasn't meant to be, but it irks me to see someone take for granted something that is so precious, so remarkable and think of it as inferior just because of its gender. That's truly a shame, because she's not inferior and capable of becoming anything she wants if she puts her mind to it. She can become the best mechanic, lawyer or even the President of the United States if she really wanted to. That's what all fathers should be telling their daughters in the 21st century. That there is no glass ceiling; that for her and every other woman that is born in this century, there should be no limits, only sky.

Let's say you're walking home from the store with one of your friends and while taking a shortcut down an alley, a masked man jumps out of nowhere and sticks a gun in your face. He demands you hand over your wallet, watch, cell phone and anything else of value you have on you. If you do not comply with the thief's demands, there is a chance he's going to shot you and if that happens there is no guarantee you'll survive the assault. In every modern society, what the masked man is doing is considered a criminal offence. If captured, this man would be charged and likely spend a few years in jail because of the personal and mental harm he caused to you. There is also more than one way to commit a robbery, and that is fraud. Rather than use a gun to steal money from you, someone will present you with a words, tell you they're the truth and swindle you into calling them and pledging your savings to their cause. If that story the person on TV or even the person at the pupil is telling is untrue, then that person is stealing your money and is no different than the thief with the gun. Rather than use a weapon to take your money, they're using a threat of a different kind; the supernatural wrath of their angry and jealous God.

While I'm sure some will find the theme of this chapter offensive, it's a necessary illustration that I think helps when trying to take away the dogma and reveal the true hypocrisy of the Church. One of the most blatant double standards that the Church flings upon the masses is about that fictitious hot spot in the center of the earth: Hell.

According to those who are of faith and believe what they are told by their clergy, this warm destination (which there is no evidence of) is in the very belly of the planet and sinners who reject God will burn and be tortured there for all eternity. For all time; talk about holding a grudge, eh?

Coming from a deity that orders his followers to forgive your trespassers, God seems to have a hard time letting things go but it's the threat of eternal damnation that scares people into accepting a lot of bullshit. It's not that these people believe it whole heartedly, it more of a case that they're afraid it might be true. Let's start with a visual aid to emphasize the point:

I'll be the first to admit this is a bit of a simple comparison but I feel the need to inquire: what's really the difference is between the two? Not much when you actually take the time to think about it. When looking at these pictures, what they have in common is clearly evident: both are asking for something valuable to be handed over and if you refuse to comply with their demands something very bad will happen to you.

While I'm sure it looks very crude, the masked robber is a very accurate portrayal of how atheists view organized religion. To the average atheist, there is no difference between the actions of the masked robber does and what religion tries to do when asking people to devote their life to God. Both the masked robber and the churches are trying to take something from you and even go out of their way to threaten severe consequences should you fail to comply with their demands. Not a single modern society would ever tolerate this kind of strong-arm tactics from armed robbers or mobsters but for some reason these strong armed tactics and threats are deemed acceptable when they happen to be come from those who claim to be doing it in the name of God. I wonder why that is?

This is one of many examples where religion is given a free pass on something that would be considered deviant, evil and immoral if the same act were to be made by anyone else. A good comparison to make this point would be to compare this behaviour to some of us see in the movies. We've all seen that classic scene when a mobster goes into a small neighbourhood convenience store and ask the manager to pay a fee for his 'protection'. When the manager asks what or whom he needs protecting from, the mobster then tells him that to refuse his protection would result in bad things happening to his store. Basically what this mobster is telling the manager that if he doesn't give him a cut of what his store makes while operating within his territory, the mobster is going to do bad things to his store until he complies. This classic mobster shakedown is very similar to what the people are being asked to do by their local churches. If we do not kneel down and worship a spiritual being that we cannot see or prove even exists, then we are going to be cast into hell and burn for eternity.

Why do people put up with this form of non-existent extortion? To answer that I present the next religious excuse:

Now this is a very fascinating tactic that a few religions use when trying to condemn someone to hell; God isn't sending you there, you're sending yourself there by choosing to not obey His rules. Has anyone ever seen someone more eager to ditch blame than the almighty being that these people allege controls the entire universe? This is another of countless contradictions that confuse people when they try to read and make sense of these fairy tales. In one portion of the bible God proclaims to be the creator of everything, but if that were true than that would also mean that he creates evil as well. Why would a being that people claim to be 'all good' create evil? The apologists have an excuse for everything, stating that God created evil to test your faith. Sure, so what you're trying to tell me is that your God invented cancer, aids, genocide and George W. Bush to test us? Seriously?

This photo above truly is good example when trying to debate the hypocrisy of Hell and how people allegedly get there. When that masked man puts his gun in your face and asks for your wallet and your watch, who's really in charge here? Is what happens next up to you or the person holding the gun? If you refuse to hand over your watch because it's a family heirloom and the robber responds angrily by shooting and killing you, were you murdered? According to the logic of the devoutly religious, you committed suicide because you made a conscious decision when you who refused to hand over the watch. That's the reason why the robber decided to shoot you was because you refused to comply, which makes it your fault that you died rather than then the thug who was robbing you. Does that sound logical to you?

There is also another way to get around this rather lame excuse of self damnation. Who created Hell? According to the scriptures, it was created by God. So God created this place and according to the same book, He's also responsible for setting the criteria that judges whether or not people are sent there. God doesn't even have the excuse of 'I don't make the rules' because He does! You can't dodge responsibility if you're the guy who makes the rules and yet for some reason that's exactly what people of religion wants us to believe. He makes the rules and judges over everyone, but it's your fault if you go down there! I can't be the only person who finds this utter ridiculous!

Now let's attack this from other front: according to those who are religious nothing that happens that isn't against God's Will (aka the grand plan). If this is true, that God is responsible for everything that would also mean that He/She/It/Them would also be responsible for sending people to Hell. How simple is that? We don't send ourselves to Hell, then that would be God's doing because He/She/It/Them oversees everything. It says so right there in your book! You'd think that'd be enough to get around this argument, but it doesn't. Religious people like to use their favourite excuse to get around all this logic stuff. That brings us to the ultimate religious excuse:

Here we go: free will. This is the ultimate, which means it's the mother of all religious cop outs. Where is the free will in this situation? If we refuse to follow the 'orders' of either picture, severe consequences will follow. That is not free will, that's us being threatened. There's no free will here, people are being forced to do something they normally wouldn't do under duress, which is clearly against their will. No one wants to burn in hell nor do they want to be shot in the face, so doing the bidding of the gunman or God is not an act of free will, it's an act of self preservation. The only reason why the church prefers to call it free will is because that creates a burden of guilt which is handed over with the hope that you'll shut up, get back to work and be a good Christian and stop questioning anything. The truth is we are not responsible for the actions of the two people above, because they are making threats and forcing our hands. That is not free will; that is oppression.

Modern societies do not tolerate this kind abuse from armed robbers as his/her actions would be considered criminal act and are punishable under the law. Even God himself said this in his very own commandments that stealing is wrong, yet for some reason Churches do it everyday without remorse or penalty. If captured, the masked robber would be charged with a felony and if convicted in a court of law would be sentenced to years in prison for what they did. We are not committing suicide when we defy robbers, so why should God and the Church allowed to dodge their responsibility for threatening to send people to Hell? Why do we allow churches to bully us into doing their bidding?

The answer: many of those who follow religion have been told that's the way it is and have been instructed since birth to never question it. It's hard to fight something when it was implanted into your mind long before you were old enough to think or resist. These people provide the robber with whatever they want are complacent to what is going on because they were programmed from a very early age to never question God or the Church. It's like the baby elephant at the circus that is chained to the ground. When they are older the elephant is more than strong enough to free itself but was trained at a young age that it could not and continued to believe it as an adult. That is a very similar tactic that the church uses on young children. They are programmed never to question their God and His servants and this blind obedience has resulted in some very horrible scandals and schemes.

I am willing to admit that it must be extremely difficult for those who have been faithful all their life to resist the gospel and laws of God when the majority of those who worship only do so because it's all they've ever known. It's hard for anyone to walk away from something that has been a part of your life ever since you could remember and that's the trap. While parents think they are merely carrying on a 'tradition' when they drag their children to church, they are in fact unknowingly assisting in what professionals would call nothing short of systematic brainwashing. So when I see someone blind with faith, holding a book and screaming at people and what they think are the evils of the world, I don't blame that person for what he/she is doing. They are not the problem; they are the victim of the real aggressor. They never had a chance to make an informed decision as they were dragged into it without choice or free will. The fact that these 'institutions' have the arrogance to claim that all of their sheep are blessed with free will is insulting because we know that's complete rubbish.

Free will is an excuse for churches to use when on of their followers do something bad so they can absolve themselves of all responsibility for their actions. It's not the churches fault if someone shoots a doctor in front of his abortion clinic, that person has free will and made their own choice. Never mind that he/she sat in church for months and years prior to that incident, listening to his preacher tell him about the evils of abortion. He has free will, so it's not their fault when that person picks up and gun and shoots the person they claimed was 'sinning'. Does this sound like free will to you?

Do you really think it's free will because you're choosing to hand over your money and watch to the armed robber? No, it's not. You are being threatened with force if you do not comply. If the robber shoots you, is it your fault for not complying? No, but that same logic has to be applied to God as well. If you do not comply with God's wishes, you are not condemning yourself... your alleged God is. So where in this picture do you see any free will? There isn't any, in both cases someone is being forced to do something to prevent something bad from happening to them. Yet for some reason this as perfectly all right. Since when?

To the average atheist that is what God really looks like: someone holding a gun to your head, claiming that it's your fault if he pulls the trigger, so don't make him do it. Some try to call it love, but that isn't what love looks like to me. Someone who loves you doesn't take away your hard earned pay so that their leader can wear silk robes and sit on a gold throne. When this is all done under the threat of punishment that isn't free will; it's the dictionary definition of extortion. Just because the church doesn't wear a mask when committing this act shouldn't make a difference.

An alleged all loving God doesn't need your money, nor would he/she/it/them ever want someone to deprive their own children to support a church. An all loving God wouldn't threaten someone with punishment if they refused to follow what was being asked of them. But despite the allegation of an 'all loving' being this kind of robbery continues to go on. If an all good / all knowing God really needed money, they don't need to beg you for it as He/She/It/Them could just beam next week's winning lotto numbers into their clergy's head and get all the funding they need. Why would a church need your help if God is on their side? It's because there is no God, this is all a rouse to con you and countless others of your money. Without the generous support of their victims, they have nothing.

The reason why we shouldn't allow this to continue is obvious: the alleged being doesn't exist and you will not be sent to hell because it's an empty threat. You do not have to hand over your money because the person asking for it doesn't have a clue (or any evidence to prove) if the places he claims you'll be sent too even exist. It's all taken on faith, remember? The only difference here is the person in church who's looting you of your life savings claims to love you and is trying to save you. What that person says while they take your money doesn't change one major fact: you're still being robbed.

"The characters and events depicted in the damn bible are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental." \- Penn & Teller

While attending my first year of post-secondary education at Memorial University, I met a few atheists that I enjoyed hanging out with. We would play various board games (such as risk, chess, etc) and also debate about things while sitting in the dormitory lobby after dinner. Some people who would hang out with us were also devout Christians, and one of them was my former roommate Kenneth. During one of our debates about faith and God, Kenneth made a bold statement that caused pause amongst our group: non-believers shall perish.

We all paused for a moment, trying to come up with a clever comeback for Kenneth and his rather insensitive statement. It was Darren who had come up with one first when he turned to Kenneth and replied: So will food if you leave it out of the refrigerator. Confused to what the statement meant, Kenneth then asked Darren: what's your point?

Darren answered his question with one word: Chill.

That funny exchange has stuck with me ever since and is often a line I use when someone religious tries to conjecture that all non-believers will perish. It's one of many comebacks I use when confronted by someone who isn't interested in having a meaningful debate and just tries to tell me how things are rather than discuss them. I've been involved in many such 'discussions' where someone just wants to tell you their side and walk away, never really giving you a chance to respond to their side, ignorant of the fact that there is another side at all. These days I usually try to avoid conflicts like that because of someone isn't willing to hear out my ideas and thoughts, why should I give them my time just to hear them rant the same old junk I've heard already time and time again?

When someone of faith is more polite and willing to exchange ideas, this is where things get interesting. I've never flat out told anyone that they're wrong, even if I thought they were as that was just rude to not acknowledge that someone has a view that means something to them. I may not agree with that view, but that doesn't mean that I can't at least confirm that it exists and means something to the person I am speaking with. If you want the person you are speaking with to hear out your crazy ideas, you at least have to show minimal respect to theirs. Then that's when I usually drop the hammer.

One thing I like to do when confronted by someone who proves difficult to move or sway during a feisty debate is to whip out what I like to refer to as 'The Unicorn Test'. When I feel there is a stand still or logjam of idea, I will quickly change the focus and attack it from a different viewpoint. I will ask the religious person if he/she believes in Unicorns, those mythical creatures that look like horses and have a single beautiful horn sticking out of their head.

The majority of the Christians I talk with never hesitate to walk right into what is nothing short of a set up. They immediately claim that there is no such thing as Unicorns. They have never existed and there is no evidence that one ever walked the earth. Once they make wild claims like that, I'll close in by agreeing with them. I too do not believe in Unicorns and agree they are nothing more than fictional creatures. Now the trap has been sprung when I toss over my next question: then why are there Unicorns in the bible?

Unicorns, in fact, do make several appearances in the bible. Here are a few examples from the alleged gospel:

Numbers 24:8 – God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Deuteronomy 33:17 – His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Job 39:9 – Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10 – Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalm 22:21 – Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalm 29:6 – He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalm 92:10 – But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34:7 – And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

It's not the case of a single off hand innocent remark, here before you are at least eight references made into the bible about a mythical creature that we are confident has never existed. It's right there in the bible for all to see, the unicorn! But how can this be since the bible the word of an all knowing God? Why would he/she/it/them make reference to a creature that I already confirmed with the person I was arguing with was a mythical creature that never existed? The presence of a fictional character in the middle of the bible and referenced several times creates a rather awkward moment for the person I'm arguing with.

Now the person I am arguing with is in a real pickle here. They could reverse their previous charge and now claim that Unicorns do exist since the bible now confirms that, or they could go against it and start to question the bible itself. I actually had a debate with someone who chose to go in a different direction and blamed the use of Unicorns on improper translation. I was very intrigued by this response and looked into myself. When I looked at different versions of the bible, this is what I read when I looked up Numbers 24 in the New International Version: God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox.

So this person was indeed correct; there was no Unicorn in this version of the bible, at least not in this chapter. Upon reading that, I had to check out other bibles to see if this difference really existed and there were other examples that surprised me a great deal:

GOD'S WORD Translation: The God who brought them out of Egypt has the strength of a wild bull.

American Standard Version: God bringeth them forth out of Egypt; He hath as it were the strength of the wild-ox.

Darby Bible Translation: God brought him out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a buffalo.

Douay-Rheims Bible: God hath brought him out of Egypt, whose strength is like to the rhinoceros.

I'll be the first to admit that when you're trying to describe strength, a buffalo and rhinoceros are much better examples to use than a unicorn. But this didn't knock me out of the debate one bit, and instead strengthened my case against the person who was trying to upend my unicorn test. While there are different examples used in other 'translations', I found that most of the bibles I read including the King James Bible used the word unicorn as well.

While he thought showing me a version of the bible that said wild ox instead of unicorn would win the day, it did the opposite. Instead all it did was provide more ammunition to declare that it's not a holy text nor the word of any God. How could an 'all knowing' deity let something so sacred fall apart because of bad translations? To error might be human, but that's not something that one would expect to see from an almighty being that apparently doesn't make any mistakes and is infallible.

Showing me two different versions of the same holy book doesn't prove to me it's gospel, but instead proves to me that at least one of them is wrong and if one of them is wrong, we can pretty much write them all off as wrong since we have no evidence that would help us discover which translation is the one true adaptation. I doubt an all knowing God would allow such typos to occur in his holy book especially when he could have brought people out of Egypt with the strength of a Tyrannosaurus Rex!

What if that passage in the bible that declares being gay a sin is another passage that wasn't translated correctly? What if the original passage that condemns homosexuality actually stated that two men cannot lie together in public, meaning it was the open showing of affection between two men that was not allowed rather than the homosexuality itself? With all these different versions of the same book, how can anyone be really sure which is the actual word of God and which versions are just edited by people to give more power to those who shouldn't have it in the first place?

The same argument could be said for slavery, sexism and even racism that are all justified in the alleged good book. This book has been edited countless times, possibly by bad men to justify and condone bad things. If there was a God (which I highly doubt), and his/her/its/their book was being this perverted and used to do bad things, I am pretty sure we would have heard from the author by now. We haven't, and I think the reason why should be painfully obvious to us by now.

This is why I'm such a big fan of the Unicorn test. No matter how hard someone tries to defend against it, every path leads to the very same conclusion: the bible is man made fiction, no different than a book full of fairy tales about big bad wolves and houses made out of gingerbread. Just like those stories, they should be not be worshipped or treated as true gospels until someone can provide evidence to prove any of this ever happened, which has not happened as of the writing of this page. There is no reason anyone should believe the fables inside any holy scripture as they are no more believable than any other book or movie we've watched. At least those stories provide better lessons and morals that a modern society can learn from, whereas the stories of the gospels have only created hatred, violence and death. No other collection of stories is responsible for more violence and genocides than the bible itself, and you shouldn't need unicorns to convince anyone how immoral that is.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." \- Blaise Pascal

Never in our history has there ever been a larger instigator of violence.

Countless wars, genocides and other atrocities; all executed in the name of God.

Even if the act is committed against what that faith alleges, it doesn't change the fact that it's done for religious purposes. There have been countless wars over land but the bloodiest by far have been the conflicts over 'holy land'. More blood has been shed in the name of religion than any other cause in recorded history. There was once a time when the church ruled over all the lands, should it be considered a coincidence that it was called 'the dark ages'?

This is the chief problem with organized religion. They claim to know a truth that cannot be proven, and then they influence the 'faithful' to do their bidding and fight for their version of that truth. Most of the major crimes against humanity were in one way or another influenced through hatred that was either bred from or fanned into a rage by their religion. There are people in certain parts of the world who literally hate one another because of their creed. They look, act and do the same things but because of their difference in worship, they hate one another so much they would kill the other if given the chance.

A modest example of this craziness would be the recent genocide that took place in Rwanda. In this instance, most of the people who took part in the mass murder were Christian and their religious leaders in most cases were complacent in the face of such barbarism and even encouraged it. We already covered earlier in this book that this is supposed to be a church of morality, but in many instances throughout history, the Church has stood by and done nothing while genocide was being inflicted on groups of men, women and young children. This is the same Church that is supposed to tell people that they cannot kill (one of the logical Ten Commandments, remember?) and that they're supposed to turn the other cheek or forgive people who wrong them. Where was that moral standard when people were being butchered in the streets by crazed machete wielding men who were hacking others without mercy?

There are countless examples of the Church sanctioning murder rather than just standing by when it's going on. One has to look no further back than the Crusades to see an example of mass killing being done in the make of God. The journey to slay the heathens smacks in the face of the all loving God who told his people to not kill anyone. Then there's the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of countless people at the stake during the witch hunts. Then the mass Jonestown suicides and the incident in Norway are all good examples of how violent people can get when they take religion too seriously and way too literally. It's hard to tell people who are religious that they're not supposed to kill when there are other parts of the same book that says it's all right. One part of the book specifically says that vengeance will be the Lord's and then there is another part that tells people to take an eye for an eye. Its countless contradictions like this that make atheists throw up their hands and give up the argument. If this book was the work of an almighty, all knowing God (which by the way, it wasn't) then there is no way there would such glaring contradictions. To an educated mind, these contradictions are considered evidence of numerous writers doing their own version of what they think is divine with no knowledge of what stories others concocting. This is evidence that the religious books people accept as a holy gospel is fiction. A man made book made to keep people in check and give them a reason to swindle the masses into submission and swindle them of their time and hard earned money as well. What's worse is that people's lives were ended by these books at the hands of the people that took them too seriously. It's because of an alleged promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife that apparently led nineteen Muslims to conduct the worst terrorist attack in history on September 11th, 2001. People can try to deny it all they like, but that was an act of religious intent to attack the people who they considered to be evil in accordance with their own faith. It was insulting when American politicians stood before the press and had the gall to tell the people the motive behind the attack was because 'they hated our freedoms', which was complete bullshit. The reason why they allegedly attacked on that fateful day was because they interpreted the Quaran's message to make them believe the US was filled full of infidels that needed to be destroyed. They attacked the US because they hated them for not being Muslim and for following the wrong religion, not because of their freedoms.

Now the Quaran doesn't actually tell people to kill themselves for God, that is just a gross interpretation by some radical people. That's the defence many religions use when some nut bar takes thins way too seriously and hurts someone. Muslims are not the only one's guilty of taking things too far as Christianity has its fair share of nut bars who took God's law into their own hands with rather tragic results. Now should the rest of the Muslims who don't commit such atrocities be held responsible for the acts of a few dozen nut balls? Of course not, but they are responsible to prevent things from getting that far if they have the power to do so. If someone is suspected of being too radical and taking things religious way too seriously then that is when the Church or powers running them have to step in and take care of it. While I don't think people of that faith should be held fully responsible for their actions, but while this is a religious problem, people of that religion cannot stick their heads in the ground and deny total responsibility if they share the same hatred for others that the same nut balls. The best way to prevent attacks and atrocities like that is to not provoke or stroke the flames of hatred that will lead to radicals taking the law into their own hands.

For example, Christian churches cannot act innocent when they spend years telling people that abortion is evil and that it's murder which leads one of their followers to shoot a doctor who performs them. They're the ones who told that person who was evil and why, it was that person's church who pretty much pushed that person to commit this horrific act so it upsets a lot of people when the Church tries to watch their hands of it and say the person acted alone. Until leaders finally stand up to religion and put them in their place for being complacent or encouraging the hate that leads to these acts of violence, they are going to keep happening over and over again until someone makes a stand.

No politician has the balls to stand up and lay proper blame on the shoulders of organized religion, but if there was ever a motive for these people to do something like that, this was it. The people who committed these atrocities believed in a God that they thought made it their responsibility to run their own crusade to kill those who opposed what they believed in. Of course a politician would never stand up and blame religion for the fighting that goes on in the world. They have to pander to religion in order to get elected and insulting people of faith is about the same as sleeping win an intern; both will kill your campaign in a heartbeat. Usually when I discuss religious atrocities with those who are religious, I always toss out the following questions:

  1. When was the last time millions or even thousands were killed over Atheism?

  2. When was the last time someone was stoned to death by an atheist?

The answer to those two questions is never. The best thing about not having a God or a prophet is that we don't get tied down in the pointless things that drive other religions insane to the point where they start wars or jihads against one another. Now when trying to argue against that point many Christians had tried to claim that the holocaust, the mass genocide of the Jewish people in Europe was an act committed by an atheist. They claim that Adolph Hitler was an atheist and that his anger against the Jews was hatred for religion because he was a Godless heathen. Complete bullshit.

When people try to push this blatant distortion of history, I step up every time and challenge it because it is without a shadow of a doubt, completely false. It couldn't be farther away from the truth. My response was swift and here's the catch, backed up with historical evidence! There are quotes and actual documented statements that basically prove that the Holocaust was the result of actions made by religious people who thought they were doing 'the Lord's work' and to claiming that it was conducted by God hating atheists was and is grossly inaccurate and unproven.

The rise of Adolph Hitler and the horrors he inspired owe far more to theism and Christianity than to atheism. This is not speculation, but a fact that is proven with historical accuracy. I realize that it is not an easy view for many theists and Christians to accept, but that doesn't make it less true. I know from experience how much more frequently they blame Hitler's rise and his Nazism on the "God-hating" philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche instead. And I suspect that many will be inclined to dismiss my opinion as the self-serving words of a mere atheist. So instead of my mere opinion, I'd like to present some of the evidence (there's that word again, I know how much Christians hate that) I've based that opinion on and let others draw their own conclusions. And what better evidence to start with than the words of Hitler himself?

In the mid-1920s, Adolph Hitler wrote and had published a 2-volume work entitled Mein Kampf. Although this work was mostly ignored at first, it was a bestseller by the time Hitler had won the votes of millions of Germans and come to power in 1933. And it just so happens that it was this bestseller which repeatedly expressed very clear theistic beliefs. In addition to numerous stock phrases such as "God forbid," "by God," "by the living God," and "God only knows," it contains many detailed expressions of belief in God which contemporary Christian Americans might well applaud if presented as the words of an unknown author. Consider the following:

1) "Since in my free time I received singing lessons in the cloister at Lambach, I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendour of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal." \- Volume 1, Chapter 1

Hitler is in the process of telling his life story in Mein Kampf when he discusses his childhood and his early relationship with the church. As one can tell by his respect and love for his own church and their staff would indicate that he did not grow up to be a monster because he was born with a hatred of God. It would also suggest that his atrocities were not a result of not having proper exposure to religion in his youth. If his rise to power was actually based on an appeal to atheists rather than to theists, then why would he have ever written passages like this in his own book? Many could suggest that Hitler was pandering to a future voting base that was mostly religious, but Hitler himself actually condemns politicians who lie about their faith later on in the book.

2) "If, with the help of his Marxist [atheist] creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men. Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands. Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

\- Vol. 1, Chapter 2, end lines

Hitler could not have made myself more clear with his comments here. He states not only a belief in God the Creator, but he believes he is doing the work of his Lord with regard to his views of the Jewish people. Millions and millions of Christian Germans voted for the man knowing this.

3) "Their [the Jews] whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image." - Vol. 1, Chap. 6

Why on earth would an atheist care about the God's image? This is another passage that pokes a lot of holes into the whole 'he was a godless monster' bullshit. Atheists don't care about the 'image' of an imaginary being. While I'm sure many politicians lie to their people to gain their trust and vote, Hitler seems too over the top to be faking it. He seems to have a genuine love for his Lord and appears to care how his Lord looks to others.

4) "Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children." \- Vol 1, Chap. 7

In this quote, Hitler is expressing his own views about the German Army's last offensive battle of World War I (a battle which he claims to have fought in). Another passage where speaks of his Lord and what he assumes this being thought of the German people and its enemies.

5) "...the fact that our big city population is growing more and more prostituted in its love life cannot just be denied out of existence; it simply is so. The most visible results of this mass contamination can, on the one hand, be found in the insane asylums, and on the other, unfortunately, in our children. They in particular are the sad product of the irresistibly spreading contamination of our sexual life; the vices of the parents are revealed in the sicknesses of the children...."

Hitler goes on to condemn those who "close their eyes in pious horror to this godless plague...." - Vol. 1, Chap. 10. Not only does Hitler seem to mention the 'godless' people, but he condemns them in this quote. This is a complete contradiction if someone is trying to claim that Hitler was a godless person himself. If he was truly godless there would be little to no comments like this in all his writings, but it's the exact opposite. He condemns those who deny God, rather than supports them.

6) "But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle [against prostitution & syphilis] is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty."

7) "The works of a Moritz von Schwind, or of a Bocklin, were also an inner experience, but of artists graced by God and not of clowns."

Within both of those quotes, Hitler couldn't be any more clear concerning his definite opinions when it comes to art and culture. Like many theists today, he claims that those creative artists that he approves of are inspired by God while those which he detests are Godforsaken clowns. Once again this goes against the whole 'Godless monster' bull the Church has been trying to shovel for the past several decades. In his own words, Hitler claims that anything beautiful is a gift from a divine entity, and those who do not appreciate that are heathens. Once again not the kind of talk one would expect from an Atheist.

8) "If in Germany before the War religious life for many had an unpleasant aftertaste, this could be attributed to the abuse of Christianity on the part of a so-called 'Christian' party and the shameless way in which they attempted to identify the Catholic faith with a political party. This false association was a calamity which may have brought parliamentary mandates to a number of good-for-nothings but injury to the Church."

There's that statement that I was referring to as Hitler himself is attacking other, "good-for-nothing" politicians for claiming to be Catholics and Christians merely to get ahead. This is something many Christians accuse Hitler himself of doing in their attempts to paint this horrible man as anything but one of their own. Hitler indicates that these politicians and their dishonesty hurt the Church in the process, which means he obviously considers injury to his Church a bad thing. In this passage, he presents himself and his party as different, better - a leader and a party the Church and Christians can trust.

9) "The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others. If an idea in itself is sound and, thus armed, takes up a struggle on this earth, it is unconquerable and every persecution will only add to its inner strength. The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

So, Hitler thinks Christianity is great. Not only that, he thinks it is great because it is fanatical and intolerant. It's clear by his own words that Hitler means to apply this winning strategy not in opposition to Christianity but as a complement to it in the political sphere. The millions of Germans who supported him and his party apparently approved of his methods and his respect of the Church.

10) "And so, internally armed with faith in the goodness of God and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the struggle for what is called 'the reconstruction of the Reich' can now begin."

\- Vol. 2 Chap. 1

The stupid electorate he is referring to is not that which voted for him but that which gave rise to the Weimar Republic in the 1920s when he was writing. His "faith in the goodness of God" phrase could have been penned by a Bush speech writer (among many others, of course).

11) "On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the earth. To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its founders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of human existence. Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise."

Once again an alleged Atheist caring about the 'image' of God the church claims he had nothing to do with.

12) "Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only in virtue of this passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up. And intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth of such a faith." \- Vol. 2, Chap. 5

Here is another comment that could be seen as a precursor to the holocaust. My religion is better than yours and we will destroy your altars and then you if you do not follow the right path. If Hitler was the atheist that people claim he was, then this whole 'my God is better than yours' shot is very consistent with a man who believes his 'faith' is the one true path to God.

13) "And while the patriotic movement is debating with itself whether the ultramontane danger be greater than the Jewish, or vice versa, the Jew is destroying the racial basis of our existence and thereby annihilating our people. As far as regards that kind of 'patriotic' warrior, on behalf of the National Socialist Movement and therefore of the German people I pray with all my heart: 'Lord, preserve us from such friends, and then we can easily deal with our enemies.'" \- Vol. 2, Chap. 10

Hitler also looks forward to the day when the German nation as a whole ardently prays "Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. Be just, as Thou hast always been just. Judge now if we deserve our freedom. Lord, bless our struggle." (Vol. 2, Chap. 13). An atheist that insists an entire nation devote themselves to God? Please...

14) "...before foreign enemies are conquered, the enemy within must be annihilated; otherwise God help us if victory does not reward our arms on the very first day." \- Vol. 2, Chap. 15

After reading all these quotes it's time to finally address the preverbal elephant in the room: do these strike you as the words of an atheist?

Did the millions of Christian Germans who read Mein Kampf and then voted for its author not aware of what they were getting themselves into? Also, when Hitler actually does criticize religion, he does so in the way theists always have: I am on the side of God - it's the church which has fallen away! He is not trying to replace the church with godlessness in any way, which is what many people of faith have been trying to do for decades in an effort to paint Hitler as something he clearly was not. Despite how hateful and horrid his words were, they were talk from a man who believed in God and thought that he was doing the 'Lord's Work'. Anyone who tries to claim that the atrocities of the Second World War, especially the one committed against the Jewish people were the actions of a Godless atheist is without merit or credibility.

After looking at the worlds of the madman himself, it's evident to see that yes he was a wacko, but he was a religious wacko. This wacko was a Christian man who acted out against someone out of a hatred that was inspired by religion and his God. How does that make Hitler any different than that shooter in Norway who killed many people because he thought they were against his own God? It doesn't.

How many more quotes do I need to find before people realize that Hitler's alleged Atheism was just the Church's way of trying to wash the blood of the holocaust off their hands? There are no quotes I could find in history that would suggest that Hitler had a change of heart and split from the church to became an atheist at any time during the war. The man was and died a devout Christian who thought that exterminating a race of people was doing 'God's work'... which means the holocaust was in fact an act of religious genocide. The church can try to deny if all they want, but like the crusades and the inquisition before them, the holocaust was another senseless slaughter of innocent people by a man who was acting out of hostility that was flamed and stroked by the words of the bible and these countless millions were all murdered in the name of his God.

"Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?" \- Robert G. Ingersoll

Speaking of killing people in the name of God, I'm not sure many Christians are aware of how much human Sacrifice has been a part of biblical history. Some might be shocked to realize that it's been a part of many religions (even Christianity) as long as there has been a biblical history to document. Killing people in the name of God (despite it being against a certain Commandment) seems perfectly all right if it pleases your Lord. The Bible has many such cases of it, especially within the Old Testament that has numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice. Within the book itself, it describes how God likes the aroma of burning flesh. Animal sacrifice occurs more often than human, but both occur all in the name of a God who supposedly loves you and is all good. Huh?

The most well known example of this comes from the first book, when Abraham is asked to sacrifice his own son by God Himself:

"Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18)

So not only is Abraham asked to kill his only child, who even God knows he loves likely more than he loves himself, he is asked to do so in the most cruel and inhumane way possible: burned alive. I don't know about you, but this is seriously fucked up.

As a father of two boys, I have a seriously problem with this story as it clearly contradicts with the whole idea of an all loving God. If such an all loving being existed, that entity would value all life and the love someone has for their children. Not here as God asks Abraham to not only kill his only son, but to make sure he suffers before his passing. No clean, painless death. He must suffer to the extreme. I'm sorry but when I think of this request, all loving is the last thing that comes to mind.

So what does Abraham do? He does as he is told and takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Abraham then ties his son to the altar and prepares to complete his duty. At the very last possible moment, God tells him this was just a test of his faith and that he is to abort.

This is the part that apologists of the Bible try to use to convince themselves that God is all loving. Bullshit. Making Abraham go 90% of the way and stop him at the last minute was in itself cruel.

Another sick part of this story was that God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram, which Abraham completed without question. This leaves me to wonder how many members of PETA are aware of these passages and still consider themselves deeply religious?

Even though Abraham didn't kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do. Just the idea of setting everything up must have been torture to the old man. And what about his son? Being strapped to the altar and nearly killed in the name of God. Coming that close to death traumatizes someone, and do you think his son would ever help his old man set any altar up ever again after that incident? Would you?

An all loving God would never ask neither Abraham nor his son to go through what was a very cruel exercise just to test their faith. According to the same book, God was all knowing as well. If this entity was capable of knowing everything as well, so why was such a test even necessary to begin with? This is just another of countless unexplainable contradictions.

Could you imagine if Abraham did that today? How do you think the police or the 'good Christians' would have responded of someone tied their own son to an altar to sacrifice his child to God? I know how society would react, his son would be sent to a foster home by child services and Abraham would spend the next ten to twenty years in prison being someone's bitch.

It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God's love. There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

Then again, this is not the only time God makes someone kill their own child. Unlike Abraham, Jephthah is not let off the hook as he burns his own daughter to death for God as detailed in Judges 11:29-40:

"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter."

So even though God backed out and spared Abraham's son, he didn't show the same love and compassion for Jephtahah's daughter this time around. I also find it very interesting that God would show up at the last minute to save Abraham's son but does nothing to stop the sacrifice of a Jephthah's daughter. Another case one could use to argue against the sexism of the church, since they seem perfectly all right to sacrifice women and not men. But it seems according to the alleged good book that killing kids is all right in the eyes of the Lord if your reasons are just. Have a look at this passage from Deuteronomy:

18 - If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,

19 - His father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.

20 - They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard."

21 - Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

It's right here for all to see: if your kid is out of line and doesn't listen to you, the town is allowed to stone him/her to death for not obeying their parents. There is no mention of age here, so these kids could be twenty or five for all we know. Could you imagine the anger and hostility if someone did that today, killing their child and saying it was done in the name of God?

Unfortunately we don't have to because it's already happened several times, with one major case making the news in Texas. When she was first arrested, word leaked that Andrea Yates claimed to have killed her five children because she claimed that God had told her to do it. Looking at the examples listed above, God apparently has a history of asking this of people to kill their kids. Yet how did society respond to this woman who had drowned her five children (Noah, John, Paul, Luke, and Mary) in the bathtub of her Clearlake area home in Houston, Texas, on June 20, 2001? They declared her insane and had her sentenced to remain locked up for decades. This is not the only time this has happened:

- Sherry Marie Delker murdered her six year old daughter Samantha on March 29, 2002 in Austintown, Ohio. Mrs. Delker admitted to running her daughter down with her car outside a church. Police said she wanted to send her daughter to a "better place." Sherry Delker is now serving twenty years to life in prison.

- Magdalena Lopez murdered her two sons Antonio and Erik on July 19, 2005 in Dyer, Indiana. Police reported that she beat her two sons to death with a ten-pound dumbbell because she thought they'd be better off in heaven. Both deaths were caused by massive skull fractures. Mrs. Lopez was quoted as saying, "They're in a much better place now."

- Marilyn Lemak murdered her three children on March 4, 1999 in their Naperville, Illinois home. Mrs. Lemak feed the children peanut butter laced with antidepressants, laid them down to sleep, then smothered them with her hands. She wanted to kill the children and herself so they could be reunited in a happier place. "She perceived herself as a loving mother tenderly taking her children into another existence," stated psychiatrist Philip Resnick.

\- On September 3, 1998, Khoua Her strangled her six children in St. Paul, Minnesota. She then hanged herself in a failed suicide attempt. Khoua had become a Christian after immigrating to the United States, and thought she would be reunited with the children in the afterlife. Prosecuter Chris Wilton stated, "I know that she did this for religious reasons." Khoua Her was sentenced to fifty years in prison.

- Christina Marie Riggs smothered her two children Justin and Shelby with a pillow in Sherwood, Arkansas. She then attempted suicide by swallowing twenty-eight Elavil tablets and injecting enough potassium chloride to kill five people. Incredibly, she survived. Although the motivation for this crime appears to be the unhappy circumstances of Mrs. Riggs life, there is evidence that her religious beliefs as a minimum made the crime easier to commit. She requested and received the death penalty, then fought for her right to die. From death row, she told an interviewer, "I'll be with my children and with God. I'll be where there's no more pain. Maybe I'll find some peace." She was executed by lethal injection outside Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on May 3rd of 2000. In her last statement she proclaimed, "Now I can be with my babies, as I always intended."

There are countless other examples of people who used their 'faith' as the primary motivation to execute their children. In just these examples listed above, twenty-four children were murdered by people who assumed they were doing something they thought would please the Lord, just like Jephthah did to his daughter. How could an entity that people assume is all loving (and all good) allow such carnage to carry on in his/her/its/their name? The answer to this question is quite simple: because there is no all loving God to stop it. The entity in question does not exist.

These people killed innocent children because they were spoon feed a delusion that in part contributed to their eventual break with reality. While I do understand that these people need to accept responsibility for their own actions, one cannot stand back and truly claim that organized religion and the stories of child sacrifice didn't play a hand in these tragic events. These people read stories about burning children and how it pleased their Lord (Ezekiel 21:33-37) then turn around and do their own act in an attempt to so something they assumed might be equally pleasing to their Lord.

As a father myself, I am horrified by this lack of respect for human life. I love my sons, more than I love myself and I would never, ever consider harming them let alone taking their lives. Just the idea of it makes me sick to my stomach. I'm not alone with this feeling as every one of the people listed above has been either arrested and jailed for their killings or locked away in a mental facility for the rest of their natural lives. Think about that for a second, despite the fact that there is a history and established precedent of God coming down and asking people to kill their children such as the previously mentioned Abraham and Jephtahah, we do not believe a single person today who claims the same story. Not a single one. Doesn't that speak volumes about what we think of the stories within the bible today? If someone tries to tell us the reason why they killed their child was to please God, modern societies refuse to believe them and lock them away for either being crazy or criminal. And where does the Church stand on the issue of God coming back down and asking more people to kill their kids? They don't respond at all and also write these people off as crazy or criminal. Shouldn't that response tell you something? They refuse to believe anyone who claims to talk to God today, and for good reason. They know the stories of the previous people who spoke to their God are also false, so they have no reason to believe any modern examples. In other words there is no God, so why are these people still killing their children?

As a human being, the idea of killing any child for spiritual reasons is not only crazy but vile and immoral. No one should tolerate this kind of behaviour from anyone and yet it still goes on today because people are told to read a book that claims it's all right to do. If you claim that the bible is the word of God and it is true, then according to the book you support the sacrifice and unnecessary murder of children. If you do not support the killing of children, then you are going against the word of your own God. In many people's books that makes you an atheist.

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish." – Anonymous

I have a few friends who eat from a very limited menu. When I get together with these friends the only place where we can all eat together is a Chinese buffet because that's the only way we can all get something accustomed to our eating habits. A few of these friends are unable to eat certain things because of allergies. One is allergic to shell fish (meaning no crab, lobster, shrimp) while another is allergic to wheat gluten, which is rough because a lot of stuff has wheat in it either as preservative or coating of food such as batter. The third is lactose intolerant which means she cannot have any dairy products such as milk, cheese or ice cream. I do not begrudge these friends because they did not choose to have these issues with certain foods. If they ingest these particular foods, their bodies will respond with pain and suffering that could last through the entire night or even take their lives depending on how severe the reaction is. An aunt on my father's side has an allergy to shell fish so bad that even the smell of cooked shell fish will cause her throat to swell and cut off her air supply. I don't have any allergies to any particular foods (that I know of) and am grateful that my body doesn't rebel against my choice of diet.

But then I have friends who are unable to eat certain foods because of a moral objection. These are the people who have no physical reason to reject these foods, many that would nourish their body with minerals and nutrients. Yet they choose not to eat them because they object to ingesting something they believe to be immoral. One good example of this would be my vegan friends who refuse to eat a single product that comes from a living thing. They refuse to eat any kind of animal as well as the by-products that come from those animals such as milk, eggs and cheese. They refuse to eat these foods because in their humble opinion meat is murder. Their refusal to eat any living things is almost as hypocritical of their religious counterparts, because science has proven that plants are also living beings. I learned in grade six science classes that plants go through a process called photosynthesis and have living cells, so these vegans are in fact killing something when the ingest a salad or a stalk of celery. So the idea that they do not eat any living things is absolute rubbish, but they claim to stay away from the animals merely because they are a more advanced being than the average plant.

As an atheist, I have no qualms with eating meat of any kind. I am a strong believer in the theories of Charles Darwin such as natural selection and survival of the fittest with regards to the primal order of the food chain. We are not at the top of the food chain but we're really, really close to it. There are times when we are at the top when we best other animals like sharks and lions, but I am also aware that if I was ever caught alone without anything to defend myself, that shark or lion would make a find meal out of me and would be veggin' in the sun for the rest of the day with a belly full of yours truly. That's why I feel no guilt when I put a shark steak on my George Foreman grill because I know that little bugger wouldn't hesitate to take a bit out of me if the tables were turned. I also don't feel bad when I eat meat because it's a natural for us to do as predators with teeth similar to other common carnivores.

In my days I have eaten some very interesting meats and to me they are no different than going down to a local grocer and picking up a few steaks from your local butcher. During my time in Newfoundland, I had many meals that consisted of moose meat. My personal favourite was lasagne made with ground moose meat with moose burgers from the same ground meat being a close second. I also had seal meat when I was living in that province and I had more than one piece of seal flipper pie, and then I took a few pieces home. It was my time over in Asia that was very education to me when it came to eating foods of wide variety. Over there was the first time I had ever eaten eel, which I tried cooked in a few different manners. The one I preferred most was barbequed which convinced me that everything really does takes better when grilled.

One food I tried when I was over there was dog. That's right, I really tried dog and I cannot help but tell you the truth: it was delicious. I had seconds and would have had thirds if I wasn't already full. A lot of people look at me with disgust when I tell them this. How could you eat a dog? They're cute and cuddly animals and it's just sick to eat a dog. I happen to disagree. We eat all sorts of animals without a care of how they look (the cute effect) and more to do with how they please our bellies when we ingest them. Most people when I tell them ask me if I knew what kind of dog that I ate and I literally have no idea. It's not like red lobster were you look into the tank and personally pick out the lobster you want on your plate. These animals are slaughtered and butchered long before they reached my plate. No one ever asks these questions when they're ordering beef or pork. Could you imagine the look you would get from a waiter if you asked him/her what color the cow was before it was slaughtered: was it brown or white with black spots? These questions are ridiculous as are they when someone in Asia is eating dog. It's just another meat that comes to your plate and you never had to deal with it and never had to endure any of the ugly process all meats have to go through to make it to your dinner table. Ignorance in these cases is truly blissful. Do you think a great white shark gives a rat's ass if the person swimming in the water is Christian or Muslim, black or white, or is a nice, intelligent person before biting his/her leg off? Nope, such rubbish never crossed his pea sized brain as it moves in to take that first sumptuous bite. The same can be said for me when I sat down that day to eat dog for the first time. I was in a foreign land, faced with a delicacy that was at the heart of their culture. I'm also not the kind of person who would let ignorance and petty prejudices stand in the way of a good meal. Usually when I walk into a meal like this, I know that even if I don't like it, I will at least walk away with a really cool story to tell. To me that's what you would call a win, win situation.

Now I come to the last person whose picky eating can make finding a place to dine with all my friends a complete hassle. These are people who refuse to eat specific foods neither because they physically can't nor because they object them personally for how the food being slaughtered. No, these people object to certain foods because they were told to by a higher power. They have no personal reason not to eat these foods, but they do not because their religion considers them to be 'unclean'. They've been told these foods are bad by their doctrine and follow it merely because it was what they were always told. One good example would be pork. Eating anything that comes from a pig is considered taboo in quite a few religions, especially most in Judaism and the Muslim faith. There is a part in the bible that talks about touching the skin of a pig as being a sin but no one has used that as an excuse to ban bacon in America. Christianity is not without its ridiculous food traditions as they are instructed not to eat any meats on Good Friday (only fish) and they are also not allowed to consume any alcohol on the same holy day. That is something that Christians and Muslims also have in common, but the Muslim faith takes things further calling for an outright ban on all alcohol.

When I first heard that Muslims didn't eat pork, I naturally assumed it was for the same lame reasons that other religions chose to pass on it. I was incorrect about that assumption, and I realized this mistake one day when I took a friend of mine who happened to be a practicing Muslim out for dinner. That night we went to a great pub in town that serves 'alligator' on its menu and always one to try new and exciting stuff, I ordered what were called alligator bites. This was an appetizer that consisted of bite size pieces of alligator that were battered and deep fried and served with a hot Cajun mayo to start off the meal. I offered my Muslim friend to help himself and have a few pieces of alligator, which is rejected because he's not permitted to eat that animal. I was a little surprised to hear that and asked why he couldn't eat the alligator bites. He went on to inform me that Muslims do not eat any animals that consumes other animals. For that reason he was not able to eat the alligator that clearly consumed other animals when he was in his natural habitat. I was also informed that this rule is also why Muslims do not eat Pork as well, because pigs will eat anything (even other pigs) if you feed it to them. So I learned that day that Muslims do not pick on pigs, they just prefer not to eat animals that are themselves fellow meat eaters. While I was pleased to finally understand the rule (which meant more alligator bites for me!) it didn't change the fact that I think banning any kind of food for religious reasons are still just as preposterous as they were to be before I learned the official rules about it.

People who chose not to eat something for religious beliefs are lower than vegans in my books because at least a vegan is making a choice of their own accord. A good handful of vegans are at least standing up for themselves and making a choice with the goals that have a profound effect on their health and very lives. For every naïve idiot who doesn't want to eat the cute animals (which is just as stupid as saying God forbids it), there is another vegan who made their decision based on hard science and with the intent to make themselves better both for health and moral reasons. That vegan gets my upmost respect because he or she is virtually approaching their veganism the same way a non believer of religion approaches atheism. While I personally don't agree with vegans, I respect those particular vegans and how the came to their position.

Yet someone who doesn't eat bacon because their God claims that it's unholy or unclean are dupes because they have never been given a valid reason for why they are considered impure or taboo. They have been told to just avoid eating certain things because it's bad because we said so. I don't know about you but I would want a perfectly valid reason to stop consuming something before I complied. If a medical group releases a report tomorrow that says drinking too much soda will shorten your life and increase your chances of cancer, I will read that report from start to finish and weigh the evidence before making a final decision. If I think the report and science is sound, I would make an effort to wean myself off the sodas and stop drinking them all together if I felt it was the necessary course of action. If someone walked up to me and just told me to stop drinking anything because they said so, I would tell that person to take a hike.

I spoke with a Christian who once told me that his church doesn't forbid him from eating anything and I was naturally stunned by his ignorance. My response to his sheer denial was to ask him if he happened to have a copy of the bible on him, which he did. I then asked him to flip over to Leviticus 11:9-12 and read to me what it said. The passage went as follows:

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters that shall be an abomination unto you."

After my friend read this quote out loud, he could hardly believe what he had read as it was a passage he was unaware of all this time. It means he either didn't bother to read his bible from cover to cover as he claimed to have or he just didn't remember that this passage existed. So we began to discuss what this passage meant. What food comes from the ocean that doesn't have fins or scales? I immediately tossed out some very good examples: shrimp, clams, mussels, crab and even lobsters. So the clam chowder that my oldest son loves to eat every week is an abomination according to the book that my ex-wife claims to believe. The bible states that he should be denied the chance to consume this delectable crème soup. When shown that passage, my friend was shocked that there was any rules in his own faith that forbid him to eat certain foods just like the others. There's no logical reason for God to forbid the eating of shrimp cocktail, which is delicious by the way, but there it was in plain sight for all to read in Leviticus. Needless to say my friend had to do a lot of soul searching and re-examine his own faith upon this discovery. I'm not so sure where he stands right now with God, but if my friend wanted to keep respecting his Lord and Savoir, I strongly suggest that he keeps his distance from any Red Lobster locations for the time being.

This is why the decision to not eat various foods because they are not approved but a church that has no evidence to back up their entire existence to begin with looks to be an absolute sham in the eyes of an atheist. Very soon the world's population is going to pass the seven billion mark if it hasn't already by the time you read this, you'll understand that the last thing we need when there are so many mouths to feed are picky eaters. I'm not a picky eater at all, as I can count on one hand the things I cannot stand to eat. Three things: peas, pineapple and coconut. That's about it. Anything else I am at least willing to try once and even again after some time passes between tries. I've even eaten something while it was still alive, meaning your food doesn't get any fresher than that. So when I come across a meal that is been badly prepared or is just flat out awful, I will do my best by providing it with the most minimal compliment I can think of: at least it's dead.

Refusing to eat something on grounds of instruction from an almighty being that has not been proven to even exist, smacks of sheer and unadulterated stupidity. That's just the most honest way I can describe it. Refusing to nurture yourself with sustenance that could improve your life and well just being because a church told you it was wrong and immoral as there's nothing more offensive than wasting food. Moms always tell their children that there are starving kids in other parts of the world, so to waste food is wrong. It's the one time I actually agreed with my mother and I've done more to help starving children than just finish what was on my plate. I've donated my time, money and whatever this writer could afford to aid those who are less fortunate than myself. It's a standard that I have passed onto my son, to not only to teach him to respect and appreciate what he already has in life but to remember that there are other people out there who deserve to be treated with respect, love and compassion. When there is not enough on this world to feed everyone, I have a feeling it is those who are picky about what they eat that will eventually be the ones who are left out.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." – Seneca the Younger

This is an interesting issue that I am going to hit head on. Where does your right to religion begin and more importantly, where does it end? That answer would likely vary depending on who you ask. Some might say that someone's right to religion should never end, but that is complete bullshit. It does end at some point. There are things that religions call for that is outlawed by civilized societies. For example you cannot sacrifice children to your God for a better crop because murder is against the law. So someone's right to religion ends because it is overridden by someone else's right to exist under the law.

Another good example would be child abuse. Religions all have their examples of calling their people to not 'spare the rod' when it comes to disciplining their children, but beating children with any kind of rod literally is against the law. Here in Canada for example, hitting a child with any kind of weapon or any contact with a child that is not on their hand or their buttocks is considered abuse under the criminal code. So someone's right to religion ends because it's overruled by our criminal code to protect children from being beaten by their overzealous parents.

So regardless of what someone says; religion isn't a right in every case. There are limits to what society will allow religion to get away with and lately people have been trying to push their luck, with little success. Children are not allowed to bring religious knives to school because that puts children in danger. If my religion said it was alright for me to carry a bazooka around at work, I wouldn't be allowed to walk around in public with it because it's against the law. So this isn't picking on one religion specifically, it blankets them all.

In modern society, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Religion isn't supposed to influence the decisions of our branches of government. That doesn't stop people from trying to do just that, but there are countless cases being heard in supreme courts in many modern nations because religion has been pushed into people's lives and rather than just accept it, people are fighting back to what in many cases is clearly an abuse of power by those trying to make themselves more special because of their religion.

A few weeks ago, the Canadian Supreme Court of Canada heard such a case where two rights are clashing against one another. In one corner of this epic fight is the right to religion and in the other corner is the right to a fair trail. I don't know about you but this is a real clash of the titans as far as constitutional rights are concerned. Our highest judges are being asked to decide which one is more important and regardless of what decision our Supremes make, one side is going to celebrate and the other is going to flip out.

Here's the case in a nutshell: the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments from a Muslim woman who is accusing her uncle of sexual assault. The problem is the victim (also the accuser) wants to wear Niqab during the trial, even when testifying on the stand. The accuser is claiming that not wearing the full face covering garb on the stand or during trail is an assault on her right to religion. Yet on the other side of the coin, our constitution says that anyone who is charged with a crime has a right to face their accuser. How can you face your accuser when that person is wearing a garb that covers their face?

Regardless of which way this decision goes, it's going to create a lot of problems for the Canadian legal system. According to the women's Legal Education and Action Fund, they fear that a decision to force women to remove their Niqab when going to trail will result in many women not reporting future assaults, which could result in Muslim women being raped with impunity if you are confident they will not take it to court.

Those are some very legitimate concerns but what about an innocent man who is accused of a crime they didn't commit? Doesn't that person have a right to a fair trail? Doesn't that person have a right to face their accuser in open court and fight for their freedom? I actually watched the arguments on CPAC, and I heard the lawyers as they made their arguments. The attorney representing the defence had good reason to call for the Niqab to be banned from court. If someone is covering their face from opposing council, how can one read facial expressions to determine if a witness is telling the truth? It was a sound point being brought up because cross examinations, facial expressions are very important when trying to examine a witness. The Niqab takes away that element and in this attorney's opinion goes against someone right to a fair trail and to face their accusers.

After hearing both sides, another lawyer representing neither side came forward to be heard. I don't remember who this lawyer was representing, but man did he have some balls on him. He stood there in front of the Supreme Court of Canada and declared that someone's right to religion shouldn't be considered and someone's right to a fair trial was more important. He also raised a very valid point when he asked the court where would it stop? If we bend our rights to a fair trail to pander to religion, what will they ask for next? One of the judges asked the lawyer what he meant by this statement and the comeback the lawyer presented was a grand slam in my books. The Justice who happened to ask the question was a woman, and the lawyer reminded her that every major religion, even Christianity, considers all women to be inferior to men and doesn't recognize their right power of any kind. He then asked the Justice whether or not a person's right to religion should give defendants the right to ask judges to remove themselves from the bench if their religion doesn't acknowledge women as equal individuals? This lawyer was right when he made this point. If we allow one person to bend the rules because of religion, more people would take this decision and abuse it to the extreme, forcing people to change the way courts are run to pander to people's right to religion. This is one reason why I don't think the Supreme Court should allow women to wear Niqabs in court. A person's right to a fair trail is more important than a person's right to religion. I really hope the Court takes a stand and let's religion know that their rights end where the law starts.

There are already laws in place to protect victims from the public in place, so there is no need for someone to not step forward because of their face being shown to the public. We have rape shield laws and they are sufficient in protecting victims of crime but even these do not stand in the way of a person's right to face their accuser. Allowing someone to wear a mask in court goes against the entire idea of what our justice system stands for. This is another example of where someone's right to religion should end. The Niqab isn't even this strongly enforced by all Muslims to the extreme that this person is asking for. She has in the past removed it for exceptions, such as getting her passport and other forms of identification. So if her religion is all right to make these concessions, it should be just fine to do one for the courts as well.

But there is one elephant in the room that no one ever bothered to consider during the hearing before the Supreme Court. If someone is wearing a mask, how would we be able to identify whether or not the person testifying on the stand is indeed the actual accuser or not? If someone is afraid to show up in court and is too scared to testify, if the Niqab is legal what would stop another woman from putting on the face concealing garb and then walking into court to testify in her place? Should we fingerprint the victim every time the accuser comes to court just to make sure it is the same person who filed the charges? This is one problem I have with this case. If the woman is allowed to wear the Niqab it's going to cause a lot of identification issues and that is a can of worms I am surprised never came up during the hearing in the Supreme Court.

This leads to a bigger problem which is actually the Niqab itself. This entire issue is from a gross interpretation of the Koran that merely states that Muslim women must be 'modestly' dressed in public places. To a normal person that would mean no mini skirts or sleeveless shirts, etc. But this has been taken to the extremes to mean that husbands can force their wives to cover every part of their body except for the eyes and hands, which is never mentioned in the Quran at all. So basically what this Muslim woman is asking for isn't even detailed in her religion to begin with, but she's still claiming it to be a part of her religion she has a right to. If someone actually read the Quran correctly, which I have, the book actually states that ALL Muslims are supposed to dress modestly, not just the women. This means everyone should be wearing niqabs as well, not just the women.

Here is something many might now know, in 2009, The Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) asked Ottawa to introduce legislation to ban the wearing of masks, niqabs and the burka in all public dealings. In a statement, the MCC said, not only is the wearing of a face-mask a security hazard and has led to a number of bank heists in Canada and overseas, the burka or niqab are political symbols of Saudi inspired Islamic extremism. The MCC dismissed the argument that wearing of a face-mask by Muslim women is protected by the Charter's guarantee of religious freedom. The MCC said, there is no requirement in the Quran for Muslim women to cover their faces. Invoking religious freedom to conceal one's identity and promote a political ideology, is disingenuous. The MCC has pointed to the recent decision of Egypt's highest Muslim authority, Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, dean of al-Azhar University, who said he was against the Niqab and burka. He was quoted by an Egyptian as saying that the niqab is merely a cultural tradition and has no connection to Islam or to the Quran.

I agree with those trying to ban the Niqab, it has no place in society and is nothing more than an abuse of religion taken to the fullest extreme. It's purpose is to use religion as a weapon to discriminate women around the world. I do not agree with the discrimination of women, nor do I think women are worth only half of a man, which is why I support the outlawing of the Niqab. Sexism is sexism, no matter who does it and for what reason. It's that simple. That's why I think (and hope) the Supremes rule on the side of one's right to a fair trial over right to religion.

Yet the Muslim faith is not the only group looking for special treatment as per their religion in today's society. In the United States, Christians are trying to have language changed in anti-bullying laws to prevent people from being prohibited from expressing their religious beliefs.

Bullying in school is something that has become (finally) a hot topic as teenagers are committing suicide to get away from it. Right now there is a law that is being passed through the Tennessee legislature that is drawing a lot of fire from political opponents. While everyone is against bullying of any kind, there is language in this law that creates exemptions which is seriously fucked up. There should be no exceptions to bullying, all of it is bad and should not be tolerated. As I'm writing this, there is a proposed bill in Tennessee that would create a loophole in the state's anti-bullying laws to protect a person's ability to express their religious, philosophical or political beliefs, which one proponent says would ensure that people can still express their "views on homosexuality."

The proposed proposal would amend the state's anti-bullying bill to specify that the law being considered would "not be construed or interpreted to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students and shall not prohibit their expression of religious, philosophical, or political views" as long as there's no physical threat or threat to another student's property.

According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, David Fowler, a former Republican state Senator and current Christian activist, sent out a newsletter for his group the Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACT) in December that said he wants "to make sure [the law] protects the religious liberty and free speech rights of students who want to express their views on homosexuality."

"The purpose is to stop bullying, not create special classes of people who are more important than others," Fowler told the Times Free Press.

Based on what I read in that Times Free Press article is that Fowler is the one asking for special rights, for his request is trying to create a loophole so that kids are free to bully kids who are gay or not like them if that hate comes from a religious source. Like I said in previous chapters, things that are okay with the bible have been previously outlawed by moral societies such as human sacrifice, slavery and the oppression of women. Based on those examples of societies outlawing God's will, why should people who are expressing religious hate be given a free pass to bully anyone they want? Who is really asking for the special class here Mr. Fowler?

There's a small problem with Mr. Fowler's logic: this loop hole is actually a lot bigger than he or the politicians supporting it assume. This people supporting the loophole in this bill claim it's to protect "religious liberty", but what they are really trying to protect is "Christian Liberty". They have no interest in protecting "Jewish Liberty" or "Muslim Liberty" but they call it religious liberty because they have to rather than have their own selfish needs stick out there like a sore thumb. Yet if this law passes saying 'religious' rather than 'Christian', that means this loophole will be open for people of all faiths, which would allow all of them to bully people they do not agree with in accordance to their faith... even Christians. Do you really want to give anyone of any religious background that kind of power to promote their own version of hatred in any public school environment?

Also, many faiths consider women to be inferior so this law would open the flood gates and make it legal for high school kids to discriminate against women. As covered in chapter five, the Quaran specifically states that all women are only worth half a man (2:282), so this would give them grounds to say whatever discriminating thing they want to any girl in high school because it would be protected by this religious loop hole.

Ditto for Christians who state that women are not to be allowed a voice in any position of power and always remain silent (Timothy 2:9). This law which was supposed to protect people from bullying basically strips away all the progress women's right have made all in the name of promoting religious hate. Don't even get me started on the kind of hate and bullying atheists would suffer if this law passes as it is right now.

If this law were to pass as is, I know what exactly will happen and it's not pretty. People will use their faith to ram their hate down people's throats and this loop hole will give them free licence to bully people as often as they want. Then one day someone is going to take the law into their own hands and bring a gun to school. Is that really what these politicians want? I doubt that's what they truly want, but that's what will happen if they let this pass. More people will be picked on and the result will be more suicides and violence because teachers and principals can't do anything about it because the students are merely exercising their 1st amendment rights and their religious views. It won't take long before someone decides to use their 2nd amendment rights to stop the others from using their 1st amendment rights against them. That is what will happen if this loophole allows people to express their bullying nature in the name of God.

So let's recap: hate is hate, regardless of who says it and for whatever reason. Religion should never get a free pass from this law because free speech has never been unlimited; it has rules and regulations we have to follow. Nobody should be given a free pass to pick on anyone in school for being different, and anyone who believes that this is all right needs to have their heads examined. There shouldn't be any loop holes in any anti-bullying laws. Making laws like this is pretty similar to circumcision and nuclear proliferation: either you go all the way or don't bother doing it in the first place.

As I stated at the very beginning of this chapter, the right to religion has limits. Your right to religion doesn't give you the right to pick on and bully someone in school just because that kid is gay, Jewish, Muslim or an atheist. Your right to religion ends when it infringes in the human rights of everyone else, not only in school but in the workplace and everywhere else but your church. The fact that we have to issue these statements to a religion that claims to praise turning the other cheek and forgiving thy enemies is just another example of how absurd and out of touch religion truly is with the reality that is the 21st Century.

"It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: you came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?" \- Ricky Gervais

Let's say that I walked up to you one day and informed you that you could no longer drink coffee ever again because it leads to colon cancer. Here is my question: would you stop drinking coffee and take what I said on faith? Would you stop making your morning trips to Tim Horton's or Starbucks because I said so, or would you demand that I prove that coffee causes colon cancer before making any changes to your daily routine?

Instead of providing spreadsheets and statistics that proved coffee caused cancer, what if I told you that I believed it because no one proved that it was not true? If I tried to get away with such an incoherent argument, would change their routine or would they keep drinking coffee every morning and at work without hesitation? The reason why many would keep drinking coffee is a clear as day: I have not given you any reason to believe what I said. I have failed to meet my burden of proof.

This is something I absolutely had to address at some point in this book. An issue that is not only relevant to the debates I've been engaging in over the last two decades of my life but the very attitude that others bring towards it, especially when it comes to the tactic of burden shifting.

When someone comes up to you and makes a claim, stating something outrageous like vampires and werewolves are real, we have no reason to believe that person unless they prove to us that it's true. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that werewolves and vampires exist and not the person who doubts it. Whenever there is a disagreement about something, or a dispute over the validity of something, there are always two sides involved. First we have the claimant, the person who is making the claim in question. This is the person who claims to know or believe something to be true. This person has a claim that they want others to consider or believe. The other person is what we call the Sceptic. This person doesn't believe or have any reason to consider the validity of whatever the claimant is saying.

Let's give another example. Let's say that I tell people there is a flying spaghetti monster that lives on Jupiter that telepathically sends messages to us when we're asleep with instructions to follow in prelude to their invasion. People will no doubt challenge this story, asking for evidence to back up my claim. If I were to respond to my critics, telling them that it's their job to prove me wrong, that is not evidence but a cheap attempt to shift the burden of proof. Just because someone cannot prove something doesn't exist doesn't automatically make the claim true by default. The burden should still and always like with the claim maker rather than the sceptic.

Just because someone is not physically capable of proving me wrong about the flying spaghetti monster on Jupiter doesn't mean that I can champion the idea as correct. I am still obligated as the claimant to prove that there is any truth to the claims that I am making. Encyclopaedias are not full of things that we think might be out there, they are full of things that we know about. Every crazy claim can't make the books just because someone thinks them, a burden of proof must be met in order for these claims to be accepted at a minimal level by a civilized society.

Yet for some reason, organized religions have attempted to use a loop hole to get past the burden of proof. The mother of all burden shifting: faith. People of faith seem to think they are immune to burden of proof, thinking that as long as they have faith in their god(s) then proof is something they don't need to present to anyone. It's a form of denial that makes religious people seem a tad loony as they cling to their holy books and refuse to listen to a single thing that might contradict their fragile reason for existence. Religions rely on faith because when you try to actually apply your religious doctrine to things that actually make the world go round like evolution, physics and other endless sciences that can actually back up their claims with facts and evidence, religion looks to a civilized society as nothing more than the outdated and old superstitions that they really are. The sole reason why we are allowed to teach evolution in the classroom has nothing to do with faith, it's proven by evidence. Any attempt to bring in alternate ideas, such as creationism, fails to make the classroom because the people who support it have yet to meet their burden of proof. Creationism is just an attempt to bring religion into the classroom which shouldn't be allowed, especially considering there is no hard evidence to back up their claims.

People who support creationism claim that the planet is only six thousand years old, which is complete rubbish as we have fossils and bones of extinct species that prove the planet is at millions of years old, if not longer. Such evidence (such as dinosaur fossils) prove that the creationism's claims to be obsolete, which means we cannot take the rest of it at face value... especially when there is no evidence to back up a single claim. Evolution has cleared the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We have countless fossils of prehistoric man, and the shapes of their skulls suggest a change and defining of our species as we evolved into the beings we are today. Evolution isn't a suggestion, its cold hard fact backed up by evidence. Those who try to claim that their religious superstitions are the truth of how the world and us as a people came to be, it can be denied flat out because there is no evidence to even suggest a shred of it is true. Many scriptures like the bible are hearsay, and there is nothing to suggest or prove that a single word of it is true. There is no evidence to back up organized religion because faith isn't evidence. Faith is basically the belief in something that had failed to meet its burden of proof.

This is one place where people of faith differ from Atheists and humanists. If evidence were to become available that would question what we thing about anything, we are at least willing to examine the evidence and if its credible shift our position accordingly based on the new evidence presented. If someone wants to claim that there are aliens living on other planets, they would have to present concrete evidence rather than just speculation and coincidence. If someone were to suggest that crop circles to be proof that aliens exist, we would not accept that because it's a guess and not actual evidence. If someone were to take me to a hangar and actually showed me an alien spacecraft or an actual alien, than that would be enough to make me question and possibly re-examine my stance on the issue. This is where religions all over the world fall flat on their face, for despite the many stories they claim to be true... there is not a single fossil, not a single scrap of evidence to back up their claims. This is why many Atheists choose not to follow any religions or their Gods. They have all failed to meet their burden of proof.

People try to use faith as their shield against criticism, but that's not proof. At best, it's considered hearsay and that is never accepted in any civilized court of law as evidence. Faith according to writer Mark Twain "is believing what you know ain't so." It's hard to argue with Mr. Twain, especially today when we have endless artefacts, fossils and other piece of 'evidence' that prove our species came about through millions of years of evolution. Contrary to popular belief, two people did not just get dropped off on the planet by an almighty being and commit incest for the next several thousand years. No way, we are the product of a slow but gradual climb up the food chain. We used to be scavengers and slowly we became the hunters, something that was accomplished without the aid of any deities. The human race accomplished all of this on our own so I find it very foolish to give the credit to someone who not only didn't lift a finger to aid us but chances are doesn't even exist to begin with. If I were to claim that I could fly and I told people that the challenge of proving whether or not I could was on them to prove I couldn't, most would respond by saying it was my job to prove to them that I could. In other words the burden of proof is on my for claiming I could fly in the first place. I don't mean to sound like a broken record but this is how we have to approach the religious when they try to claim that it's on non-believers to prove their God(s) do not exist. That is complete rubbish.

The burden of proof throughout history has always landed on the side of the person who is making a claim. If someone is charged with murder, the burden is not on them to prove their innocence. In a civilized society, the burden is always on the prosecution, the person making the accusation. If that person fails to meet their burden, the defence doesn't even have to present a case and can ask for the charges to be dismissed. This is the attitude I have towards people who are religious. I don't have to present a thing until the person making the wild claims of Gods, angels and what not comes up with evidence first to prove their claims. So far not a single stitch of evidence has been presented yet. I'm very tempted to make a request for a dismissal.

"All thinking men are atheists."

– Ernest Hemmingway

As stated back in chapter 2, when I was attending University I took a course titled 'Introduction to Religious Ethics'. I had been an atheist since high school and had absolutely no intention of being quiet during this course. During that summer, a question was fielded that I thought was very interesting. Someone asked our professor what was in his opinion the number one cause of atheism. His answer was given without hesitation: education.

A lot of people in the class who were religious were infuriated by this answer, but he stood by it. Education is the number one way to becoming an atheist he said. The more educated a person is, the less likely they are to follow any organized religion. There are exceptions to this case, but his premise was and is true. The more education a person attains and the more that person learns to think for themselves, the more likely they are to make their own life choices and not follow the crowd.

This isn't just a theory; there are numbers to back it up. According to a recent Gallup poll conducted in the United States in 2011, almost twenty percent (17%) declared the Bible a book of fables written by people. That's only eight percent away from a full quarter of those polled. It's a far cry from the number I've heard from those who are devoutly religious. They are under the impression the number of atheists in America is roughly around six percent, which is not even close to the actual figures according to the previously mentioned Gallup poll.

According to these figures, the percent of people who believe that the bible is the actual word of God drops by more than twenty percent just between high school and some college. That drop increases to thirty percent when you poll people who actually graduated from college. The number of people who believe the bible is nothing more than a book of fables increases in the same poll, going from thirteen percent and climbing as education increases up to twenty-five percent at the post grad level. These are solid numbers that cannot be ignored. The more a person is educated, the less likely they are to believe religious dogma. I'm willing to even speculate that if religion was forced onto people at such an early age before their education begins, I am confident that a lot more people wouldn't willingly follow or support organized religions.

Now one of the biggest retorts I receive from those who are devoutly religious that happens to be my biggest pet peeve is that the only reason why I don't believe is because I didn't read the bible. Not only is that hypothesis false, but the actual reality of it is the exact opposite: the more you actually read, the less likely you are to believe it. Reading religious holy books doesn't make you more religious as examining them shows you what they actually have in common and what they may have plagiarized from one another. The more you actually read, the more you realize that the books people are worshiping are racist, sexist and most of all evil in their apparent natures. As examined in previous chapters, many books call for the oppression of women, slavery and even the death of people who don't follow their guidelines to the tee. The more educated a person becomes with regards to religion as a whole rather than just stick to one small branch, the quicker this educated person is to concluding that they are all manmade fiction and not the works of an almighty, omnipotent being.

The gallop poll posted above seems to prove the claim as the number of people who think the bible is a book of fables increases from thirteen percent for people with an education of high school or less to an amazing twenty-five percent when asking people who are post-graduate. The number of believers also fell when more education is present to a person dramatically as the people who thought the bible was the exact word of god dropped epically from forty-six percent when polling people with high school or less education to just sixteen percent of people who believed that after post grad. This kind of drop, an enormous drop of thirty percent cannot be ignored: the more educated a person is the less likely they are to buy the bullshit being shovelled out on a daily basis by organized religions.

It's evident that when it comes to non-believers, it isn't that atheism gets the smarter people but rather that atheism is positively linked with education. The more educated one becomes, the more likely that person is to become a non-believer. Switching to atheism won't make you smarter, but going to college will make you more likely to become an atheist. The more educated a person becomes, the more then think. With that thinking come questions and that's when the ball starts rolling with regards to belief. Thoughts become questions and then questions become doubts. Eventually without any evidence to support their side, many people who educate themselves at a high level often come to a very rational conclusion: Religion has no basis in fact and should be disregarded until sufficient evidence is presented.

In earlier years, children are taught to listen to our teachers, this does not always guarantee we become intelligent and knowledgeable. That form of critical analysis is diametrically opposite to teaching students to consume everything the teaching staff claims as truth. We're often told not to question it, apply it and then shuffle on to the next subject matter. Students who raise their hands in elementary school are often reprimanded and accused of interfering with the process. It is at the university level where students are often taught to critically assess everything their professors say. University students are expected when composing papers to check everything against independent sources, make sure it makes logical sense and gain a personal view (supported by evidence) of the subject to hand. This attitude of critical assessment and independent collaboration contributes greatly to the higher rates of atheism at institutions of higher learning.

Religion's appeal to the dim-witted is not difficult to grasp; for the church provides people with simple, trouble-free answers to questions that are and likely always be well above their pay grade. But these issues are never that straightforward, and scientists work very hard to find logical explanations everyday and their work is often ridiculed by those who do not appreciate it and refuse to even hear them out of plain ignorance. Many religious propagandists often refuse to even consider alternate theories despite the absence of evidence to back up any of their claims.

It seems obvious that critical thinking leads to questioning and doubting the simplistic and naive 'explanations' that religion provides. There have been numerous studies that verify this finding. Without a doubt, it's easy for one to look at numbers and polls to conclude that religion has no place in our schools other then to be studied as mythology and literature. God has no place in the classrooms, especially with regards to science and history. The more a person educates themselves in those subjects, the more they will comprehend how redundant and clichéd religion truly is.

If someone chooses to study theology at a later time, they should be allowed to without any interference. But at no time should something as complex and daunting as religion be ever forced onto someone who doesn't want it, especially if that person is a young and very impressionable child. Before a child should be burdened to answer questions of where do we come from or how the cosmos came to be, they should be allowed to be taught how to think first before embarking upon some of lives largest problems. Asking a child to tackle religion as such a young age would be like asking them to learn how to ride a motorcycle instead of going with a bicycle instead. By asking kids to include God in their early studies, it's tossing a monkey wrench in their ability to learn how to properly access situations and think through them adequately. Life isn't full of easy answers, to telling them that there is one is just setting our children up to fail at life. I prefer to teach a child how to think first before unloading some serious stuff on their plate. To adhere to the old cliché they must learn how to crawl before they try to walk, let alone sprint away. Schools much change their ways and allow children to question things rather than rush them through the system like a fast food burger. Questions and queries should be cherished and nurtured rather than dismissed as rebellion. Children need to learn at an early age that asking questions and seeking answers is a good thing and that no one should interfere with that. Find your own answers rather than accept them from someone else without evidence.

Thinking for ourselves removes the blinders of society, allowing us to see things as they are rather than as people want us to think they are. Yet organized religion doesn't want kids to think because thinking is what creates doubts and exposes people to the truth. The truth being that we have lived here a lot longer than six thousand years. We are the product of an evolution that has gone on for thousands if not millions of years. It's a complex and very layered answer, but one that teaches us where we came from and how we move forward. Religion should never be abolished, just re-categorized for what it truly is; fiction. Man made stories that are no truer than any other superstition that has come out in the past several thousand years. The seeds of my atheism started in high school, but quantified to the extreme when I attended an institution of higher learning. I read religious books to realize not how they differed but what they had in common, which provided me with my answers. I learned a great deal from my professors but never hesitated to challenge them when I felt it was necessary. I gained a lot of my confidence from those days and apply that to everything I do in life. Education opened my eyes to how things are in the real world, and is why I am sure education is without a doubt the number one cause of atheism.

I know a lot of people who are religious will look at this chapter and conclude that I am accusing all religious people of being stupid. That is not true. I have met people who actually prove this theory false. I've met people who are far more educated than I who happen to believe in angels and talking snakes. I lost a lot of respect for that person the moment I realized their allegiance to supernatural superstitions, but that didn't change the fact that on other subjects these people were far more critical than I ever could be. This was the part that really stuck with me. These highly intelligent people were more than capable of being critical when it came to other subjects, but the moment religion came up they were unable to use that astute brain power to break down and be just as critical over their own religious views. They were beaten and scolded early in life to revere religion as sacred, so no matter how smart or brilliant that person would grow up to become, the would never turn their advanced mental prowess against their own creed. They were scared to even question it. I found the whole thing quite shocking, but it's a product of systematic brainwashing, which to me is nothing more than child abuse. If you threaten a child with eternal damnation and burning in hell if they break your rules, you are abusing that child. So these intellectuals were abused as children, to the point where they are afraid to even talk about religion, let alone attack it as fiercely as they would their own designated subjects of study.

The point of this chapter is not to call all religious people stupid. What it could mean is that religion targets people who are not that bright, in the hopes that they can been tricked into believing that leaving their hard earned savings into a collection plate will give them good graces with the Lord above, who will in turn forgive their sins. The studies above prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the more a person is educated, the less likely they are to fall for this act of smoke and mirrors. That doesn't mean educated people are not fooled, many are... but most atheists I have met and had the pleasure to associate with at minimum were all high school graduates, if not a graduate of a institution of higher learning. This leads me to conclude that education is the greatest cause of Atheism. Not the only cause but one of the most likely factors.

"Doctors who still perform circumcisions are violating the first rule of medical care: primum non nocere, first do no harm."

– Dr. George Denniston, University of Washington School of Medicine.

Throughout this book, I've been trying to inform you the reader about the horrors and atrocities that have been afflicted on humanity because of the unproven superstitions of others. There are a lot of people out there who are ignorant of the damage, the pain and long term trauma that religion has put on people's lives. People are hurt and even mutilated by other people's 'traditions' every single day, the biggest occurring to mostly male babies around the world for something that has little or not medical documentation to back it up.

I'm talking about the genital mutilation known as male circumcision. Started as religious tradition that is still being pushed on young infants as a 'medical procedure' to lower the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, young boys are still being forced to live without the foreskin that is attached to their genitals. This is a brutal and completely unnecessary act to perform on any young child. Yet this brutal practice is supported and endorsed by major religious institutions. Here is a quote from Acts 15:1 of the ESV:

"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved'."

This is one of many quotes that the bible has regarding circumcision, and because of this babies have had their privates mutilated for the satisfaction of an unproven higher being. This 'tradition' was in place for a very long time, long before the save guards of modern medicine which could have been used to prevent things like infections and other medical complications. There is no telling how many children died because of complications to this brutal ritual that could have been avoided. Such a senseless waste of human life all in the name of satisfying the law of a being we've never met. Even today in a nation that does have modern medicine, over a hundred children die each year from a medical procedure that isn't necessary. These are healthy children who are bleeding to death less than a month into their existence because their parents are too ignorant to defy their God, even if it kills their own child.

Even if the child survives, studies published in civilized societies have shown that circumcisions decrease the sensitivity of the male genitalia as much as seventy percent. Most of a man's sensitivity is lost as a result of this barbaric procedure because the foreskin is the most richly innervated part of the penis. To remove the one part of the of a man's reproductive organ that has the most receptors doesn't seem surprising when you look at it from the perspective of organized religion. These are the same religions that do not want their followers to have pre-marital sex or sex of any kind for that matter unless it is done for the purpose of being fruitful and multiplying. So from that perspective, it makes sense that they would want to cut off the part of the penis that has the most nerves and would bring the most pleasure to a man during sexual intercourse. This is done out of the hope that less nerves would equal less sex of course unless that was to produce more symbolic sheep for their imaginary Sheppard. Because of this procedure, the male genitalia numbs after constant exposure to things that it can rub against, which causes a man's tool to lose its sensitivity thus removing a man's the pleasure out of sexual intercourse. This seems to be the motive of the very same organized religions that has a history of outlawing any sex for pleasure, to rob men of their ability to enjoy sex and therefore respect the laws of their scripture and not stray to follow their natural instincts. Unlike wisdom teeth, human males are meant to have their foreskin and it serves a purpose to ensuring long lasting pleasure, which according to the church is a sin so it's no surprise that they would prefer we all live without that little flap of skin. It's apparently very evil and leads to sin, so it's got to go.

Despite the attempt to spread rubbish about lowering the chances of getting sexual transmitted diseases, circumcision is considered an unnecessary cosmetic surgery that is actually no longer covered by our universal healthcare program here in Canada. More and more civilized nations are starting to wake up and realize how horrible this practice is and some nations in Europe have even taken steps to outlaw the practice completely.

I am well aware of how this mutilation impairs people first hand because I happen to be one of those victims myself. The custom of male circumcision was very common the year I was born, especially in North America. The tradition of this hacking off a piece of our natural form was and in some parts of the world is still deeply ingrained to the point where people refuse to stop and think about what they're doing. Many fathers out there are not thinking about it as they only care that their son's genitals look the same as theirs rather than what is best for their offspring. Despite the difference that will be noticed between myself and my sons, I have refused to carry on the tradition of removing their foreskin. Just because I was forced to endure a dangerous procedure as an infant doesn't mean I was willing to put my boys through the same hardship. I love them too much to let my own insecurities affect them, not when I had the power to avoid it. When it comes to the atrocious tradition of male circumcision, I made sure that my family's use of the practice ended with my own. The mother of my children and I came to this decision together when our sons were born, and neither of them were forced to endure a medical procedure that has nothing to do with medicine. This barbaric practice is slowly being weaned out in certain parts of the world. German courts have made decisions that have come pretty close to an outright ban on the practice and that is a pretty good start. Even though my circumcision is archaic and unnecessary, it pales in comparison to the butchery that is the same type of procedure that is being done to the female clitoris. The idea of circumcising a woman is ten times worse anything being done to men, with zero medical reason to do it other than to sew a woman shut so she can be kept pure for her future husband. As much as I don't like what happened to me, I understand that what women are put through in certain parts of the world make my own experience look like a minor cosmetic mistake.

This is the world we live in. Where children are needlessly chopped up to satisfy the unproven superstitions of old men which is certainly not the way things should be. You cannot approve of this kind of butchery and then try to claim that you teach a moral code. You cannot approve of the pain infants, children and even teenagers are put through to satisfy the barbaric needs of religious folks and try to say you are doing good work in this world. This is one of many problems with religion: the institution's inability to stand back and realize how out of date and unnecessary a lot of their 'traditions' really are. No where in any book does it say that this kind of crap is necessary in order to please their Gods, and even if it does the book says you're supposed to stone people to death and we no longer do that... so why continue this practice?

But Religious zealots still do it out of fear they might be punished by an invisible being no one claims to have made any appearance in over two thousand years. That isn't even the worst thing being done in the name of Gods these days that would make you sick. As I stated in chapters throughout this book, atrocities have been committed often in the name of God. From mothers who are killing their own children so they do not go to hell to dictators who think that genocide is God's work, death has never been more vicious than when it's done in the name of things that are considered holy.

While many nations have gone out of their way to outlaw the barbaric practice of female circumcision, I honest think these laws should go a step further and outlaw all circumcision, period. Many civilized nations are standing up to the practice, citing the fact that there is no real evidence that proves it improves a child's life, especially in the female case and it's actually labelled as a 'cosmetic' surgery in my country, meaning if you want to have this done... it comes out of your pocket and not the taxpayers. I don't see why the government should have to pay for a religious ceremony to begin with, seeing that it serves no practical purpose.

I would no like to address other men who like myself have already been mutilated as an infant: I know it will seem weird to look a little different if you don't chop your son's Willy too, but our pain and discomfort shouldn't be taken out on our children. We suffer everyday with the numbness, the scarring and the other nasty things that come from having an exposed penis that continuously rubs against everything unprotected. Don't let what we went through force you to do the same thing to your own sons. Break the cycle and leave your child in one piece. Show him the compassion that you should have been shown yourself. Break the cycle of unnecessary human mutilation and be the bigger man that your Dad should have been. We are capable of rising above the dogma and unfounded religious bullshit and stop harming our children. Thanks to the courage and caring nature of my now ex-wife, I had the ability to look past my own feelings and make the right choice. My sons are whole and have never been forced to be scarred for life to satisfy what is nothing more than an unproven superstition. That's the part that burns me the most; there is no basis of fact that makes any of this necessary. Absolutely none what so ever. It's not like God him/her/it/themselves came down from the heavens and ordered you to do it, right? These are myths, unproven superstitions that have no place in a civilized society. We shouldn't be looking to this at all for moral guidance, let alone to decide whether or not we should slice of a portion of our child's most sensitive organs. This is not right and it's completely hypocritical. If you truly believe in any God and that we are his creations, who the hell are you to correct it? An all knowing and all powerful God would never require us to correct something on his creation! If there was no need for a foreskin, they why would any God allow it to exist in the first place? This act of chopping anything off what the same religion calls God's perfect creation is hypocrisy. If we really are God's great creation, they why does the creation need to be corrected at all? This contradiction is more than enough evidence for anyone to abandon the act of circumcising any child.

My next message is for any woman who will one day bare more sons into the world: don't do it. There is absolutely no value to chopping off your son's foreskin and it's mean to protect the penis, not harm it. If your husband has been circumcised and is insisting that you do the same to your son just so that everyone will look the same; that is your own husband expressing his own insecurity concerning something that was horribly done to him when he was a child. What was done to him is inexcusable and wrong. This act of religious tradition is nothing more than a barbaric, sadistic and very unnecessary act of human disfigurement. It is up to us, the parents of future generations to break the chain and stop harming our children. Leave them they way the come out and the will not only live to be healthier in the future, but be able to use their body the way nature truly meant them to use it and be better for it. It us our responsibility as their parents to ignore the bullshit that is heaved at us. There is no medical benefit to chopping off the foreskin as many civilized nations have made strides to have what is commonly referring to as a 'cosmetic' procedure to be declared what it really is: a criminal act.

Female circumcisions have already been outlawed by a handful of countries and I hope one day male circumcision will follow. Rather than wait for big brother to come out and tell you that it's wrong, take a stand for the little ones you claim to love and not mutilate them right after they hatch. I beg of you to leave their genitalia in one piece and save them from future years of torment and anguish. Break that cycle and one day we'll be able to remove the disgusting 'tradition' from our lands for good. Do it for the kids. Do it not just for your children and your children's future offspring. Break the chain today and allow future generations to benefit from your courage.

"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." – Richard Dawkins

Would you like to know what the scariest thing about this picture is? I'll give you a hint; it's not his boots or the beard. The answer: there are actually a lot of people out there who believe what the sign says, a whole lot, especially in the United States of America.

I've actually met someone like this, a man walking the streets with a sign draped over him that declared the world was going to end. Rather than laugh at this man, I offered to buy him a cup of coffee if he would agree to tell me why he thought the world was going to end. He refused to accept my offer, saying that he didn't need to explain himself and his views. He was right, he didn't have to. My offer was one of curiosity, but it was interesting that a man with such radical methods to preach his word would refuse a chance to sit down and express his views. Chances are he assumed I was trying to stop him from showing off his sign and oppress him. I had no such intentions but I was given the chance to see something I had only seen spoofed on television: someone walking around with a legit belief that the world as we know it was going to end.

In 2011, this kind of practice was taken to a new extreme. I had travelled to visit my parents in March of that year. So when I was visiting Mom and Dad in Tennessee, they took me to this incredible place to eat for lunch. It was a diner called 'The Iron Porkchop', which in itself is very blasphemous because pork is outlawed by pretty much every religion, so I was game to go there. When we got there, there was a billboard across the street from a very cool diner we went out to for lunch. I couldn't help but stand there and look at it for a few moments, because I was amazed by two things. First that someone actually believed it, and second that someone believed it enough to put up this enormous billboard in front of the Iron Porkchop:

I can assure you the discovery of this billboard didn't ruin my lunch. I still went inside and had a chicken fried steak with macaroni and corn, which was delicious by the way. But for a long time after that, I was curious to what would make someone so convinced the end was near that they would design and pay a great amount of money to post this sign up for all to see. To me this was the man on the street times a million. Even if the sign was right and the end was near, why waste money trying to inform people about it? Do you have any idea how expensive those signs are? How many homeless people could have been fed or sheltered with that kind of coin? Surely if God wanted to inform people that the end was near, the book details specific signs that would/should inform the believers that the rapture was upon them. I don't remember seeing billboards amongst them in the Holy Scripture so what kind of person would waste the time and money to put this up?

This sign was actually the result of the belief of a very radical group of very zealous Christians who were convinced that Jesus would return and the rapture would start on May 21st, 2011. I happen to remember this date very well because it also happened to be my parent's 40th Wedding Anniversary. Leading up to that big day, I had so much fun with my parents, teasing them endlessly about it. I made jokes like their marriage lasting forty years was a sign of the pending Armageddon. I also asked if I had to get them a gift since they world was ending that day. All kidding aside, my parents celebrated their 40th anniversary rapture free, and the world did not end. And for the record, my brothers and I all chipped in together and bought a very lovely gift for my folks to celebrate their special day.

So the fact that the rapture didn't occur in May 2011 effect people's strong willingness to believe that the world will eventually end? Nope, there are still people out there convinced that the end is coming and that those who do not follow their ridiculous claims will be left behind when the savoir returns. You'd think some people would be curious to why this didn't happen yet, or especially on the days when people were convinced it would happen. There could be a reason why these end of days events are no occurring: there is no God to bring them into action. It could be that simple. People could have been following a false deity all this time and their claims of a pending Armageddon are just as false as the existence of their almighty figurehead in the sky. That same buffoon who claimed the rapture would begin in May of 2011 claimed it didn't happen because he miscalculated. So the problem was his bullshit religion, but bad math. The same person claimed that the correct math suggest that the end of the world would instead start sometimes in October of 2011. I forget the exact day and I'm too lazy to look it up but considering that I'm writing this in the year 2012 and we're all still here... I am sure you can imagine what happened, or what didn't happen in this case around October of 2011. No rapture for the second time that year. Bad math again? Not too sure, but we haven't heard from that quack again. I'm sure that person is in a comfy den somewhere trying to correct the math and get the date right this time. He just can't seem to accept that the world is likely not going to end, at least not in his lifetime. This isn't the first time people had predicted the end of the world, but each time the same thing seems to happen over and over again. Nothing happens and life on earth moves along, making the person who made this prediction look rather silly.

What is truly scary about people's wish for the world to end stems from their equally absurd notion that there is life after this world. People fear death, so the idea that there is another one waiting for them in the afterlife appeals to them all. It's like a getting a 'get out of death free' card, a way out to a better place if you're a good little religious lemming. This is the hook of religion, a free pass from death. Live forever and spend time with everyone you lost earlier too! Well, that part varies depending on what religion you look at. There are some offering an afterlife of eternity with family members you haven't seen for a bit, while others offer a bribe of seventy something virgins to spend the afterlife with. The point being is this is a bribe. You are being asked to do something in return for all these post-death goodies. The fact is if there is no afterlife, no heaven to hang out with your relatives for eternity, that means all the time and money you wasted sucking up to the churches has been for nothing. This life that you're currently pissing away, thinking you'll get a mulligan in the hereafter is all you have and you're blowing it.

The sooner you realize there is only one level of existence, the sooner you can start to appreciate what you have now rather than spoil it for a second chance that is never coming your way. There is no dress rehearsal; this is all you're going to get. Life if a lot more precious than what most people think, and it's a shame to see some people squander away what they have out of some unrealistic fable that was sold to them when they were very young.

As I said earlier, this was not the first time someone tried to schedule the end of the world. Everyone knows about the whole Mayan and Aztec calendar that predicts the end of the world for December 21, 2012 but there have been over two hundred end of the world predictions made in our history and not a single one has occurred. So forgive me if I don't hold my breath for the Mayans. From what I gathered regarding the Mayans, the assumptions come from the fact that their calendar is divided up into various time sections with months that last only twenty days and other variations. Their last calendar started somewhere in August in the year 13 BCE with the supposed birth of Venus. Based on this calendar, people came to the crazy conclusion that the world would end when this cycle runs out which would happen around the winter solstice in 2012. No evidence to suggest that anything bad happens at the end of each calendar, but that doesn't stop people from freaking the hell out, now does it?

The real question that should ponder is why are these people so eager for the world to end? Why do they want to die so prematurely? There are many who are under the impression that they want something better, angered and most likely bitter that their lives are not as good as they dreamt it would turn out. This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. The idea that anyone in North America would ever think such a thing is lunacy. Just by being born here, we won the lottery right on the first day of life. Those who think they don't live a good life in one of the wealthiest nations in the world should take a visit of other countries where things we take for granted are not offered. There are people who starve, have no roof over their heads and live in fear of death or ethnic cleansing every day. Those are the people who have a right to complain about life not turning out as well as they hoped it might. Countries where it's considered lucky to reach the age of 20 or 30 might be the spot on this world where people have a legit beef with the way things turned out rather than the nation where dying at 40 or 50 is considered going early. To me this is no different than listening to a spoiled brat cry because his toy isn't as big or as cool as the next kid's. When my son becomes a little whiney about things like that, I often remind him to be happy with what he's got rather than what he doesn't have. I do not hesitate to remind him that there are countless children around the world who have no toys, no computers and that for him to complain about what he has which is a lot more seems very selfish.

The message I sent to my son seemed to have hit the mark because he not only doesn't whine about what he doesn't have as often anymore, but has actually become more active for charity. He felt bad that there are people out there who don't have the basics like food, shelter and supplies for school. He wants to do something to help, and just to hear him say that filled my heart with pride to know that my son understands that things are not fair in this world and there are many, many more people out there who are the real recipients of the shit end of the stick. And we did do something about it. My son and I often paint together. Nothing earth shattering, but my son is only eight so he's got an excuse; I just flat out suck. One day when we were painting, my son asked if he could sell his painting to raise money to help those kids who don't have the things he does. I put both our paintings online and we raised seventy dollars which was later donated to a charity that sent aid to countries in Africa.

This is the lesson that most of the people who want the world to end so that they can start over in an imaginary world badly need to learn. Life isn't as bad as you think it is, and it's in fact a hell of a lot better than what other people are forced to endure out there. You are like a spoiled child who wants someone else's toy. If my son can learn to appreciate what he has and not pine for other things and strive to help those less fortunate than himself, than I hope these adults who pine for a better life will do the same: appreciate what they have, and strive to help those who are not so fortunate. We have a roof over our heads, food in our bellies and blankets to keep us warm when winter comes. Anything more is a bonus, so to whine about that makes you an asshole. Would I like to have a ten bedroom mansion with six bathrooms and a five car garage? Sure, but I'm not going to have a temper tantrum if I don't get one and want the world to end so I can have one in heaven. Do you finally see how selfish that sounds when put this way?

To prove to my son that I prefer to lead by example rather than just lecture, I plan to give at least 10-15% of whatever this book makes to charity. Possibly more depending on how successful it is. As long as I make enough to cover the basics, I will make an effort to give a chunk of whatever I have left to those who need it rather than spoil myself with things I don't need. I do think because I think it's the right thing to do. I didn't need to read a book to learn this, it's a conclusion I came to by using common sense. I also like to think that I learned to be charitable from those who raised me. My grandmother was an avid volunteer who put the needs of others before her own, which I always looked up to. She was a selfless human being and an amazing person. My parents were not as active as her, but did their part when they could find time away from working full time and raising three troublesome boys. I plan to be the same shining example to my own boys, giving whatever I can regardless of what I'm doing. I donate money, time and every effort I can to help those less fortunate than myself, and I hope my sons learn from my example and do the same when they are older.

I don't need God to teach myself or my son what is right in this world as common sense is more than enough to guide anyone towards a moral and good life. While there is no guarantee my sons will turn out to be a decent, law bidding contributors to society, I will not pass the buck of things go wrong. I will not say it's a part of God's plan or say that my imaginary friend works in mysterious ways when things go wrong. I will accept full responsibility, which is more than what I can say for others who are more than willing to put the blame on God and his mysterious ways when they fail to do their job and raise a law bidding member of society. That is your failure, not God's.

There's no guarantee of (and there likely isn't) any life after death, so rather than pine for paradise in heaven, try to make the best of the life you have now rather than pine for one that might and likely doesn't exist. Many of us are fortunate to have the lives we inherited merely by where we happened to be when our eggs hatched. Those of us who were born on this side of the planet are the privileged, not the unfortunate. If my eight year old son can learn that without much difficulty, I hope that you can as well. Rather than pray for the end of the world get up off your knees, do something about it and make the world a better place for everyone, not just yourself.

"Everything gets along better without God." \- Charlie

Could you imagine a world without God?

I can. I live in one everyday; I like to call that world Earth.

I'm not taking about the kind of fake reality you see on television but rather the real world that we all inhabit. Many people have tried to attack my atheism by calling it a belief and that I'm required to have faith in order to hold onto the idea that there is no God. Their idea is completely ridiculous. Atheism is rejection all things that require faith. I do not think there is no god; I conclude there is no god based on the evidence that has been presented so far, which is nothing.

I have no problem concluding that theories such as evolution are the truth, because there is a lot of evidence to back up its claims. I don't walk off a cliff because I believe in the theory of gravity, I choose not to walk off that cliff because know that gravity exists and that walking off that cliff will result in my death after I fall from it. There is also the theory that the earth orbits the sun. Guess who also didn't agree with that theory and was proven wrong? Are we finally seeing a pattern here?

But let's get back to the subject at hand, that being a world without God. Could you imagine living in such a world? A place where people do not riot simply because a cartoon in the paper mocked their imaginary friend? A place where people do not judge on another based on fables they were not even around to see for themselves? Such a place does exist, and many Atheists live in that world today. Numbers state that the amount of non-believers living in the world today is climbing steadily. There are even some nations in Europe where non-believers are the majority rather than the minority. Europe in general is become more atheist by the year, with numbers in most nations climbing at a rapid pace. More and more people are walking away from religion and seeing the world for what it really is; a place that is not ruled by a higher being of any kind.

How would you feel of people were judged by their actions, the way they treated other people rather than what pew they knelt before? An end of religion to many means an end to generations of racism, homophobia and even sexism that has been pushed upon people and societies by religious dogma. Wouldn't it nice to live in a world were nothing was sacred and people could post cartoons write a book without having to worry about riots or a fatwa being put on their head. I sure think it would be and we can if most of us learn that religion isn't something that should be organized, it should be private and between a single person and his/her faith. If everyone kept their beliefs to themselves and didn't push them into our schools or our governments, there's a chance the world would be a much better place. I find it mildly amusing that people feel the need to push their religion as far as they can when their own holy books clearly state that they are not supposed to take their alleged God's law into his/her/their own hands. God in countless religions states that he will take care of things when it's all said and done. That judgement belongs to him and him alone. Yet people refuse to let the mystic police do their thing and continuously take the law into their own hands and constant commit acts of religious vigilantism. Not only is organized religion a disturbing annoyance to those who don't want to partake in it, it's a disturbing breach of their own almighty being's regulations.

People can't claim to be devoutly dedicated to their own dogma and then turn around and continuously break their own rules as I like to think I've already pointed out numerous times in this book. People are cherry picking what they want to follow and not follow, despite the fact that they believe a book that goes out of it way to state that they will be punished if they don't follow all the rules, not just the ones you like. Deep down inside, those who are religious know what they are following is bogus because they can't seem to want to follow everything their God tells them to do. Many societies have distanced themselves from organized religion and they are some of the most ethical, fair and treat each other with the up most respect. That is what every other civilized society should strive to become, as countries such as Denmark and Sweden are living proof that life without God is very possible and not the barbarous anarchy that everyone likes to assume life would be without religion. The truth is honesty, compassion and even morality existed long before Christianity and Islam evolved from small cults to structured behemoths they are today. And the truth is all those virtues will continue to exist long after religion fades from our collective existence. One day we will be able to step up from the shackles that religion binds us with and accept the fact that people are all equal regardless of gender, sexual orientation and race. We are a lot closer to that kind of utopia than ever before, but I'll be the first to admit that we have a lot more work to do before equal rights is a standard for the human race rather than just citizens of select countries. I will also not hesitant to admit that I will not likely live to see the day this kind of universal equality is achieved by the human race, but it will never happen if people are not willing to do their fare share in the social trenches and fight for it. I petition, protest and write not for myself by for my children and their future generations in the hopes that one day they'll be able to benefit from our work and live in a world that respects all life, not just those who have certain beliefs. Where science and the truth of how we to be is taught in all schools and any reference to Gods or religion of any kind is left in the once place where is never should have left; your local church.

I often dream of a world that is free from God, uses its common sense to define what is moral for all rather than what's in it for me. A world where people are chosen to work based on who is most qualified to lead or produce, not where the come from and what they look like. Where women are never forced to hide behind hoods, free to do and be whatever they want, free of any glass ceilings and oppression from their parents and church. A world where people are not attacked for being in love with someone who is of the same gender and are free to love and marry whomever they want. That world is possible, but it's not going to come cheap. Those of sound morals must stand up to those who wish to use God and culture to push their racist, sexist and homophobic prejudices upon society and get away with it. Until those people are pushed back and true equality is given to everyone, no one is ever truly free.

Now I've told countless people during endless debates that I do not push for the abolishment or banning of any organized religion. That would be impossible to achieve in the first place and it wouldn't be fair to people who freely want to participate. I've said because I feel that in order to be truly free from something, you must have the choice to accept it or walk away from it. Banning religion would only cheapen our Atheism and the ability to choose whether or not we want to follow these sects is true freedom. The same goes for religion; the more people try to force it upon others, the more it will cheapen their congregation. If I were a minister, I wouldn't want a crowd of people who were there only because they were forced to be there. Nothing should be forced on anyone. If my eldest son was to walk up to me tomorrow and told me he was going to church this weekend, I would tell him he wasn't allowed to do it. The reason being the boy is only eight years old and is too young to comprehend and digest something so complex and frightening as religion. I would not allow my young son attend church no more than I would allow him to see any movies directed by Rob Zombie at that age. If my son were to approach me ten or twenty years from now and said that he was a devout catholic, I wouldn't say a thing to him and wish him the best in his future endeavours. When a grown man (or woman) makes their own choice, free of any kind of systematic brainwashing or whatever things people do... then I would respect my son's choice and obviously toss in my two cents whenever he asked for it. I wouldn't go with him mind you (unless it was for a wedding or other special occasion) but I would respect his choice to attend. I'll stay home and spend my Sundays watching football while drinking beer and eating pizza with an outrageous amount of cheese and bacon on it.

In a truly free world, people must have the ability to choose or reject religion on their own, or they will never really appreciate the choice they make. I do however think that unless that person is old enough to understand and have a chance to be fully informed before they make that choice, then people will always attempt to take advantage of those people for their own personal and financial gain. Many cults and churches out there are nothing more than a con being run on the people and need to be kept in place to make sure they do not steal even though the fact that someone has to help them enforce their own God's law is very hypocritical.

The title of this chapter is actually a little deceiving, because any person of minute intelligence would understand that it's impossible to have a world without God. Someone somewhere is always going to have faith in something that is unproven and likely nothing more than outrageous superstitions. What I refer to when I talk about any world without God is a state if mind for an individual rather than a collective of people. Atheism begins at home in the recess of your own cranium. From there, our job is only to inform people of necessary corrections, not to force people to drop what they've been raised with.

When writing a weekly Atheist column on my blog, someone actually took the time to ask: why do I continue to waste my time? This reader went on to tell me that she didn't understand the purpose of writing any of my columns. Why bother trying to constantly convince people to think differently? Did I care about people and really want a better life for them? Was I doing my best impersonation of Morpheus from the Matrix, trying to free people's minds? She could not understand why I spoke up and bothered to make my stand.

My answer to this reader was very simple: while one of my purposes of writing was to educate people, the main principle behind writing any of my Atheist mumblings was to provoke thought and discussion. What you do with it and where you go from there is entirely up to you.

The same goes for this book. If there is a single moment when reading this book where thought or discussion is provoked, then I have succeeded. The result of that discussion is not relevant, but the fact that I just poked a single pin sized hole into the tapestry of bullshit is enough for me to walk away satisfied that my contribution was made. If I fail to do anything, never sway a single mind or challenge anyone's stuffy beliefs, it will have not been from a lack of effort nor a refusal to make my own stand. What people do with this information is up to them, but after reading this book I will never be able to tell any of my readers that their decisions from here on were made with an uninformed mind. I've given you my side of the story. There are many more books and teachings. My hope is that this will lead to more research, more study and a deeper burrowing for the truth as some of us know it.

In my humble opinion, the concept of God is nothing more than a state of mind. As an Atheist of almost twenty years, I can assure you that a world without God is also a state of mind... on that can be achieved with study and reason combined with a little common sense. Regardless of what road you eventually choose to take, I thank you the reader for taking the time to read my book and hearing me out. Like I said to the reader who left me that note in my blog, what you do with this material is up to you. Where you go and what you do with what I've said is up to you: you can deny it or receive it as one of religious faith might say.

I just happen to know that if someone or something every appears before you and claims to be a supernatural God and then asks you to sacrifice your own child to please them, I would hope that you as well as any other moral human being do the same thing I would do: that being to tell this supernatural being where to go... and it isn't Kokomo. If that's your answer as well, I'm hate to be the one to break it to you but you're an atheist

Ditto for respecting women's rights and supporting gay marriage; if you think that these positions are moral, you are definitely an atheist. The same goes for abortion, stem cell research and especially if you like consuming stuff like alcohol, popcorn shrimp and pulled pork. If you approve of any of these things, you are an atheist.

Welcome to the club.

We have cookies, and bacon.

Acknowledgements:

There are many people that I would like to thank for being an influence not only to myself as a person but as a guide to where I came to be when writing this book.

I would first like to thank my parents, Edith and John Lowry, for putting up what that young, naïve and very rebellious young brat. I wasn't (and I'm still not) the easiest person to get along with, but I'd like to think that a lot of that fire and rebellion came from them both who I think are the strongest and most resilient people I've ever met. I get my work ethic, morality and compassion from them and while we might not always see eye to eye on many occasions, I will always love them dearly for raising me to be the man I am today. I hope that I do just half a good a job as a parent as they did for me for my children.

From there I would like to thank the following people for having a profound impact on my younger years: Kirk Smith, Joe Bond, Kenneth Lamb, Martin Race, Alex Imre, David Mossan, and David Greene. These men all had two things in common. The first was that they all told me nothing was beyond my reach if I was willing to make the effort for it. They were also my teachers throughout my years in elementary and high school. Their words and impact on my life can never be measured and I will always remain in their debt.

I also want to thank my fellow atheists who inhabited Open Diary, for being there to exchange ideas, thoughts and well wishes as I wrote earlier pieces about my Atheist online. Fellow non-believing bloggers such as AUUB, An Atheist, A Thinking Bum and Solovoice were all there to help me during the many years I spent and continue to spend writing how I feel and the debates they often lead to online. Their continued friendship is valued deeply and I wish them all the best.

I also would like to thank my children. Life as I know it changed the days they came into my life, and I can honestly say a lot of growing up I've done over the past decade has been because of their influence and unconditional love. Being their Dad has not only made me a better man but they also make me want to be better as I watch them grow up. They are the only two people I love more than I love myself, and they will always be the center of my world until the day I stop breathing.

Lastly I would like to thank you, the reader. For not only taking the time to read the section that everyone skips, but for putting up with my stubborn and passionate rants throughout this book. Your willingness to hear me out regardless of what position you hold comes with my heartfelt thanks and hopes that you will as another famous atheist once wrote 'live long and prosper'.

Sincerely,

P. J.
