It’s the belief of the religious that we should all live by their rules, open opposition is not allowed.
Their dogma allows for illogical censorship, book burnings, prohibitions. They see nothing wrong with denying everyone the chance to make their own decisions and reach their own conclusions.
They avoid being exposed to anything that challenges their beliefs. And since they’re in the majority in many countries, they have weight to throw around. Bullies always bully others out of fear.
The NZ Atheist Bus Campaign, which late last year raised in excess of $20,000 from public donations, has met a set back in their plans. Nationwide bus company NZ Bus, who had tentatively approved the campaign’s ads on buses in major city centres, have now rejected them.
NZ Bus stated that they have received a number of complaints from the public about the proposed ads, which read “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Advertisements with identical wording ran in the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Spain. Similar campaigns also ran successfully in Croatia, Finland, Holland, Italy, America and across the Tasman in Australia.
“We are gravely concerned that in New Zealand we’re unable to present an atheistic message, showing that we do not have the same practical freedom of expression as in other first world countries. It highlights why this campaign is so necessary.” said spokesperson Simon Fisher.
http://www.nogod.org.nz/2010/02/atheist-bus-campaign-determined-to-roll-on-despite-set-back/ (Emphasis added)
Let’s break the message down and see if we can find what’s so objectionable.
There’s probably no god.
An opinion rather mildly offered. Nothing like the presumption of absolute knowledge claimed in religiously influenced public postings. There’s no condemnation of believers or of any particular religion. It’s perhaps the mildest expression of disagreement with religious belief I’ve ever encountered. Yet it seems to make religious people apoplectic.
Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
Oh, well, yeah, there it is. The complete antithesis of religious belief. A direct challenge to the faith. Now I see why theists have raised such a stink over these banners.
OK, no, I really don’t. Does god want us to worry? (Actually he does. The Bible, for example, encourages believers to live in fear and trembling of their god. If I thought for a moment that their god was real, I’d fear their god, too. He’s portrayed as one mean sum-bitch. )
Is it anti-theistic to suggest that everyone should be able to enjoy their lives? Are those values which somehow conflict with religious belief?
If anyone thinks they can clearly present an intellectually satisfying explanation for why these signs should be opposed I’d love to hear it.
Atheists are often challenged on their lack of belief. Christians in the U.S. seem to think that atheists are only opposed to their god, ignoring the fact that disbelieving in gods includes all the gods invented by mankind throughout history. Atheists are accused of being mad at god or resentful of god’s laws. Some say we simply want to live a life full of sin and disobedience without having to submit to the authority of a divine rule-giver.
What our challengers fail to appreciate is that atheism is the disbelief in a broader range of fantastic thinking than just their particular faith. Atheists reject for lack of evidence belief in any concept that can be reasonably categorized as supernatural or superstitious. To atheists the belief in a personal god is as nonsensical and unfounded as the belief that a black cat crossing your path brings bad luck. Many theists dismiss the idea that walking under a ladder creates bad luck but fail to notice the obvious correlation between that belief and their own belief in gods.
Many atheists consider supernatural and superstitious beliefs to be fairly benign; believe what you will as long as it doesn’t interfere with another person’s privilege to believe what they wish. Yet this degree of tolerance allows the more harmful consequences of supernatural and superstitious belief to be practiced without criticism. Tolerance of the differences between individuals is commendable; tolerance of belief systems that are used to subjugate, enslave and kill those who don’t share those beliefs is not commendable at all. By not opposing fantastic thinking, especially when it is used as an excuse to cause harm to our fellow humans, we atheists become complicit in that harm. We need to champion realistic and clear thinking and not shy away from criticizing belief systems that cause wars and death to innocent humans.
Here is a prime example of how superstitious thinking can cause real harm to the innocent.
Human sacrifice is on the increase in Uganda according to a government spokesman. This barbaric crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity, and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly. Witch doctors claim they have clients who regularly capture children and bring their blood and body parts to be consumed by spirits. One witch doctor confessed for the first time to having murdered about 70 people, including his own son.
According to media reports, the witch doctors revealed that some of their clients capture other people’s children and bring the heart and the blood directly to them to take to the spirits. They are brought in small tins and are placed under a tree from which the voices of the spirits are coming. Clients come on average three times a week, with all that the spirits asks them to bring. The witch-doctors deny any direct involvement in murder or incitement to murder. They claim that spirits speak directly to their clients.
Witch doctors are paid about 500,000 Ugandan shillings, equivalent of about $260 for a consultation. The head of the Anti-Human Sacrifice and Trafficking Task Force in Uganda, assistant commissioner Moses Binoga of the Ugandan police, said that witch doctors operate in a network and have bosses who give instructions and receive the bulk of payment made by clients. The bosses involve in one of five or six witch-doctor protection rackets operating in the country.
The Assistant commissioner went on to say that the senior ones extort money from lower people because they deal in illegal things. He said that police had opened 26 murder cases in 2009, in which the victim appeared to have been ritually sacrificed, compared with just three cases in 2007. He also said that they have about 120 children and adults reported missing whose fate they have been unable to trace. They cannot rule out that they may be victims of human sacrifice, he said. (Source-Newstime Africa) (Hat-tip to @SkeptInquiry on Twitter for the link)
We can see a pattern here that is common to many religions. A persuasive and charismatic charlatan realizes they can get rich by getting the gullible to believe their conveniently unprovable premise that misfortune and eternal punishment will be visited on anyone who doesn’t join their cult and surrender their money, possessions and their good sense to the leader. It’s nothing more than a scam, sadly protected from criticism and exposure by claiming to be a religion. Even the most progressive societies are reluctant to challenge any belief system that hides behind the label of “religious belief”.
If you are a passive atheist who doesn’t think it’s worthwhile to openly criticize supernatural and superstitious thinking, I would ask that you consider the possibility that your reticence is what allows witch doctors to sacrifice children to ward off evil spirits free of condemnation. By thinking that it’s their right to believe in witchcraft if they want, the tolerant fail to protest the effect of their superstitious thinking on innocent children.
We have thousands of examples of the harm done to humanity in the name of a god or spirit. Atheists owe it to their fellow humans to oppose and speak out against such nonsense, especially when it subjugates and kills.
I’m not a militant atheist, I’m certainly not a dogmatic atheist. But I am an atheist, or as I prefer, a disbeliever. I have no interest in offending the religious, it isn’t my intention to insult. But I am quite opinionated, well-read, a former believer, a spiritual non-believer. I will not back away from or disavow my opinions. If that causes someone offense, if they perceive insult, that’s their problem. They’re always free to ignore me.
I am a humanist (not an official Humanist). I share with all other humans certain traits, behaviors and aspirations. I understand the need and origin of religious belief. But I have no respect for any belief system that divides humans, any dogma that egotistically states that some humans (always humans like themselves) are better than everyone else, more deserving of an enjoyable life, more favored by some divine authority. All of us reading this are humans.
I’ve never been embarrassed to admit that I am a product of evolution, that I share the same origins as every other human on the planet. We should feel no pride or shame for what we are due to nature; we had no choice in our race, our sex, our hair natural hair color or lack of hair. What fairly brings us pride or shame is what we’ve made of ourselves with what nature gave us. We are judged by our attitudes, our beliefs, our statements, our behaviors. Those are what divide and unite us. It’s not our fault I’m white and you’re Black. We can’t help that you’re a woman and I’m a man. But once I’ve formed an opinion about Blacks and women I am fully responsible for those opinions. I don’t accept the excuse that “God made me this way”. You’re perception of god is not to blame for your racism, your smug superiority, your callous disregard for your fellow human. We choose our beliefs, they are our responsibility for better or worse. To own your attitudes and beliefs is to be fully human. To realize that natural handicaps come in all shapes and sizes, aren’t always obvious and say nothing of the human inside is to be fully human.
In an effort to rebuild our relationship with the United Nations, an effort that is being questioned by many Americans, the Obama administration has chosen to support an agenda that contradicts our own Constitution.
The United States has backed a new UN resolution on free expression which would be considered unconstitutional under its First Amendment — which protects freedom of expression and bans sanctioning of religions.
The UN Human Rights Council on 2 October adopted the resolution, which the US had co-sponsored with Egypt. The US had finally joined the Human Rights Council in June, and its support for the measure reflected the Obama administration’s stated aim to “re-engage” with the UN.
While the new resolution focuses on freedom of expression, it also condemns “negative stereotyping of religion”. Billed as a historic compromise between Western and Muslim nations, in the wake of controversies such the Danish Muhammed cartoons, the resolution caused concern among European members.
“The language of stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals, I stress individuals, and must not protect ideologies, religions or abstract values,” said France’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the EU. “The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religion.”
France emphasised that international human rights law protects individual believers, not systems of belief. But European members, eager not be seen as compromise wreckers, reluctantly supported the measure.
On the other side of the fault line stood the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which lobbied for a measure against “religious defamation”.
“We firmly believe that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities,” said Pakistan’s delegate, speaking for the OIC. The “defamation” of religion, he said, “results in negative stereotyping of the followers of this religion and belief and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”
Following the OIC’s logic, one could equally apply the language of the resolution to Islamism, a political form which is arguably a “contemporary manifestation of religious hatred, discrimination and xenophobia. It results in negative stereotyping of the followers of other religions and beliefs and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”
The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (Source-Index on Censorship)
Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.
While I respect the right of any person to believe as they wish, I also believe that the right to speak our minds freely and without fear of reprisal, intimidation or sanction is a hallmark of Western democracy. We should not surrender our rights in order to provide uncertain security in the face of violent opposition to contrary opinions. Ben Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
There is no reason to provide special protection to religious beliefs. The fear that religious believers will suffer “incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them” is nonsensical. The majority of people on the planet are religious. Religious believers hold most of the positions of power in both the East and West. They have no reason to fear the opinions of the minority. The most immediate danger to any believer in a particular god are those who believe in another god.
Criticism is not necessarily an act of hatred. Quite often criticism is an act of love. If a family member has become enslaved to drug addiction, is it an act of discrimination or hatred to criticize their addiction? If I firmly believe my country, a country I willingly served to defend, is headed in a dangerous and unconstitutional direction, should I remain mute?
Religious belief in a generic sense is predominant among humans around the globe. But there is little agreement as to the nature of the god the religious believe in. What anti-blasphemy resolutions seek to achieve will result in the inability of Baptists to speak out against the Catholic Church or reasonable people to object to the foolishness of Scientology. We will have to remain silent when Iran decides to execute those who oppose their theocracy or happen to be homosexual. Any theocratic government will be exempt from criticism by anyone for any reason.
The philosophical and legal quagmire with such legislation centers around the definition of “blasphemy.” Practically every religion, sect and cult possesses concepts that are blasphemous to another. As an important example, while Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Muslims consider him a mere prophet, albeit an important one. Calling Christ the “Son of God,” however, is viewed as “blasphemous” within Islam, as is not believing in Mohammed as Allah’s final and most important prophet. Under such anti-blasphemy legislation, therefore, all Christian literature could be confiscated and Christians arrested, because at its very core, Christianity would represent “blasphemous material” that could cause—and has caused—outrage many times in the Muslim world, explaining in part why the Bible is banned in such fundamentalist Islamic countries as Saudi Arabia.
This subject both fascinates me and fills me with dread. It’s fairly obvious that Christians in the West are growing just as intolerant of criticism and challenge as the Muslims in the East. When our government bows to pressure from the theists and supports blasphemy laws that directly contradict our Constitution the groundwork is being laid for the further erosion of our freedom of speech. I worry for the future of our secular and pluralistic republic.
To accept any brand of theism entails accepting certain assumptions as established fact. All religious belief systems have a creation story. It may be interpreted literally or figuratively, but the underlying assumption that the universe was created by a particular god must be accepted as literal truth and fact to be a member of any particular sect of religious belief.
In rejecting religious belief, atheists also dismiss the presumption that any god created the universe.
However, beyond implying the rejection of religious creation stories, atheism does not provide further guidance as to what to think about the manner in which the universe came in to being. Unlike the vast majority of religions, atheism isn’t a belief system. Atheism is a single point of disagreement with other people over the idea that it’s plausible that any particular god exists. There are many things that atheists believe and disbelieve. The fact we’re atheists only pertains to a single one of the disbeliefs.
Some atheists just don’t give a damn about philosophy or science. They could care less how we got here. They have lives to lead and no time for foolish speculation about things we can’t possibly know at this point in time. We tend to call folks like this practical and level headed.
Others of us are fascinated with understanding how everything works and what it all means. There are many names for us, one or two are complimentary. We follow the findings of scientists, philosophers and thinkers who enlighten us and increase our knowledge, which we expect to result in wisdom.
Accepting scientific explanations about life and the universe and philosophical musings on our place in nature are not obligatory. No atheist is obligated to agree with science. It’s an option, one of many that don’t entail believing in gods.
Scientific explanations of reality are incomplete and never absolute. Some people can’t tolerate a lack of absolutes, so they invent them then proclaim their inventions to be absolute. “It is because we say it is.” Not a convincing argument. My standards for belief and agreement are too high to be satisfied by religious belief. I was a theist, I’ve been there, I’ve walked that road in total sincerity and with unbridled passion for many years. Theism in general and Christianity in particular are not unknown to me. I’ve made their arguments and fought for their validity. I’m completely comfortable with dismissing them as irrelevant in the quest to understand nature on their own merits. Having scientific and philosophical explanations that hold together better and explain nature in terms that don’t require a suspension of good sense and skepticism is an added bonus. It’s nice to have but isn’t the reason for my rejection of belief in gods.
People contend that science and religion can coexist. Science itself is not anti-religion but much of what we’ve learned about reality from science exposes the errors in theology.
The Bible, the Koran and the Book of Mormon were written by people of a certain time and a particular social setting. Holy books reflect the society that gave birth to them. None of them clearly and without requiring convoluted interpretation state anything that was not already known in that time and part of the world.
Why wouldn’t the gods mention something in their books (using “their” loosely, as we know that the books were written by human scribes who only claimed to be inspired by the subject of the book) that was going to be common knowledge only much later. Think of the stunning effect that would have on future generations. A specific and detailed prediction of the internet, for instance. Something that would have made no sense at all to the scribes but would only be understood 1000 years later. The gods in the holy books give no indication of knowing anything about the rest of the world, present or future, that isn’t also common knowledge of the time and people from whence it comes. I’ve heard tons of excuses for that but no rational example of any god showing an awareness of something completely unknown and foreign to the authors of those books.
The Bible, because it’s the one I’m most familiar with, clearly indicates “truths” that are not correct according to the current evidence. For example, the Earth did not come into being in seven days or seven thousand years (There are two places in scripture that say a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, which either means that his time scale is different than ours or that he’s a really boring person) but over millions of years. Science is clearly at odds with the Biblical creation story. Conclusions drawn from available evidence also lend no validity to American Indian creation stories, Egyptian creation stories or any of the thousands of other fantastic and supernatural creation stories.
Creation stories persist because humans have only recently begun to have the means to examine nature on the scale we can today. We’ve been ignorantly superstitious for thousands of years. We’ve only been able to look at the universe the way we can today in the last hundred. There’s a lot of ingrained ignorance, yes, in even the most brilliant mind, to eradicate. We really only just begun.
All across the world wide web are comments from theists of every stripe denouncing science as an attempt by the ungodly to disprove their god or gods. In their never-quenched thirst to be seen as persecuted victims of a world-gone-wild (without taking any responsibility for it, even though they brag about the universality of their beliefs), they try to convince the uncritical and uncertain that science is determined to prove gods do not exist. They make it sound like a holy quest, though we know only believers can enjoy those. Religious believers refuse to acknowledge that the best evidence against the possible existence of any particular god is the gross lack of any evidence for one. We have yet to discover any credible, physical evidence that can only be explained by the existence of a certain god and that god’s intervention in our natural world. Science isn’t trying to disprove god, science simply hasn’t found any evidence that irrefutably proves there is one.
Even if we could somehow learn to a 99% certainty that the universe began this way or that, that knowledge will not kill off the idea of god.
Science will never make an absolute declaration that it knows how the universe came into being. Definitive, absolute proof doesn’t exist. Science is not religion. It can only draw tentative conclusions from what evidence we can collect. Scientific conclusions are only as valid as the data. As we come across more information, science has to adjust its conclusions. Religions pretend to know absolute truths, yet they require us to accept these truths on faith.
If science were to state that all the evidence leads us to believe that the universe started in this or that manner, there will always be room to squeeze in religious belief. We’ve already seen in history how religions adapt to current reality in an effort to stay relevant and retain their power over people. In all probability science can’t and won’t put an end to superstitious belief. With our complex brains otherwise intelligent people believe in luck and fate. Beliefs can exist beside knowledge without being eradicated by that knowledge. No matter how smart we become about reality, superstition will survive. There are many theories as to why humans develop and believe in superstitions, but history leads me to accept that every human has them. Religious belief will no doubt change subtlety, as it has before, to accommodate secular knowledge, but it will unfortunately be with us for a long time yet. It is, after all, just another superstitious belief.
Already there are Christian groups that have managed to incorporate scientific conclusions into their dogma. They accept the Big Bang as the best explanation for the beginning of the universe that can currently be drawn from available evidence and still credit their god with having set it all in motion. They give reverence to the Bible, but as an allegorical work rather than literal truth. Scientology is another example of a religion that has incorporated some science into their otherwise wildly fantastical belief system.
A prominent Buffalo area businessman who founded the BridgesTV network to improve the image of Muslims in the U.S. has been arrested and charged with murdering his estranged wife – by beheading her at his company’s office in Orchard Park, N.Y., on Thursday.
Police have charged the husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder in the death of Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37.
In its logo, BridgesTV boasts of “connecting people through understanding” via its dish network available in several states. Its Web site quotes comments about the company by Jay Leno, Brian Williams and others, plus a screen shot of a CNBC interview with Hassan conducted by Maria Bartiromo.
Programs include kids shows, “American Muslim Teen Talk,” Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” and an interview show with James Zogby. Its news program “brings you balanced coverage from around the world. News you can trust.”
Police say the wife had an order of protection from the man. A murder weapon has not yet been recovered. The couple had two children, ages 4 and 6.
Khalid J. Qazi, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said, “There is no place for domestic violence in our religion — none. Islam would 100 percent condemn it.” (Source-Editor & Publisher)
“Islam would 100 percent condemn it”? How about “Islam does 100 percent condemn it”? Why the timid response?
Islam, like Christianity, is an ancient religion that has no place in modern societies. It’s rules of conduct and moral code are suited for 1st century goat-herders, not people living in the 21st century. In the civilized world, women are not property.
If Hassan wanted to change the Western concept of Islamic barbarism, he certainly went about it the wrong way. At least he committed this atrocity in the U.S. where he’ll be held accountable for his behavior and not in the Middle East where his actions would have been excused and accepted.
Those who have reached the conclusion that gods either do not exist or are so improbable as to be unlikely in the extreme are atheists. Other than that one specific philosophical opinion, atheists do not necessarily share any other conclusion, interest or attitude.
It’s difficult to form a cohesive social network based solely on the issue of atheism. Atheists are often too different in what they do believe to feel a strong fraternity with others just because they both disbelieve in gods.
“Who’s the red guy?”
And it’s for this reason atheism fails to capture the interest of most people. Indeed, it actually repels many. Their is no community aspect to atheism.
Humans are pack animals. We respond to strong leadership, we take comfort in numbers. Strays and those outside the pack are suspect, potentially dangerous. One particularly powerful pack in this country is the religious pack. By having the numbers, this pack has established itself as the predominant pack in this society. Those outside this particular pack are viewed as so dangerous they required legislating against. This pack is so large it presumes the title of “normal”. It has determined that its standards be the standards for everyone of every faith and of course those of no faith. As compensation for requiring the sacrifice of personal freedom, it offers the sop of community. Even a fool feels less lonely in a crowd of fools.
But we can’t underestimate the power of community. There’s power in numbers. Might may not make right, but it’s still might. Because of our pack mentality, we are suckers for groups, communities, nearly any collection of human beings assembled for any old reason. We have ample evidence of humans surrendering, of their own free will, their rationality, logic, common sense, skepticism and disbelief when the appearent reward for doing so is sufficiently desireable.
I was recently reading a discussion between atheists about the benefits of using groups like MeetUp to get together with other atheists. Atheists are no different than anyone else in being pack oriented. Unfortunately many of us are a pack of cats. The packs we form often leave much to be desired, when a pack can be formed at all.
By not offering a community, we fail in marketing. We have to concede to the religions that they prevail in meeting that human need better than non-believers on a social scale. We aren’t different in the way we feel about our friends and families, but we tend to commune with those who share our common beliefs, not common disbeliefs. Just like Christians, Muslims, the Amish and the Scientologists do. Otherwise there would be a “Church of the Non-Atheists”.
There is one community that being an atheist allows a person to appreciate, the community of humanity. You don’t have to be an atheist to be a humanist, but being an atheist frees you to see humanity as it exists in reality, not fantasy. Granted, the community of humanity is open to all, totally inclusive, non-judgmental, all the things that religion isn’t. That’s why every successful religion has told its believers that they are separate from humanity, that they’re special, the select, the chosen few selected by the god itself to know the real truth about everything, the secret of reality, the answers to all the really big questions. Religious communities make their members feel comfortable with this attitude that drips with pride and superiority. Otherwise reasonable people who practice skepticism and common sense in every other aspect of their lives can fall prey to this insidious group-think, and do, in large numbers around the world.
And one of the greatest attractions is the religious community.
The best we can do is sneak into Unitarian services and try not to wince too often. Cookies and punch if you’re successful.
At Beliefnet you can take a quiz that supposedly will reveal your true religious beliefs.
Here are my results:
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (91%)
3. Nontheist (81%)
4. Liberal Quakers (71%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (66%)
6. Neo-Pagan (57%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (55%)
8. Taoism (44%)
9. New Age (39%)
10. Reform Judaism (36%)
11. Orthodox Quaker (30%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (29%)
13. Sikhism (24%)
14. Scientology (23%)
15. New Thought (21%)
16. Baha’i Faith (18%)
17. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (18%)
18. Jainism (16%)
19. Seventh Day Adventist (16%)
20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (15%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (13%)
22. Hinduism (12%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (9%)
24. Islam (9%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (9%)
26. Roman Catholic (9%)
27. Jehovah’s Witness (6%)
I suspect what kept my results from being 100% humanist/non-theist and gave a 55% similarity to liberal Protestantism is that I took a position on abortion and homosexuality, even though my opinions on were not formed by atheism.
I do confess that 23% similarity to Scietology has me wondering. What could I have possibly answered that lead the test algorithm to say that? I’d be surprised to learn I had any beliefs in common with those fruitcakes.
I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously.
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. The Radical Atheist blog makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site & will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.All information is provided on an as-is basis.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=91afdda2-7e58-4800-a173-b06176abdc0d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=689a9916-f747-43b5-8ed0-f180a1894189)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=40aedb67-c506-48f1-acf2-96627c9efd8f)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=346ae042-e8f3-4566-a422-0efe82294b79)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bffe704d-8e76-4845-be06-d67d79a636af)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9fad6830-f9e8-4b9c-906c-d2ebf2874213)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a297b5f7-9e3f-48ea-af61-144693b415dc)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2d81662b-b015-4e68-8b54-78cd64df8d3c)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4bd66bea-910f-4bf4-849a-335fddfc0775)
