Lot’s More Things Atheists Didn’t Do
By Dave Hitt on Oct 12, 2009 in Things Atheists Didn't Do
More of your favorite feature, folks. . .
A Missouri High School band designed t-shirts that showed the evolution of man and the evolution of band instruments. A few days after they were distributed the school received complaints from concerned parents, who were not atheists, who claimed the shirts violated the school’s mandate to stay neutral where religion was concerned. Mouth-breather Sherry Melby, a teacher in the district, said “I don’t think evolution should be associated with our school.” The idiots who ran the school acquiesced and had the kids turn in the shirts.
Bill Donahue, of the Catholic League, is trying to get Penn & Teller’s “Bullshit!” canceled because they had the audacity to go after the Vatican.
The guy who hijacked a Mexican Jet was not an atheist. He did it on 9/9/09, because if you turn those numbers upside down, he says, they become 666. Well, 6606, actually. He’s not a mathematician either.
In France Muslim women are fighting for the “right” to wear “Burkinis” in public swimming pools. Atheists are willing to wear the normal required swim ware.  Note: the woman in the picture is a Muslim, not a giant Smurf.
Not an Atheist Tattoo
Are you better off with an atheist bus driver, or a religious one? Ask Ed Rivera, who has cerebral palsy. He was left on a freezing bus for 17 hours because the driver didn’t want to be late for church.
An Australian, who is not an atheist, is convinced Jesus and Mary have appeared in his Lava lamp.
In Texas a teacher was suspended not only for being an atheist, but also one of them there scary Liberals.
Smart people, which includes atheists, know that homosexuality and pedophilia are two very different things. Most pedophiles, even those who go after young boys, are heterosexual in their adult relationships. However, the Catholic Church, which is still coddling pedophiles and abrogating their responsibility in thousands of child rape cases, has officially stated that their pedophile priests aren’t really pedophiles. They’re gay.
Donna Ryder, a former Jehovah’s Witness, has revealed her role in hiding kids from health and social welfare authorities. Aided by the church, kids that could have been saved with a blood transfusion were shuttled around the country until they died. The kids would have been far better off with atheist parents.
In Wisconsin Dale and Leilani Neumann murdered their child via religious nuttery. Their 11 year old daughter had an easily treatable form of diabetes, but these obtuse assholes tried to cure her with prayer instead.
In court the unrepentant father said “I am guilty of trusting my Lord’s wisdom completely. . . . Guilty of asking for heavenly intervention. Guilty of following Jesus Christ when the whole world does not understand. Guilty of obeying my God. No, moron, you are guilty of murder. You could have been charged with second degree homicide. At the very least you should have been convicted of criminally negligent homicide, and spent a very long time in jail.
Instead the judge gave each of them the pathetic sentence of six months in jail each and ten years probation. And if that sentence wasn’t enough to prove his court doesn’t give a rat’s ass about kids, he’s having them serve the sentence a month at a time, one month at a time, over six years He’s staggering the sentence to make it easier for them to take care of their other kids.
Yes, you read that right. They’re keeping their other kids. They murdered their child but the judge is letting them keep their kids, because they murdered her in the name of God.
Despite numerous stories about religious parents directly causing their kids death, atheist parents are having trouble adopting. A couple who were trying to adopt kids had to jump through hoops because they were atheists. They did. At the last moment Superior Court Judge William Camarata ordered them to send their kid back to the adoption agency, declaring she had the right be raised by superstitious assholes like him.  They are waiting the results of an appeal.
Having trouble selling your house? Just bury a statue of Joseph in the front yard. Preferably near the mailbox, and upside down, because, well, just because. You can buy special Joseph Statues specifically designed for the purpose. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work for atheists.
In many primitive countries voters dip an index finger in ink after voting, which prevents them from voting twice. In Afghanistan the Taliban likes to chop those fingers off. Afghanistan also has a law allowing a husband to starve his wife to death if she refuses to have sex with him. Praise be to Allah, the merciful.
In Florida anti-choice non-atheists are trying to ban not only abortion, but birth control pills. They are serious about the command “be fruitful and fill the earth.” Every square inch if it, evidently. When Jesus returns he’ll be happy he knows that walking on water trick.
Right on, Dave!
Keep ’em coming.
Nate | Oct 12, 2009 | Reply
Great post!
But uh…sidebar. Perhaps you don’t control what is being advertised on your page, but I’ve reloaded several times and keep getting an ad for “Dianetics.” Which is quite the oxymoron…..
Vanessa | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
Dave,
Here is a follow up to the Adoption case from 1970.
The county court denied plaintiffs’ application for a final decree of adoption. The court held that plaintiffs’ lack of belief in a Supreme Being rendered them unfit to be adoptive parents. The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Division, and prior to argument there, we certified the case on our own motion. We reverse.
I wonder how many other states have a Religious requirement in their Constitution.
P.S. A person who has sex with an under-age person is a pedophile, if the under-age person is the same sex, the pedophile is homosexual, if their adult relations are of the opposite sex they are bi-sexual, not Heterosexual. There are times I wish I WERE Christian so I could pray that pedophiles like Roman polanski would BURN in HELL for all eternity. Alas, I’m not.
Brian Riley | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
Brian,
Pedophilia refers to the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Using the age of consent is useful in regards to legal matters, but not when it comes to social matters.
For instance, using your legal definition, an 18 year old (or 21 year old) who has sex with a 17 year old who is one day shy from his or her birthday is a pedophile if the age of consent is 18.
The correct term for someone who is attracted to adolescents is “ephebophilia”.
Sorry to be the technicality nazi here.
Harley | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Harley,
I stand corrected, I was unaware of the full definition of Pedophilia as my only awareness of it was through reports referring to the legal definition. I was actually referring to Dave’s comment on the Church’s statement that their Priests are not Pedophiles they’re gay, as if the two are opposites. My point was that if an person has sex with someone of the same sex, regardless of their age, they are no longer Heterosexual. But legally, any adult who has sex with a person under the age of consent, priest or not, is considered a pedophile. Of course, since some of the priests favored young boys, they are then both Gay AND Pedophiles.
Brian
Brian Riley | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
the legal age changes from each country in britain it’s 16. loving the work keep it up! i’m trying to raise awareness in my local region of the negatives of religion in order to raise some support for some athiest events…we can’t use the church hall as it would be an oxymoron and they don’t like me as i urinated on it while drunk last week
Jinx | Oct 18, 2009 | Reply
That’s disgusting, Jinx.
You should urinate on it while you’re sober. Your aim will be better.
Hittman | Oct 20, 2009 | Reply
Very well done Dave! Yep… it’s pretty sad when you look at a lot of the stuff that’s done in the name of Religion. I always liked the button “God Protect Me From Your Followers”
– MJM
Michael J. McFadden | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
As I have often said, most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion.
Mankind will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of fact and reason.
James Smith, João Pessoa, Brazil | Nov 7, 2009 | Reply
One thing I’ve always considered however is that even if someone doesn’t believe in religion themselves, there *ARE* some good sides to it that should be recognized. Just two off the top of my head:
1) Religious beliefs DO result in at least some people, maybe many, behaving better toward their fellow human beings either because of pure religious conscience-training OR because of fear of hellfire and brimstone if they’re nasty. How big an effect that is, and whether it balances the harms as exemplified in Dave’s anecdotes is another question.
2) Regardless of the truth of religious beliefs, they DO serve a psychologically positive purpose in the lives of many who would otherwise sink into a despair over “the meaninglessness of it all.” Again, the question could come up as to whether such a positive outweighs the negatives, but if one believes that it does then one might also decide that even if THEY THEMSELVES aren’t religious they would be wrong to take that comforting belief away from others. Thnk about it: would you go to the bedside of a young boy dying of cancer who is not afraid of death and is even happy because he’s “soon going to be with Jesus” and try to convince him that “Nope. Sorry buddy. You’re going to close your eyes some night, wake up with a big pain in your belly, and whap… lights out, bye-bye, no more puppy dog ‘n mom, and certainly no Big Daddy In The Sky!”
Would you do that to such a child? I wouldn’t. And even if I was a “raving athiest” I think such considerations might prevent me from taking my ravings to the public microphone.
Now that’s not to say that I don’t appreciate how well some other folks have done so either on a serious level (Patrick Goodell) or on a purely irreverent/disrespectful/humorous level (Carlin, Eric Schwartz), and I’d most certainly staunchly protect the right of athiests to preach as loud as the Pope, but for myself I feel religous beliefs are more of a quiet, personal, and unorganized sort of thing.
– MJM
Michael J. McFadden | Nov 7, 2009 | Reply
No, I wouldn’t do that to a child or anyone else in their last days. What would be the point other than hurting someone else unnecessarily? That is the only real sin.
But if someone is preaching to me trying to “convert” me, then I have as much right, even obligation, to state the truth as I see it as they have to spout their lies and to brainwash children.
James Smith, João Pessoa, Brazil | Nov 7, 2009 | Reply
My words/thought of comfort are: “Remember what it was like before you were born?” Well, that’s what it will be like after death…”
dave essel | Nov 7, 2009 | Reply
@MJM: Be that as it may, I’d like to point out that there’s a fair bet that the lives saved by religion do not even begin to match the number of lives destroyed/taken in the name of religion.
Depending on the circumstances, I would not rid a child of such delusion. I do, however, have immense difficulty accepting that delusion in the unreal and unproven idea of God is meant to be beneficial in any way or form. I mean, certainly, if it helps pull someone out of a dark streak, that’s helpful. But for those who were believers, being in a dark place and believing their God has forsaken them can be infinitely more devastating, regardless of any previous positive influence.
Just my $0.02
@James Smith: Is it okay if I just refer to you as James? Your name really is rather lengthy :\
I agree with your post, wholeheartedly. I don’t understand, frankly, why TV evangelists and Christian propaganda is accepted by society, but atheism is not. Surely if they have a right to believe in what they want, we have the right to not believe, and just as much right as they to publicise this lack of faith?
blufindr | Nov 9, 2009 | Reply
MJM, Actually, I go more by Jim if that’s better for you. :)
As you have probably observed, “Freedom of speech” is not a concept the deists embrace. You are only free to speak if what you say agrees with what they think. And thinking is actively discouraged as who knows where that will lead?
This is why the religious reich leads the way in the “Dumbing down of America”. Ignorant people who have never learned to think for themselves are far easier to control and convinced to accept the ridiculous ideas of religion.
This is also why sites like this are important. Not that they will convince any deist, most of them are incapable of recognizing facts, logic, or even reasonable questions. What we do accomplish here is give free-thinkers a place to vent, exchange ideas, and realize that we are far from alone.
Preaching never convinces anyone in either direction. If someone is in doubt one way or the other, it might push them in the direction they are already leaning, but personally, I have never de-programmed a believer, and the hundreds of people that have tried to convert me have never moved me an inch.
James Smith, João Pessoa, Brazil | Nov 13, 2009 | Reply
Cheers, Jim.
I don’t think it’s a matter of not learning to think for themselves as much as it’s a matter of not choosing to learn for themselves.
blufindr | Nov 13, 2009 | Reply
blufinder, excellent point! In the end, I don’t see much difference, though. “None are so blind as those who refuse to see.”
You are right. It’s much easier not to think or learn but to simply accept what you are told without questioning anything.
James Smith, João Pessoa, Brazil | Nov 13, 2009 | Reply
Ah, but in the end, there is a difference between lacking the opportunity and lacking the motivation. Thus why we frown upon the young social elite who choose to not further themselves educationally, and do not berate those of the same generation in more disadvantaged circumstances.
blufindr | Nov 13, 2009 | Reply