Archive | January 2013

Teaching children


The text on the picture is as far as I know an actual christian saying. And, to be frank, it’s one I agree with, except I see it from the other side, so to speak.

Don’t teach your children myths like christianity, islam, and such, but teach them how to become interested in learning, and to do research when someone claims something to be a fact.

My parents thaught me both christianity and research, and also how to decide for myself what I believe after having done the research. Never to take anything for gospel (pun intended) before researching it, made me an atheist.

I don’t think that was my parents intention, but it was what happened.


A quote by Salman Rushdie

Salman Rushdie

Salman Rushdie

Evolution disproves the entire Bible?

Have you ever met a creationist? You know, the people who think god created everything, just the way it is today. Who think the earth is around 6000 years old, and that dinosaurs and man lived side by side before the dino’s went to a better place. (Maybe there was no room in the Ark?)

They claim that evolution is “just a theory”, and that creationism should (at least) be equally thaught in schools. But have you ever wondered why they are so afraid of evolution? “My grandmother wasn’t an ape” aside, this cuts a lot deeper.

If evolution is true, there is no possible way the story ofAdam and Eve is true. Two people was not created one day, but the spieces human evolved over millennia. This leads me to the Bible’s story of the “original sin”. If Adam and Eve is a myth, Eve didn’t get tricked by a snake, she didn’t eat the forbidden fruit, and there is no original sin.
“Well, it’s an allegory!” You’ve probably heard some christians say this. “The story of Adam and Eve, and the whole biblibal creation is just a way the authors of the Bible described how the world was made.” OK, but if it is an allegory, my statement stands – there was no “original sin”.

Let’s take a closer look at the next part of christianity – Jesus. The carpenter who was crucified “for our sins” (including the original sin!). What other sins did he die for? The seven deadly sins was invented by the early christian church.

The modern concept of the seven deadly sins is linked to the works of the 4th century monk Evagrius Ponticus, and the sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. Well and good, but according to the Bible, all these sins came into the world because of the fall in the Garden of Eden. (A place that never existed either if you believe in evolution.)

I’m not saying that people doesn’t commit wrath, greed, etc, but according to evolution they are nor connected to Adam and Eve, because there was no Adam and Eve. Thus Jesus dying on the cross wasn’t “for our sins”, because there was no original sin the other sins came from.

Also, if Jesus was God, or part of him, then he knew what would happen after his crucifixion, right? Being all knowing, he would have known he would be crucified. Knowing how you will die, that you will be ressurected, and that you’ll inevitably end up in heaven again kind of takes away from the story a bit. So doesn’t knowing you’re coming back from the dead and going to heaven anyway kind of negate the whole dying for our sins bit?

I guess you can take the story of Jesus and the crucifixion as an allegory as well, but that really messes up christianity, doesn’t it?

Is all fair in love and war?

Religious leaders never stops to amaze me. They are not only stupid, but evil, and petty as well.

Like these Saudi leaders that think it’s OK to gang-rape Syrian women.

From the article:

A prominent Saudi cleric has issued a fatwa (a religious ordinance) that calls for the gang rape of Syrian women. Expressing frustration that the “warriors of Islam” fighting in Syria may be getting weary for the lack of sexual pleasure, the religious leader issued a decree that promotes hours-long “intercourse marriages.”

The cleric, Muhammed al-Arifi, who is a leading jihadist religious figure, made it clear that his edict called for the gang rape of Syrian women and girls. He specified that the “intercourse marriages” last only a few hours “in order to give each fighter a turn.” As to who is an eligible bride, the cleric approves any girls or women over the age of 14 who are widowed or divorced. Yes, you read that right. Any girls over the age of 14.

His warriors are under a lot of sexual tension, so he’ll let them gang-rape 14 year old girls? What a douchebag! A fatwa? I haven’t got that much knowledge of Islam, but I don’t think most muslims agree with this fatwa.