Hitler Was Not An Atheist
- by John Patrick Michael Murphy

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 19, Number 2.

In George Orwell's 1984, it was stated, "Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past." Who is going to control the present-fundamentalism or freedom?

History is being distorted by many preachers and politicians. They are heard on the airwaves condemning atheists and routinely claim Adolph Hitler was one. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church. Its worst doctrines never left him. He was steeped in its liturgy, which contained the words "perfidious jew." This hateful statement was not removed until 1961. "Perfidy" means treachery.

In his day, hatred of Jews was the norm. In great measure it was sponsored by two major religions of Germany, Catholicism, and Lutheranism. He greatly admired Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews. Luther condemned the Catholic Church for its pretensions and corruption, but he supported the centuries of papal pogroms against the Jews. Luther said, "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them." "Ungodly wretches" he called the Jews in his book Table Talk.

Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf, "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.

Three years later he informed General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." He never left the church, and the church never left him. Great literature was banned by his church, but his miserable Mein Kampf never appeared on the index of Forbidden Books. He was not excommunicated or even condemned by his church. Popes, in fact, contracted with Hitler and his fascist friends Franco and Mussolini, giving them veto power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain, and Italy. The three thugs agreed to surtax the Catholics of these countries and send the money to Rome in exchange for making sure the state could control the church.

Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and microphones. Acclaimed Hitler biographer John Toland explains his heartlessness as follows: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite the detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jews was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god. ..."

Hitler's Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church and blindly followed all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.

Hitler, like some of the today's politicians and preachers, politicized "family values." He liked corporeal punishment in home and school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany, he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it. If past is prologue, we know what to expect if liberty becomes license.

As a young child, I remember my late father, Martin J. Murphy, practicing a speech and loudly quoting the following: "Light up the mountain. Bring out the wild and fiery steed. Let it be known, that I, Gustavus, have insulted the King." Thinking for yourself and speaking your true thoughts - now that's a real family value.

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations.

It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras.

It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages, and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century.

It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship.

It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on the other hand.

It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings.

What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

I understand form your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Yes, that is what I mean.

Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations?

Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden.

I would like to discuss this issue, if you don’t mind…

The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression.

The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations.

The Prophet of Islam said: “I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger”

When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war.

In order to stop this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people’s beliefs.

What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names they did not choose for themselves?

Once he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the “People of the Book,” and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians “those who incur Allah’s wrath.”

Who told you they are “People of the Book”?

They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books.

All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking.

What gives you the right to call them “those who incur Allah’s Wrath,” or “those who have gone astray,” and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others’ right to believe in it.

Are you a heretic?

You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural…

If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran…

These are personal matters that do not concern you.

Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don’t throw them at me.

You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people’s beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary.

Let people have their beliefs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror,  with their work, not with their crying and yelling.

Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered thought the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge.

We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant.

We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church.

We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.

The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble.

We have no seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim or burn down an embassy.

Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroy embassies.

This path will not yield any results.

The Muslims must ask themselves what hey can do for humankind, before they demand that mankind respect them.

• In India, a national paper said, pregnant women shouldn't go outside during the eclipse to avoid having a baby that is blind or having a cleft lip.
  
  
• In Togo, Western Africa, Minister for Health said on state TV that people should keep their kids inside.
  
  
• The Hindustan Times said, If you have cooked any food before the eclipse you cannot eat it afterwards, because it will be impure.
  
  
• If you are holding and ax or a knife during the eclipse, you will cut yourself.

     The first definition suits just fine:

HOPE - transitive
want or expect something: to have a wish to get or do something or for something to happen or be true, especially something that seems possible or likely.

     The author asks a great question:

“What do we know about the future of religion? Consider five wildly different hypotheses:”

1. The Enlightenment is long gone; the creeping “secularization” of modern societies that has been anticipated for two centuries is evaporating before our eyes. The tide is turning and religion is becoming more important than ever. In this scenario, religion soon resumes something like the dominant social and moral role it has before the rise of modern science in the seventeenth century. As people recover from their infatuation with technology and material comforts, spiritual identify becomes a person’s most valued attribute, and populations come to be even more sharply divided among Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and a few other major multinational religious organizations. Eventually it might take another millennium, or it might be hastened by catastrophe – one major faith sweeps the planet.
   
   
2. Religion is in its death throes; today’s outbursts of fervor and fanaticism are but a brief and awkward transition to a truly modern society in which religion plays at most a ceremonial role. In this scenario, although there may be some local and temporary revivals and even some violent catastrophes, the major religions of the world soon go just as extinct as the hundreds of minor religions that are vanishing faster than anthropologists can record them. Within the lifetimes of our grandchildren, Vatican City becomes the European Museum of Roman Catholicism, and Mecca is turned into Disney’s Magic Kingdom of Allah.
   
   
3. Religions transform themselves into institutions unlike anything seen before on the planet: basically creedless associations selling self-help and enabling moral teamwork, using ceremony and tradition to cement relationships and build “long-term fan loyalty.” In this scenario, being a member of a religion becomes more and more like being a Boston Red Sox fan, or a Dallas Cowboys fan. Different colors, different songs and cheers, different symbols, and vigorous competition would you want your daughter to marry a Yankees fan? – but aside from a rabid few, everybody appreciates the importance of peaceful coexistence in a Global League of Religions. Religious art and music flourish, and friendly rivalry leads to a degree of specialization, with one religion priding itself on its environmental stewardship, providing clean water for the world’s billions, while another becomes duly famous for its concerted defense of social justice and economic equality.
   
   
4. Religion diminished in prestige and visibility, rather like smoking; it is tolerated, since there are those who say they can’t live without it, but it is discouraged, and teaching religion to impressionable young children is frowned upon in most societies and actually outlawed in others. In this scenario, politicians who still practice religion ca be elected if they prove themselves worthy in other regards, but few would advertise their religious affiliation – or affliction, as the politically incorrect insist on calling it. It is considered as rude to draw attention to the religion of somebody as it is to comment in public about his sexuality or whether she has been divorced.
   
   
5. Judgment Day arrives. The blessed ascend bodily into heaven, and the rest are left behind to suffer the agonies of the damned, as the Anti-christ is vanquished. As the Bible prophecies foretold, the rebirth of the national of Israel in 1948 and the ongoing conflict over Palestine are clear signs of the End Times, when the Second Coming of Christ sweeps all the other hypotheses into oblivion.

Welcome to the Secular Outpost blog for the Secular Web (www.infidels.org). Some of the authors who contribute to the Secular Web maintain this blog for commenting on various items of interest to metaphysical naturalists.

• Slavery and the Bible
  


• Our Alleged Fallen State
  


• The E-Word In Arkansas (Evolution)
  


• The secular oppose torture more than Christians do

Quotes from the movie I thought were great!

1. Creedy: We've swept this place. All you've got are your knives and your silly karate thing. We've got guns.
   V: No, what you've got are bullets, and the hope that when your guns are empty of them I will no longer be standing, because if I am then you will all be dead before you can reload.
   


2. Evey Hammond: Who are you?
   V: "Who?" "Who" is but the form following the function of "what", and *what* I am is a man in a mask.
   Evey Hammond: Well I can see that!
   V: Of course you can. I'm not questioning your powers of observation, I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.
   Evey Hammond: [short pause] Oh... right.
   


3. V: People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.
   


4. V: Fear became the ultimate tool of this government.
   


5. Finch: If our own government was responsible for the deaths of a hundred thousand people... would you really want to know?
   
   ( This last one I heard in the movie, but can’t remember it word for word and can’t find it online. )
   


6. V: Artists tell lies to show us the truth, governments lie to hide the truth from us.

Nothing with gods, nothing with fate;
Weighty affairs will just have to wait!
Nothing that's formal,
Nothing that's normal,
No recitations to recite;
Open up the curtain:
Comedy Tonight!

-- Stephen Sondheim, "Comedy Tonight" from "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum"

Atheists put their faith in ethical behavior

SAN ANTONIO -- Melissa and Chanse nibble on club sandwiches and french fries at a local coffee shop. To look at them, they're just another young couple enjoying lunch on a weekday afternoon.

She wears stylish glasses, and her thick black hair is swept up in a ponytail; the only hint of a slightly rebellious streak is the tattoo that peeks from under her shirtsleeve. He is a slight, soft-spoken man with a laid-back demeanor and a full beard.

Melissa and Chanse are young atheists. They don't believe in God. As such, they're part of a small but substantial minority that swims against the overtly religious mainstream of America, a spiritual tenor that has grown more strident in recent times as issues of faith increasingly become entangled with politics and public policy.

The public face of atheism in recent times has been Michael Newdow, who filed a lawsuit over his daughter's having to repeat the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually dismissed his case, stating he did not have proper parental standing on behalf of his daughter.

The story made headlines for months. But for most atheists, it's not headlines or scandal they desire. They simply want to go about their own lives without hassle or pressure.

Atheists, they lament, are the last minority in this nation that is fair game for bigotry. Experts who study religion in public life concur.

"Atheists are not very well-thought-of in America," says John Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "It's still acceptable to criticize atheists in a way that's not polite. People may harbor negative views about Jews, Catholics, Muslims and evangelicals, but they know they're not supposed to voice those views, so they don't. But it's still OK to say anything bad you want about atheists."

The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens profess some religious faith, although far fewer attend worship services on a regular basis. The public square has become increasingly dominated by religious (specifically, Christian) rhetoric, from the "values voters" of the 2004 presidential election to hot-button cultural issues that carry a religious edge -- abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, intelligent design, the right to die.

And yet at the same time a compelling undercurrent is at work. A study done by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York found that the percentage of the population that describes itself as "nonreligious" more than doubled from 1990 to 2001, from 14.3 million to 29.4 million people. The only other group to show growth was Muslims.

"Right now, the fastest-growing religious identity in America is the nonreligious," says Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a Madison, Wis.-based group that champions church-state separation and works to educate the public on nontheism.

A study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 16 percent of Americans (about 35 million) consider themselves "unaffiliated" -- a category that includes "unaffiliated believers," "secularists" and atheists/agnostics.

The latter terms -- atheists and agnostics -- are lumped together, says Green, because they share so many similarities. But there is a subtle difference: Atheists forthrightly affirm that there is no God; agnostics simply say as humans we can never know. Together, they constitute about 3 percent of the American population.

Green says atheists/agnostics as a group tend to be well educated and politically liberal (although, he says, there are atheist Republicans). They tend to cluster in big cities on the East and West coasts. They tend to be younger, not older. They tend to be male more than female.

But what, exactly, do atheists believe in, if not in God?

In a nutshell, atheists believe in reason alone, in those things that can be arrived at through intellect and the scientific method. Concrete evidence for God, they argue, simply doesn't exist. They don't cotton to leaps of faith or anything that involves a supernatural being reaching into human lives. They believe you can live a happy, respectable life based on human ethics that were derived not from God handing down a tablet but from a code of rules that emerged naturally through an evolutionary process in which humans learned how to live together successfully.

1. To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
   -Isaac Asimov
   


2. Pray – (verb): To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.
   -Ambrose Bierce, Devil's Dictionary
   


3. When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn’t work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
   -Emo Philips, stand-up comedian
   


4. When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn’t work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
   -Emo Philips, stand-up comedian
   


5. Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.
   -Isaac Asimov
   


6. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
   -Thomas Paine
   


7. So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
   -Bertrand Russell
   


8. God himself has no right to be a tyrant.
   -William Godwin
   


9. Science has done more for the development of Western civilization in one hundred years than Christianity did in eighteen hundred years.
   -Jeff Burroughs
   


10. If the gods do evil then they are not gods.
    -Euripides
    


11. Those of little faith are of little hatred.
    -Eric Hoffer
    


12. Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense.
    -Robert A. Heinlein
    


13. Which is it: Is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s?
    -Friedrich Nietzsche
    


14. We have fossils... We win!
    -Lewis Black, on creationism
    


15. The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
    -George Bernard Shaw
    


16. If there were no God, there would be no atheists.
    -G.K. Chesterton
    


17. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
    -Steven Weinberg, winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics
    


18. Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew them a millennia ago. They were...more trouble than they were worth.
    -Worf, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, “Homefront”
    

On March 19, 2003, without the approval of the United Nations Security Council and against the advice of many of America's closest allies, the Bush Administration launched what has become one of the longest-running wars in US history. Now, on the third anniversary of the start of the war, we are just beginning to feel the full effects of the greatest catastrophe in American foreign policy since the Vietnam War. We are all familiar with the staggering costs in lives and money of the Iraq War: 2,300 Americans killed, more than 16,000 wounded or maimed; about 30,000 direct Iraqi deaths and more than 100,000 attributable to the war; upward of $300 billion in direct war expenditures and close to $1 trillion in estimated total costs.

Read entire article at The Nation Magazine

Taken From
(http://www.stuffmag.co.uk/hotstuffarticle.asp?de_id=1398)

A programmer named Blanka has produced a video showing Windows XP running natively on a new Intel-powered iMac, thus winning a $13,854 prize. The iMac was dual-bootable, offering the choice of Windows or Mac OS at startup - you can find the video over at Engadget.

When Apple announced last year that it planned to move Macs to the same processors that powered Windows PCs, there was plenty of discussion about whether or not the new Intel-compatible Mac OS would run on machines made by Dell, HP et al. But few thought that Apple would allow Windows XP to run natively on Mac hardware – after all, the new Intel chips had built-in Digital Rights Management that could stop such shenanigans, right?

However, Apple has displayed a surprisingly laissez-faire attitude to attempts to run Windows on the Mac. Instead of building in copy protection, it simply used a different boot structure (EFI instead of BIOS, fact fans). Logically, it’s not hard to see why – it could mean more hardware sales for Apple. Microsoft, meanwhile, sees more software sales – without having to develop an Intel-specific version of a desperately slow Virtual PC emulation software.

This isn’t the first case of a dual-boot operating system on the Mac. Linux fans have long been able to run their favourite flavour of the open-source operating system on the same machine as the Mac OS, and back in the nineties many Mac fans flirted with the rather lovely but almost totally useless BeOS software that was once mooted as the foundation for Mac OS X.  

But this is the first time that the world’s number one operating system has been able to run natively on the Mac. The full solution will apparently be available as a downloadable bootloader in the near future. Whether hardcore Mac users will want to enter a world of viruses and poorly designed interfaces is debatable, but the agnostics among us are rejoicing that we’ll finally be able to see websites as they’re supposed to look, and use that pile of Windows-only gadgets that’s been building up with corner for the last decade.

EMail Sent to God Squad to encourage them to meet the challenge

To: godsquad@telecaretv.org
Date: Mar 15, 2006 11:35 PM
Subject: Stand up to the Atheists!

Dear God Squad,

I heard from a friend of a friend that an atheist organization has challenged the brilliant God Squad to a debate?

I urge you to meet this challenge! Get your best guys out there and kick their butts! Allowing them to go unchallenged would only show them we are weak. We can shut them up once and for all.

Leandro
Devout Christian

Yahoo Reuters
Taken From:
(http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-funeralprotests_20tex.ART.North.Edition2.910c703.html)

1-US group launches Ford boycott over gay support

DETROIT, March 14 (Reuters) - A conservative Christian group has launched a boycott of Ford Motor Co. saying the automaker had reneged on a pledge to drop its advertising in gay publications and support of gay rights groups.

The Tupelo, Mississippi-based American Family Association first threatened a boycott in May, but suspended the move in June after several Ford dealers stepped in to broker a settlement.

In December, Ford decided to pull advertising for its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands from gay publications. It then reversed course after coming under fire from gay-rights activists for having conceded to pressure from the AFA.

The controversy comes at a difficult time for Ford, which is struggling to reverse a slide in market share and return its core automotive operations to profitability.

"Ford has every right to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups promoting homosexual marriage. But those who oppose homosexual marriage have every right not to buy automobiles made by Ford Motor Company," the AFA said in a statement on its Web site.

The group is headed by Don Wildmon, a United Methodist minister, and its Web site says it has 3 million "supporters."

Randy Sharp, AFA's director of special projects, told Reuters on Tuesday the group did not offer any formal membership, but over 3 million people had signed up on their Web site to receive e-mail updates.

He said the group's Ford boycott was being backed by 19 other groups, but gave no further information on them.

Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said in response to the boycott announcement, "Ford is proud of its tradition of treating all with respect and we remain focused on that we do best, building and selling innovative cars and trucks worldwide."

Sharp said while other automakers "certainly aren't squeaky clean," the AFA was focusing its efforts on Ford because it "overwhelmingly supported the homosexual groups more than any other automaker."

Ford is not the first company to come under fire for its stance on homosexual rights. Other large companies including Microsoft Corp. and Walt Disney Co. have also found themselves facing demands from groups on both sides of the debate.

In declaring a one-year boycott of Ford, the AFA cited the car maker's sponsorship of gay-pride events in the United States and Britain and its practice of requiring employees to undergo diversity training.

"The goal of every homosexual organization supported by Ford is to get homosexual marriage legalized," the AFA said.

MSN TV Entertainment
Taken From:
(http://entertainment.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=218421>1=7703)

Isaac Hayes Quits 'South Park'

AP NEW YORK -- Isaac Hayes has quit "South Park," where he voices Chef, saying he can no longer stomach its take on religion.

Hayes, who has played the ladies' man/school cook in the animated Comedy Central satire since 1997, said in a statement Monday that he feels a line has been crossed.

"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said.

"Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored," he continued. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."

"South Park" co-creator Matt Stone responded sharply in an interview with The Associated Press Monday, saying, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem — and he's cashed plenty of checks — with our show making fun of Christians."

Last November, "South Park" targeted the Church of Scientology and its celebrity followers, including actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta, in a top-rated episode called "Trapped in the Closet." In the episode, Stan, one of the show's four mischievous fourth graders, is hailed as a reluctant savior by Scientology leaders, while a cartoon Cruise locks himself in a closet and won't come out.

Stone told The AP he and co-creator Trey Parker "never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."

Magazine to publish prophet cartoons

Free Inquiry's April-May issue, to be released March 15, will include four of

the drawings which originally appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, the magazine's editors said Wednesday.

Editor Tom Flynn said the magazine was acting in solidarity with several European newspapers which have reprinted the drawings, demonstrating a commitment to free expression and a free press.

Also driving the decision was the Center for Inquiry's mission to promote freedom of inquiry "in all areas of human endeavor."

"No religious teaching, community, or institution should be held immune from criticism simply because of its religious nature," Flynn said.

Read Entire Article:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--prophetdrawings0308mar08,0,5379928.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

Atheism

• Perhaps the biggest reason the above words are misunderstood is that theists tend to define atheism, atheists tend to define theism, and people who call themselves agnostics don't want to belong to either of the definitions the other two parties have given to each other.
  


• Although some atheists (and they are in the minority) may claim to know that there is no god, most atheists claim no such thing. Atheism is a "lack of belief in god" and nothing more. Those who claim to "know" there is no god are sometimes referred to as "strong atheists", but their thinking is as faulty as those who claim to know that there is a god.
  


• For now, let me just state that no one can know there is no god for the same reason that no one can know there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, unicorn, or other such creature.
  


• To summarize, atheism is a lack of belief in god. Basic atheism (of the non-strong variety) on its own does not positively assert anything regardless of what some atheists may say or think and regardless of what theists frequently define as atheism.
  

Theism

• Theism is simply the opposite of atheism. A good definition of theism is "a positive assertion that god does exist".
  


• Based on these two definitions, everyone is either a theist or an atheist.
  


• Either you positively assert that there is a god or you lack such a positive assertion. There is no middle ground--which brings us to our third word of agnosticism.
  

Agnosticism

• When you break down the word agnostic, you come up with a term meaning "without knowledge" or "unknowable".
  


• The word has changed meaning over the years, and people have tended to use the term as a sort of middle ground between atheism and theism. In my opinion, such a middle ground doesn't exist.
  


• One either asserts that there is a god or they lack such an assertion.
  


• Agnostics have labeled themselves as such because they don't understand the definition of atheism or because they have heard only about the 'strong atheists' who do make a positive assertion that there is no god and they don't personally hold such a strong assertion.
  

Conclusion

• My (modern) definition is that virtually everyone is an agnostic. That's right, almost everyone is either an agnostic/atheist or they are an agnostic/theist because no one can 'know' god. Atheists probably don't have a problem with this definition, but I'd be willing to bet that many theists who are reading this don't appreciate being labeled an agnostic.
  


• Many who believe in god don't claim any first hand knowledge.
  


• The slightly-more-difficult-to-dub agnostic variety of theists are those that claim first hand knowledge. The main problem with these people is this first hand knowledge they assert is always based on personal experience rather than any sort of tangible proof or external evidence.
  


• The issue with these claims, and my reason for still labeling these people as agnostics, is that all of their personal experiences, 1) more or less contradict the personal experiences of others who claim this same 'knowledge' and 2) can't be shown to others (especially skeptics, scientists, or others who want to see proof).
  

To conclude and summarize, both you and I are agnostics. Almost everyone is an agnostic (in the modern sense of the word) since none of us have any evidence, proof, or other tangible means of giving knowledge regarding any of the various versions of god that the masses currently believe in or have believed in the past. The few people who truly believe that they can prove or disprove the existence of god(s) probably could not be classified as agnostics under this frame of thought (although even this is debatable as one person's "proof" can be pure nonsense to another and would, therefore, leave the non-agnostic status only in the eyes of the person claiming the illogical "proof"). Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. If you answer the question, "Do you believe in god?" with an affirmative, then you are a theist. If your answer is "no" or "I don't know" then you are an atheist due to your lack of an affirmative belief.

Read all about it on CNN:

Congress sent its first shot across President Bush's bow Wednesday, as the House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to block a controversial deal that would allow Dubai Ports World to operate some terminals at U.S. ports.

1. Opposes evolution
   


2. Thinks global warming is not a real issue
   


3. Thinks part of the “war on terror” should be to convert Mulims to Christianity.
   


4. Wants to outlaw homosexual behavior, punishable by the death penalty
   

1. Inflate Balloons and tie to car
   
   


2. Drive like a bat out of hell
   
   


3. Watch people on the highway freak out!
   

1. On left you have the list of headlines from the various sites you are subscribed to. Each item includes the headline title and the site it comes from.
   


2. Near the bottom you can control how you want to view your headlines, by date/relevance etc…
   


3. A summary of the headline.
   


4. You can create a custom label for each site you’re subscribed to.
   


5. The headline and site name.
   


6. You can control each headlines with options like, Keep as Unread, Unsubscribe, and Send via eMail etc…
   

Here is a basic breakdown of the site is about!

Blog Philosophy
To inform, entertain, amuse, challenge, and essentially share with our readers the current events of American politics and world affairs. Why should you care? Hey, it's our country, and no matter what anybody else thinks, it's the best place in the world. Somebody is always looking to kick our asses, and most of the time, it's the people who pretend to look after us (the politicians). We need to understand and respond to this threat, to make sure our country stays the best place in the world.

Who they are?
We are, in no particular order:

Dissident Dexter - Founder of My Stolen Nation. The fun loving agnostic who will put an intellectual thorn in your backside if you try to mess with his nation.

Dr. Bastard - Founder of My Stolen Nation. The good doctor likes to mix his politics in with his normal dose of reality, only he makes sure that in the end, nobody loses an eye.

Jack Calvin - The new guy who they made write this page. I could lie and present delusions of grandeur about myself, but last I checked, I wasn't a member of Congress.

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Linked To Bad Parents Who Could Have Done Something
Taken From:
(http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29133")

WASHINGTON, DC—According to a study released Monday by the National Pediatric Association, a link exists between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), the mysterious condition that results in the unexplained death of 1 in 500 U.S. infants each year, and bad parents who could have done something.

After conducting interviews with some 1,500 parents of SIDS victims, researchers discovered a connection between the tragic death of a seemingly healthy baby and the terrible people who had completely failed in their role as parents and caregivers.

"For years, the medical community did not know what causes SIDS, as no single factor appeared to be common to all cases," National Pediatric Association director Dr. Lucille Reese said. "But we have finally isolated a unique trait shared by all SIDS victims known as malis parentibus, or 'bad parents.' After all, these parents must have done something wrong. Why else would this have happened?"

The three-year study found that, not only could parents of SIDS victims have prevented the death of their children by not being such incompetent caregivers, they also failed to love their children enough in the weeks or months leading up to the infant's death.

"Three days before Derek left us I swore at him," said a tearful Helene Fordice of Butte, MT, who lost her son to SIDS Feb. 11. "My horrible words, 'Sweetie, for God's sake, hold still a second so mommy can change you,' will haunt me for the rest of my life."

According to Dr. Milton Kessel (left), horrible parents cause more than 200,000 SIDS deaths each year.

Fordice, one of the many parents who participated in the study, also reported that she had failed to let Derek know how important he was to her while she still had the chance.

"If I'd been a better mother, Derek would be alive today," Fordice said.

According to the study, the bad parenting that causes SIDS can take on many forms, including breastfeeding incorrectly, leaving the child unsupervised for 35 seconds, holding the baby too often or not enough, and failing to have the child baptized.

SIDS deaths have historically been difficult to accept by those in the medical profession due to the extremely young age of the victim and the many unanswered questions surrounding the syndrome. Despite the fact that SIDS is the single leading killer of infants, doctors have had little definite information to offer the public—until now.

"We've spent years searching for the cause of SIDS, examining such factors as maternal health and age, prenatal care, birth procedure and immunization history," said Dr. Ravi Harmuti, co-chair of the study. "But we'd never been able to tie all SIDS cases together until we pinpointed the unbelievable incompetence of the parents involved."

"Finally, we'll be able to give parents an explanation for the SIDS-related death of their child," said Dr. Milton Kessel, Director of Pediatric Medicine at Boston Lutheran Hospital. "From now on, whenever a bewildered, hysterical parent asks what happened, we can end their confusion and let them know that they are entirely to blame."

The National Pediatric Association findings are the result of groundbreaking new interview-based research methods. Instead of examining tissue samples, autopsy results and specific environmental factors, the study focused on testimonials given by grief-stricken parents who were asked to honestly assess how much they really wanted a child, anyway.

As a result of the study, the National Pediatric Association is embarking on a nationwide SIDS public-awareness program. It is hoped that the new "SIDS: It's All Your Fault" campaign will result in a sharp overall reduction in SIDS-related fatalities.

"Now that we know that bad parenting is the culprit, no infant need die of SIDS again," Reese said. "Except, of course, in those instances in which the SIDS death is God's way of punishing a parent for some past sin."

I can read your mind. Right now, you're listing all the ways you know that Bush has fucked up and are getting ready to fire off some hate mail. Your list probably has three failed companies, failed foreign policy, failed economic policy, disastrous environmental policy, "bring 'em on", and more. But you're wrong. Bush is indeed guilty of all of that, but he is no fuck-up.

Let's take the failed oil companies. You're probably thinking that it takes a real fuck-up to start an oil company in Texas that fails to find any oil. But you're not thinking like a Bush. Bush's failed company allowed him to milk millions from investors and walk away with it in his pocket. A real fuck-up would have been as broke as his investors, or would have walked away with millions only to find himself put in prison for fraud. Bush achieved his objective: to get rich at the expense of others.

How about foreign policy? Bush has alienated most of the world, failed to find Osama and fought a war in Iraq based on nothing but lies. Most people who did that would be fuck-ups, but not Bush. Bush's foreign policy has allowed his defence company cronies to walk away with billions (so they will reward him with campaign contributions). Bush's foreign policy has allowed him to terrorize the US into numbly allowing Ashcroft to wipe has behind on the Bill of Rights in the hopes that it will make them safer. Bush's oil company cronies will be benefitting in due course. Bush achieved his objectives: to help his cronies get rich at the expense of others so they will kick back campaign contributions.

Failed economic policy? Any other president who turned a surplus into a deficit, lost millions of jobs and is about to cause a collapse of the dollar might be deemed a fuck-up, but not Bush. The deficit means that the US will soon no longer be able to afford social programs like health benefits, unemployment benefits or retirement benefits, which is exactly how the GOP likes it. The tax cuts for the obscenely rich will benefit his cronies who will kick back with campaign contributions. The lost jobs mean that people will be more likely to sign up with the military as their only chance of any kind of job. The collapse of the dollar will allow his rich cronies (who hold other currencies and gold as well as dollars) to buy up shares at bargain-basement prices and increase their stranglehold on businesses of all kinds. Not only that, the collapse of the dollar will actually allow companies to start using domestic labour instead of outsourcing to other countries by employing people for peanuts (less than they would pay Chinese or Indian workers). Bush has achieved his obectives: fuck everyone so his rich cronies benefit and so does he.

Disastrous environmental policy? Not for Bush's cronies, who can afford houses in places that won't be flooded when the icecaps melt and can afford air and water treatment systems for their homes that will filter out the mercury, carcinogens and other toxic crap. Bush again is no fuck-up, he has achieved his objectives: fuck everyone but him and his rich buddies.

Bush is busy getting ready to fight war on more fronts when the US military is struggling to cope with the two wars he already started. But he's still no fuck-up. His economic policy means that more people will be signing up as cannon fodder (and if they don't, steps are being taken to ensure the draft can be revived at short notice). Those wars will keep his defense contractor buddies happy as the US plunders the resources of foreign countries. Sure, those wars will breed resentment and increase the likelihood of terrorist attack, but Bush needs the excuse of a terrorist attack to justify even more draconian legislation (and perhaps even to suspend elections for the duration of the "emergency"). Ask George Orwell: perpetual war is double-plus good. No fuck-up here, Bush is on the point of achieving his ultimate objective: fuck democracy and stay in power perpetually by the use of perpetual war.

I can read your mind again. You're thinking that the truth will out and Bush will lose the election. But he has it covered three ways. The first is his massive campaign fund, allowing him to outspend his opponents (advertising works - ask Joe Camel). The second is the control by his rich cronies (whom he rewards with tax breaks and media deregulation) of most of he media. The third is the unauditable electronic voting machines from the likes of Diebold which will make the vote-rigging in Florida seem like an honest vote. Bush might seem like a vulnerable fuck-up, but he is likely to succeed in his objective: steal another election so he can fuck us over some more.

There are many more examples, but I'm sure you can think of them for yourselves and figure out why what looks like a fuck-up is actually superb strategy. And now you also know why I want you constantly to repeat the mantra: "Bush is not a fuck-up." He isn't. He only seems like one if you don't understand his objectives. If you think of Bush as a fuck-up, you "misunderestimate him" to his advantage, not yours.

It is true that Bush is fifty-one cards short of a full deck, but stupidity has never hampered despotic kings in the past - they just rely on their advisors and only falter when their arrogance causes them to ignore their advisors, which may be our only hope with Bush. It is true that Bush is a greedy, dishonest, evil piece of shit, but he is no fuck-up (by his own greedy, dishonest, evil standards).

However, telling your GOP friends (if you have any) that Bush is a complete fuck-up and giving examples (without explaining to them why really it is good strategy by Bush) may convince them not to support him. Just make sure you never think of Bush as a fuck-up, because he isn't.