American Atheists Condemns Attack on Charlie Hebdo

Cranford, NJ—American Atheists stands in solidarity with those affected by the heinous terrorist attack at the office of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris Tuesday. We mourn the lives lost, offer our condolences to the families of the victims, and condemn this assault on free expression in the strongest possible terms.

Last drawing by Charb, a cartoonist killed at Charlie, "Still no attack in France. Wait! We can send best wishes until the end of January."

The last drawing by Charb, one of the journalists killed at Charlie Hebdo, “Still no attack in France. Wait! We can send best wishes until the end of January.”

This attack, reportedly carried out by Islamic extremists shouting “We avenge the Prophet Muhammad,” is not the first against Charlie Hebdo, which was firebombed in 2011 after it listed Muhammad as a “guest editor” of the magazine and published satirical cartoons featuring Islam. Charlie Hebdo has spared no target, mocking religious extremism of all stripes, politicians, celebrities, and others.

“The right to blaspheme, to criticize bad ideas, is a cornerstone of our civilization. I’m outraged and appalled at this attack in the name of religion,” said American Atheists President David Silverman. “The journalists and police officers murdered today gave their lives in defense of one of our most cherished rights. Their sacrifice must not be in vain.”

Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier, who was among those killed in the attack, said in 2012, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me. I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law. I don’t live under Quranic law.”

American Atheists will continue to strongly defend the absolute right of all people to criticize all ideas, including religion. We condemn any attempt to place the “rights” of ideas above the rights of people. We will stand with Charlie Hebdo by publishing and sharing the images found so offensive by these terrorists and we call upon media outlets, organizations, and individuals to do the same.

As a member of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) and the International Association of Free Thought (IAFT), American Atheists stands shoulder to shoulder with our partners in France and around the world in defense of free expression.

 

 

  • Ari

    Hear, hear !!

  • geofly

    Make the islamics strategy backfire by having all the world’s newspapers republish the Charlie Hebdo comics.

    • Cthulhu21

      They’ll probably do that when someone grows a backbone.

  • Agnostic

    Im sure you wouldn’t mind if the guy drew pro religion comics and was killed.

    • Beestingza

      What nonsense. As a rule, atheists are for reasoned discourse, not unthinking violence. BTW, with such an egregious example of where religious zealotry leads people, why would you come out on their side? Must be remaining agnostic on the subject.

      • WallaceLeMay68

        When atheists condemn an incident like this, what objective standard are they appealing to? Are they really just saying that this is contrary to their subjective preferences? You cannot condemn it on utilitarian grounds because there are far more Muslims than atheists so Jihad clearly creates a greater total happiness for a greater number of people.

        • adhoc

          “When atheists condemn an incident like this, what objective standard are they appealing to?”

          Objective Standard? You would have to give me your definition, I find that not everyone has the same definition. I take a stab at the spirit of your question-

          I appeal to my standard that people should not be killed for drawing cartoons.

          Do you have some other standard to which you appeal?

          What really troubles me are those that need a book or a holy man to tell them that killing people for drawing cartoons is wrong. Ironically, these are usually the same books that promote this type of behavior.

          “…Jihad clearly creates a greater total happiness for a greater number of people.”

          Why do you think this is a good thing?

          If killing people “creates a greater total happiness” for a group of people, I would say that group of people have terrible morals and are a menace to civilized societies. I would think that a successful Jihad, in which any(all) infidels were killed, would make a lesser number of people.

          Even if drawing cartoons was illegal, the punishment(death) doesn’t seem to fit the crime, right?

          • WallaceLeMay68

            My point remain that objective moral values ccannot exist if atheism is true. No amount of neck bearded butthurt over ‘free expression’ can change an ought into a must, unless there is a transcendent source for these values.

          • adhoc

            “My point remain that objective moral values ccannot exist if atheism is true.”

            Like the term “objective standard” you used before, you are going to have to give me your definition of “objective moral values”. I find the definition varies from person to person. This variance of “moral values” from person to person and from situation to situation seems to not be “objective” to me, hence the need for your definition. Perhaps some examples might help.

            “No amount of neck bearded butthurt over ‘free expression’ can change an ought into a must,…”

            Not sure where you are going here. Ought into a must? Please explain.

            “…unless there is a transcendent source for these values. “

            Transcendent source? Nope. Societies grant and restrict things like freedom of expression.

            Aw shucks, let us pretend that your claim is true. So… There were NO morals before your transcendent source granted us morals? Did your transcendent source also grant morals to other animals at the same time we got them? How do you know your transcendent source is moral? How do you know your transcendent source is a source of good morals? What method do you use to evaluate those transcendent source morals to decree them to be good in value? In short, you are going to have to prove we get values from a transcendent source. Simply claiming it is so without good evidence, is not good enough proof. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”* Pointing to how many other people believe in a transcendent source is not good enough proof either. There was a time, not too long ago, that most everyone thought the Earth was flat; it didn’t make that claim true.

            *Quote- Christopher Hitchens

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Thanks for another steaming pile of specious, regurgitated, pseudo-intellectual, Hitchens-Dawkins parroting blather.

          • adhoc

            Wow, that is a good answer to my questions.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Thanks for this steaming nugget of regurgitated, pseudo-intellectual, Hitchens-Dawkins parroting, neck bearded blather you preening, faux-analytical, basement dwelling clown. This comment really opened my eyes. I mean, this is powerful stuff. After all, we are all atheists towards Thor, right? Some people are just enlightened enough to take it one step further. And we all know Darwin has already explained how the entire universe can function without any need for a creator. Except, well … the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, teleological argument, First Cause / Unmoved Mover, the impossibility of infinite causal regress, the necessity of at least one unconditioned reality, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality, Plantina’s modal ontological argument, the free will defense to the problem of evil. … Your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and logic half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life.

          • adhoc

            “Your entire world view lies shattered at your feet.”

            Ya think? Nah, your assertions do nothing to prove your position.

            Just admit it, you really don’t know how to defend your morality. All of your other arguments for the existence of a god, don’t answer the questions about your “Christian morality” that you can’t seem to answer. Why is that? If you want the answers to your list, use google.

            I like how you got preachy there at the end. That’s precious. No need to rethink my life. Perhaps it is you who needs to think, think for yourself.

            I rejected all this mythological superstitious nonsense when I was five. I never had an imaginary friend as a child, why would I want one as an adult? What is even more strange is that YOU want to share your imaginary friend with me.

          • Religious freak

            As for the origins of Christian morality, we believe God instructed us on right and wrong and its recorded in the Bible. Jesus simplified the law into two parts: love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. He is the source of our morality and everything else. He doesnt share with us what morality He gave to animals specifically. How to love is recorded in 1 corinthians 13:4 and elsewhere in the Bible.

          • adhoc

            ” Jesus simplified the law into two parts: love God with all your heart, soul and mind, …

            A law stating you have to love someone one, sounds very North Korean (or any cult leader). It sounds like the demands of an obsessive, abusive significant other with low self-esteem.

            “… and love your neighbor as yourself.”

            And if one of my neighbors hates himself?

            The Golden Rule was around before any gods were ever created.

          • Religious freak

            The verse I shared shows that you love them by treating others with patience, kindness, a humble attitude, rejoicing in truth not unrighteousness, and forgiving.

          • adhoc

            “The verse I shared shows that you love them by treating others with patience, kindness, a humble attitude, rejoicing in truth not unrighteousness, and forgiving.”

            If that is what it shows, then why doesn’t that verse say what you just said? It doesn’t.

            If you were going to make a moral guide book, would you make it ambiguous or would you be direct? Don’t you think an omnipotent being would be able to do better? I can make a better moral guidebook than ANY holy book that has been written. I think you can as well.

            There are parts of your moral guidebook that are direct, unfortunately they involve things like slavery and the subjection of women and other people not in the in-group.

            The Golden Rule- Treat Others How You Want To Be Treated- was not invented by Christianity. It was not invented by any religion. The concept is a necessity for all social animals. Even The Golden Rule has its flaws, as it in not the best course of action in all situations.

            What method did you use to determine that following The Golden Rule was a good course of action? (Assuming you think the golden rule is a good thing) If you determined it was good because it was written in a book, then how did you determine slavery was bad(assuming you think slavery is bad), as it is endorsed in the same book? What method do you use to determine what is good and what is bad in the holy book you subscribe? What method do you use to determine good and bad interpretations of the ambiguous and direct parts of your holy book?

          • Religious freak

            Skipping to your last paragraph, I used experience and outcome to determine the Golden Rule is good. It doesnt always appear to be right away but when I follow it even when I dont want to it always ends up for my good which increases my faith . Inn it. As a black woman, for real, many others have been surprised I do not condemn the concept of free labor, slavery. Even now, I am called to be a slave to Christ and follow His will regardless of whether its serving my interests or what I want. Im not perfect but I know this is my purpose. it was never commended to beat, kill and torture slaves. The Bible says, even if your master is harsh, to be patient and suffer through it. Conversely, even if a slave was unruly, it wasnt called upon to be cruel. Women are to be submissive, to husbands. That is not a license to mistreat a woman if she is not, then the man is guilty. Every is responsible for their own actions.
            I tend to take the Bible as I see it. If an interpretation doesnt match its face value, I question it

          • Religious freak

            To clarify, I am grateful slavery was abolished and for the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement was successful in large part because followers of Martin Luther King attacked only unjust laws, not people. Collosians 4:1 calls for masters to treat slaves just and equal. I believe it was Gods will to end it because of the cruelty and im grateful for it

          • Beestingza

            Some of that is potentially useful, but we are going to have to expand the circle of sentiments beyond our neighbors to survive as a species. Our ethical intuitions are primitive, as evolution can’t see global effects. We can, so it is up to us now to assure our own evolution beyond our primitive hominid forbears. How that can be done is not entirely clear, but religion is definitely not the answer, and most likely is a big part of the problem.

          • Beestingza

            Oops, sorry ad-hoc, I was trying to reply to religious freak and his Jesus solution below.

            I’ve just about given up with these pointless debates online. You can’t really connect in a human way with your opponent, everyone is arguing against an imaginary version of who the other person actually is (for good or ill), and no one has any way to gauge the effect it has on the other, except in very rare instances where someone actually changes their mind, in which case they probably would have come around to the truth on their own.

            I know we are all invested in the worldview our parents gave to us, but religion, as psychologically comforting as it is, is not even remotely plausible in any of it’s forms. Yes, atheists are delusional in many ways outside the realm of religion (I think the human condition is often delusional by definition), but at least they are trying honestly to reckon with the facts. It isn’t because they are ‘better,’ it’s boils down to some genetic cause or another, but it seems that hewing to reality, while often depressing, is simply more honorable than the gymnastic intellectual contortions smart religious people must engage in to maintain their faith, and I think it comes at a very heavy price.

          • religious freak

            Faith does not require proof, science does. So it’s up to atheists to prove the origin of morals.

            If moral values vary from person to person and everyone is equal, what gives one person the right to punish another for speech…or actions? Freedom of speech is basic,to control speech one needs force. People have a natural ability to choose actions as well. When someone doesn’t like what another has chosen, they can choose to retaliate. Often the person with the most support wins. What is going on now is a power struggle. Every incident pushes people to pick sides and you try to get the most support on your side so you can force actions on everyone else with confidence they don’t have the support to do anything about it. I personally rely on God, not numbers to win my battles. The only battle I know God wants me to be concerned about is to save souls by showing Jesus Christ who died to save us from our sinful selves and give us hope for the future.

          • adhoc

            “Faith does not require proof…”

            Faith requires a lack of proof, if you had proof you wouldn’t need faith, right? Right.

            If moral values vary from person to person and everyone is equal, what gives one person the right to punish another for speech…or actions?

            We live in groups, societies. These societies set up the rules, the moral values. The moral values of societies change, e.g. slavery or fashion or even murder-human sacrifice, over time. Individuals within a society change at varying degrees. Moral values even change when an age group dies off, for example, in 25 years, gay marriage will be as controversial as interracial marriages is now. Sure, there will still be individuals who will oppose it then, as folks who oppose interracial or even inter-religious marriages now.

            When people go outside the limits imposed by the society in which they live, there are consequences. We have laws, with defined punishments for breaking those laws.

            Things like “Freedom of Expression” are granted and restricted by societies. Not all societies are the same.

          • Beestingza

            Not all people are equal and not all societies are equal in their endowments, or abilities. Western society (despite many lingering evils) has been built on scientific and ethical revelations of some of the greatest minds to have existed (sadly not usually the same people) , while Islamic society is still struggling to shed the manacles of a dogmatic tribal religion. Saying they are merely ‘different’ and the tables will eventually turn back to religious dominance is predicated on the notion of there being no ethical truth to be discovered vis a vis human, environmental and even spiritual health.

            Religion is based on lies. Sociological progress it based on the advancement of truth (however falteringly). This is why the tables must never be allowed to turn again.

          • Beestingza

            That’s the problem with religion, or specifically, Christianity. It assumes we are sinners from the get-go, which is clearly not the case. People act the way they do because of a complex interplay between environment and genetics. Science is slowly beginning to unravel the causes of ‘evil’ (sociopathy, psychopathy, poverty, power, etc).

            Assuming that we are fucked from the beginning unless we attach hope to a fantasy afterlife might bring genuine solace, but it doesn’t do a damn thing to help us understand and solve the real problems threatening humanity’s actual survival as a species. What a cop-out.

          • Beestingza

            Hume is dead. Philosophically and literally. The is/ought divide is a cop-out. You can’t get an is without an ought.

            Anyone can see that (and it is supported by objective science) societies based on regressive tribal custom produce more suffering.

            Consequentialism has problems, but it is so, so much better than arbitrary sky-god fantasy morality. If science witnessed economic, psychological and social flourishing in religion-dominated countries, then there might be something to talk about, but it doesn’t

          • WallaceLeMay68

            You have, inadvertently, given me the empirical evidence I have been looking for to support my new proof for the existence of God: the argument from douche.
            P1: if a maximally douchy entity exists, there must some transendant, countervailing entity which embodies all that which in not douchy. Otherwise, douchiness would have overwhelmed the universe.
            P2: non-douchy things exist, such as Jesus, America, freedom, baseball, Ronald Reagan, etc.
            P3: a maximally douchy entity exists (proven by your last comment ).
            P4: maximal douchiness does not dominate the universe based on the existence of P2 + sunsets, babies, Chuck Norris, etc.
            P5: the transendant embodiment of maximal non-douchiness, which allows for existence of P2, must be spacess, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, in order to overcome the maximal douchiness of P3.
            That entity is what classical theists call God.
            Thanks again neck beard boy. In all your pseudo-intellectual, teenage angst ridden butthurt fury, you have proven the existence of God!

          • Bible Belted Betty

            Chuck Norris and Jesus are douches. They deserve each other and I’ll be glad when they can finally get married in Texas.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            “And this is the condemnation: that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
            But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”
            John 3:19-21

          • Arka

            No source is needed. I am myself the source not looking for source from someone else. Fool.

            Neck bearded.. can’t even phrase properly – illeterate.

        • LOL

          When Christians condemn an incident like this, what objective standard are they appealing to? Are they really just saying this is contrary to their subjective preferences? You cannot condemn it on utilitarian grounds, because Islam is growing far faster than Christianity, so Jihad clearly creates a greater total happiness for a greater number of new converts.
          (Oops, sucks when your logical fallacy applies to your own sacred cow too, eh?)

          • WallaceLeMay68

            That’s my point. Utilitarian arguments -the only arguments atheist have for objective moral values – fail to prove anything. Utilitarian arguments have been advanced, largely by atheists, to defend infanticide, mandatory euthanasia, and genocide. They utterly fail to advance the ball onone inch for proving objective morality. There has to be something that transcends everyone’s preferences. Christianity recognizes this. Your steaming stack of blather is worthless because you have conflated the Christian position on objective morality with some type of utilitarianism, which it doesn’t rely upon. You had to realize when you typed this that it was utter nonsense. How shameful from someone who supposedly values reason and logic.

          • adhoc

            “…conflated the Christian position on objective morality with some type of utilitarianism, which it doesn’t rely upon.”

            Do tell us all about the Christian position of objective morality. Is this the position of all Christians or only the One True Christians(tm) or just you? How is the Christian position different from, or better than, other positions? What does the “Christian Position” rely upon? What method do you use to decide if this position is good?

            For example: The Catholic Church is against using birth control, like condom and the pill, yet 90-some percent* of Catholic women use some form of artificial contraception. How does this fact fit into your “Christian position on objective morality”?

            *One source of my claim: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/04/13/

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Well one of them is right, neck beard boy, which is more than your Hitchens-Dawkins parroting mind can even think. Indeed, atheism is not only a defeater for objective moral values, but it is unclear if objective reality can even be defended on atheism. It’s brains in vats all the way down for you, basement dweller. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

          • Cthulhu21

            “One of them is right” doesn’t answer why your way is right while others are wrong.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Your world view doesn’t allow for ANYTHING to be wrong. How much longer are you going to pretend not to get this, you preening, pseudo-intellectual, Hitchens-Dawkins parroting, basement dwelling troll?

          • Cthulhu21

            Saying that your religion is right while others are wrong without saying why that is the reason why we don’t accept your religion in the first place.
            Also, to be more presice, we don’t accept things that have been shown to be wrong or simply can’t be shown to be wrong or right either way. Your religion being among the later.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            On atheism, you have no foundation for accepting or rejecting anything. You have a mutated monkey brain and your personhood is a chemical reaction.

          • Cthulhu21

            Sure I do, you don’t have evidence for a deity’s existence. And until evidence does arise, I’m going to assume that one doesn’t exist.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            In my experience the atheistic/agnostic mantra of “there is no evidence” is typically premised upon an arbitrary and subjective definition of evidence. Because evidence is a legal term, and this discipline has written the most about the concept, it would make sense to consider the legal definition of evidence before declaring that there is none.
            “[E]vidence is defined as ‘all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved.’” Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[E]vidence includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact is established or disproved, and is further defined as any species of proof legally presented at trial through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury.” People v. Victors, 353 Ill. App. 3d 801, 811-812; 819 N.E.2d 311 (2004).
            Notice the use of the terms “any” and “all” in these definitions. A whole lot of things count as “evidence.” Testimony is included within the definition of evidence, although it is “not synonymous with evidence” because evidence “is a more comprehensive term.” People v. Victors, supra at 811-812. In other words, personal religious experiences, COUNT AS EVIDENCE as that term has been legally defined, something atheists find hard to accept. This also means that the Gospels, for example – as “records, documents” – fall within the definition of “evidence” as well. Atheists and skeptics may say that these are not reliable forms evidence, but to say there is NO evidence is simply false.
            Also, the philosophical evidence for God’s existence (First cause, argument from contingency, argument from reason, moral argument, apparent fine tuning) might not strictly meet the definition of evidence, but the philosophical evidence does – coupled with the existence of the universe and consciousness itself – give rise to a “presumption.” A “presumption” comes about when the “finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until [the] presumption is rebutted.” Wilner v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “Although not evidence, a presumption can be a substitute for evidence if it is not rebutted.” Id. Most atheists will freely admit that they have no evidence disproving God – they usually fall back on the fact that it is not their burden. However, if there is a presumption of God’s existence (and at least 4 1/2 billion people would say there is), then atheists do in fact carry the burden of rebuttal.
            Most atheists/skeptics confuse “evidence” with “conclusive evidence,” sometimes termed “conclusive proof,” which is defined as “evidence so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary.” Black’s Law Dictionary 636 (9th ed. 2009). It is also defined as “[e]vidence that so preponderates as to oblige a fact-finder to come to a certain conclusion.” Id. There may not be, in the atheists/skeptics view, evidence that “obliges” them to accept God’s existence. But this does not mean there is no evidence at all, only that he has not seen what he considers to be “conclusive evidence.” Also, note again the first part of Black’s definition – “evidence so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary.” Atheists admittedly have no “evidence to the contrary,” so ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL(i.e., personal religious experience) becomes “conclusive proof” by courtroom standards.
            So in summary: why do you reject the evidence? Because you consider the idea of God absurd. Why is the idea of God absurd? Because of the lack of evidence. Your entire atheistic world view flows from this circular reasoning, which itself flows from a fundamentally flawed concept of what “evidence” is.

          • Cthulhu21

            What works in a courtroom doesn’t work in science. Try again please.

          • adhoc

            He clearly can’t defend his claims. I believe we are witnessing the Dunning-Kruger effect…

          • WallaceLeMay68

            On some level you tacitly know that it’s time for you to shut your neck bearded face you Hitchens-Dawkins parroting, basement dwelling, pseudo-intellectual, GNU-Reditt obsessed, faux-analytical, basement dwelling troll.

          • adhoc

            Wow. Gee Wally, that really hurts, especially when it comes from someone as smart as you think you are.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Who determined that we are using the ‘scientific definition of evidence’? God’s existence is not a scientific proposition. You error flows from the logical fallacy known as scientism, the notion that science is the sole source of truth. But scientism is simultaneosly a philosophical assertion, and an argument against the value of philosophy. So your question-begging scientism is the reason your entire world view lies shattered at your feet.

          • Cthulhu21

            We did. If the evidence for a god can’t be verified through experiments repeatedly and consistently, it goes out the window.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            You are constantly changing the subject each time the logical fallacies, upon which your worldview is built, are exposed. Nice try neck beard boy. Your specious blather has done more to reaffirm my faith than a thousand miracles of the sun ever could.

          • Cthulhu21

            I didn’t present any fallacy that I was aware of. Could you care to explain why using science as a tool is a fallacy after you help me understand what you have against science?

          • WallaceLeMay68

            your entire world view begs the question by presupposing that science is the sole source of human knowledge

          • Cthulhu21

            Science is a tool that helps us evaluate knowlege by testing it. If an idea can’t even tested then it’s what we call unfalsifiable and shouldn’t be considered until it can be tested.
            Beging the question is when you use an initial premise or claim to prove itself to be true. Why do you think science uses circular reasoning?

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Because you just strung a bunch of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual crap together right there and never made a point. The question of whether there is a metaphysical predicate for science even being intelligible is not a scientific proposition subject to emprical inquiry. Your entire world view is a category mistake.

          • Cthulhu21

            Science is pseudoscience? Did I get that right?

            Why is it pretentious to test things and disregard the things we can’t test within reason?

          • Cthulhu21

            You didn’t answer my question. Why do you think science uses circular reasoning?

          • WallaceLeMay68

            I never said it does. I said your appeal to the material sciences is logically fallacious because (1) whether God as defined by Classical Theists exists is not a scientific proposition and (2) your appeal to science begs the question by presupposing that the matetial sciences are the sole source of truth.

          • Cthulhu21

            Begging the question is another name for circular reasoning. You’re doing it right now actually; using your initial premise to prove its validity. You have not actually made any real point by repeating your claims to me.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            You are too much of a douche to function.

          • Cthulhu21

            The pot is calling the kettle black here. Ad-hominem noted.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Wow, this is powerful stuff. I mean, this comment really blew my mind! I’m going to have to re-evaluate a lot of things. Except, well…. Let’s put the faux-analytical hyperbole away for a while and look at reality: Kalaam Cosmological Argument, teleological argument, First Cause/Unmoved Mover, the impossibility of infinite causal regress, the necessity of at least one unconditioned reality, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality… While you sit there in your Hitchens-Dawkins parroting bubble and regurgitate pseudo-intellectual douchisms, your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and critical thinking half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life. Indeed, why are you even bothering to comment at all? No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’ 2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound (and I AM NOT advocating suicide) the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position.
            In the end, we all know you can’t answer these questions because yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe.
            Finally, is there a basement dwelling troll left in the multiverse who doesn’t drag themselves out of the primordial ooze and logged onto this site in order to announce our collective atheism towards Thor, that gardens can be beautiful without fairies (a powerful rebuttal to fairy apologetics, by the way, but it leaves a lot unanswered about the Gardener), and that we cling to Bronze Age skymen due to our fear of the dark? Let me translate that to neckbeard: you are unoriginal, you are wrong, and you are an clown.

          • Cthulhu21

            Your sarcasm is duly noted as well. Goodby.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            I never made a scientific proposition. You are the one trying to pin the discussion face down and jam your scientistic presuppositions into its backside.

          • Cthulhu21

            You make that sound like bad thing (except the forcing part, I don’t recall forcing you to do anything). And if you didn’t make a scientific claim, why do you expect me to take it as fact?

          • WallaceLeMay68

            “That fact that it was a truth claim made with no evidence….”
            So you are still back at square one even after I have educated you on the fact that there IS evidence for the existence of God, it just doesn’t meet your subjective preferences. You truly are a fanny crushing troll with no point to your blather.

          • Cthulhu21

            Speak for yourself. You continue to make truth claims without any evidence as to why that is. Evidence, or we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Or you could look in the mirror and acknowledge that your entire world view is nothing but a butthurt allergic reaction to arguments and ideas you have never seriously grappled with.

          • Cthulhu21

            You made the claim, you provide the evidence. If it holds up to scrutiny, I’ll concede your point. For a legal expert you sure like to avoide showing evidence.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Nice try fanny crusher. I gave you the evidence repeatedly and you elected to bury your head in the sand and your junk in your boyfriend’s backside.
            But just in case there’s a chance you can actually handle it:
            http://godevidence.com
            http://www.godandscience.org

          • Cthulhu21

            Dude, what brand of bullshit did you link me to? None of those links directly answered my questions. They just show links to arguments that have been refuted many times over. I mean, argument from experiance? What experiances in there rule out mental illness or just faulty memory?
            Here’s a link to a site that addresses bad logic if you are at all interested (I pick this particular link because the initial poster is anti science also): http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24512

          • WallaceLeMay68

            The links I provided, which your neck bearded mind was incapable of engaging, kick atheismin the balls and leave it curled up on the ground in a fetal position, gasping for the air that it knows it doesn’t deserve but that it selfishly sucks down anyway to satisfy its solipsistic hedonism.
            On some level you tacitly know that it’s time for you to shut your neck bearded head.

          • Cthulhu21

            I engage it alright, and I was blinded by the stupidity.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            No , you’re just blind.
            “And this is the condemnation: that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
            But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”
            John 3:19-21

          • adhoc

            “You are constantly changing the subject…”

            You are the one changing the subject. This is called projection. People that have no evidence for their positions often do this.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            We get it – you’re 17, you read some Neitzche, and you hate your dad (or lack thereof). But that’s no excuse to keep douching up the web like this. Do the right thing for once in your angst ridden, butthurt, teenage waste of a life and get off the web.

          • adhoc

            “We get it”

            How many of you are in your head?

            You voted up your own post? Wow.

            Are you one of those One True Christians(tm)?

          • adhoc

            Copy and past? You should probably site your sources.

            Of course if you had any evidence, you would show that evidence.

            Where is the line between religious faith and gullibility?

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Where is the line between being a ‘freethinker’ and being a preening, sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual medadouche? Oh wait, there isn’t one you Hitchens-Dawkins parroting, basement dwelling clown.

          • adhoc

            “Where is the line between being a ‘freethinker’ and being a preening, sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual medadouche?”

            Is this an example of your superior “Christian morality”?

            You posts are not helping out your claims. In fact, they are pointing to the inferiority of “Christian Morality”.

            I’m glad that your intellect only allows you to attempt to insult instead of making good arguments. You seem to be projecting again.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            If Christianity is a wish fulfillment fantasy and Christians are deluded, prescientific morons, then you have no right to expect any particular course of conduct from them. So again your own worldview invalidates your objection.

          • adhoc

            “If Christianity is a wish fulfillment fantasy and Christians are deluded, prescientific morons, then you have no right to expect any particular course of conduct from them.”

            I agree with you. As you have shown, I have no reason to expect any particular course of conduct from you.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Then your objection was, admittedly, incoherent and a waste of everyone’s time.

          • Religious freak

            Here, assumption is the same as having faith. There isnt proof that evolutionis how the world began but you have faith in it and hope evidence will come later

          • Religious freak

            And its true, Christianity does have that unique better safe than sorry factor. Which is why we are called to share the truth. Why not give it a try though? People try dozens of diets and exercise programs, different crowds, hobbies, why not try Christianity? I dont really believe its that simple but if to someone it is just one of many, might as well find out what the hoobla is about for yourself. To become a Christian, you have faith Jesus died to save you from the eternal consequences of sin and God loves you and wants you to love Him and others. Like anyone you love, you learn about God, tell Him what you like about Him through prayer and thanks, trust Him, spend time through prayer and Bible study, tell others about Him, etc. Praying you start your journey soon

          • adhoc

            “Which is why we are called to share the truth. Why not give it a try though?”

            Do you believe in Santa Claus? Asking me to “give it a try”, is like asking me to believe in Santa Claus… I will never be able to believe in Santa Claus ever again, even if I really, really, really x1,000, wanted to believe.

            “Praying you start your journey soon”

            Don’t waste your time, please. From my point of view, you are asking me to follow a mythology, your mythology, which is not unlike many of the other mythologies that exist or have existed.

          • Religious freak

            My job is to tell you, not convince you which is why I said I dont really believe its as simple as giving it a try. We are asked to plant the seeds but God determines if it grows. Im a minority of Chrisitians that believes God choses us, we dont choose him. But, maybe your time is in the next few months, or years. Could be never but I am still praying for otherwise. If enough adults told me they didnt buy presents but they were under the tree and cookies gone, Id give it a try until proof came along it didnt work. Free presents saves me money each year.
            I understand you think its mythology. Like the rest. Which is why people try to point out evolution is unfounded. Furthermore, you are probably not a scientist so you take a leap of faith when you believe reports just like you would if you believed me. I dont want to sound condescending by saying im praying for you anyway! You will join! I understand your points, the Bible says its not for everyone, and if you need more info, I have this email, you probably have neighbors or coworkers, and the web for questions should you or anyone else on this forum have them.

          • adhoc

            “Which is why people try to point out evolution is unfounded.”

            Same thing was said when people argued that lightening came from Thor. Or that Fire came from Prometheus.

            You may not realize this, but we have more evidence for and a better understanding of the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection than we do for the Theory of Gravity. Evolution is a fact like Gravity is a fact. The person who disproves the Theory of Evolution will be more famous than The Beatles, Micheal Jackson, Jesus, Mohammad, Elvis, Einstein and Newton combined.

            “Furthermore, you are probably not a scientist so you take a leap of faith when you believe reports just like you would if you believed me.”

            There is no “leap of faith”. There is no “faith” involved at all. One of the self correcting mechanisms of science is a thing called “Peer Review”. Scientists like to prove other scientists conclusions to be wrong. This is a good thing. This Peer Review process allows for the introduction of new evidence when it becomes available. For example, the resent Higgs-Boson Particle discovery may help us better understand Mass and Gravity. Accepting the conclusions of the those papers after the Peer Review Process is not the same as religious faith. One has proof, the other lacks proof, you said as much yourself.

            I understand your points, the Bible says its not for everyone,

            I don’t need the Bible to be a good person, and I never will. I could never understand why good people use the Bible as a crutch. You are a good example. You seem like a good person. I bet you would still be a good person without the Bible. Am I right? Of course I am.

            A good idea should stand on its own merit, right?
            A good person, with good ideas, shouldn’t/doesn’t have to use a holy book to defend those ideas.

            Look around you, bad ideas are usually defended by a holy book and the good ideas don’t need the holy book. I’m sure you can think of many examples other than the the Charlie Hedbo shootings.

            Lose the book, you’ll be a better person. Seem like those that have lost the book consider themselves better people for it.

            Was good talking to you. Be safe.

          • Cthulhu21

            If we do find evidence of a deity, I wouldn’t assume it doesn’t exist, know would I? Though, it would have to be quality evidence for me to consider it.

          • Religious freak

            My evidence is this, the feeling of guilt when I do something wrong- there is such a thing as right. the feeling of anger when im wronged- justice must exist. The fact that we all have similar feelings- we are all made in the likeness of God. That I cant do many good things I want- im limited by a sinful state and there is a glass ceiling to my abilities. The fact I cansee beyon it- there is something else out there. And much more. When I read my Bible and focus on God I am better to people than when I dont. I realize this after im doing better. Being loving to others often defies reason. They should do a case study on my life and then we will have scientific proof

          • Cthulhu21

            I don’t believe in a god and I have a pretty good sense of right and wrong. I base my sense of right and wrong on how my actions affect others and on the desire to be a better person. Saying a god is needed for moral fiber does not prove a god’s existence.

          • Religious freak

            I totally believe you. Not everyone who is not a Christian is going crazy on the streets. I cant speak for all Christians but I feel there is a difference. When im intently following God and when Im not I see it. Im never ever perfect, but im aware of the “little” things that can have a big impact more when im following intently. I guard my actions, my speech, my thoughts. This shows up by not giving the kid at my daycare a nasty look when they do something even when no one is around to catch me. Or feeling bad about it if I did. Giving them extra cuddles or play time when no one will say good job or know. Cooking dinner for hubby instead of just myself when he promised to help that night and took a nap instead.
            But God is way more than a moral guide. He is my purpose. He is my Father. He loves me, I see it in his guidance and completely experience His grace and compassion. I am happy most of the time, most days. He shows Himself in different ways to different people as the different accounts of the Bible demonstrate. I love God. He comforts me, pushes me, corrects me, provides. This month, I thought my loans were out of forbearance and I would have to become harsh with a parent, and friend, who wanted to pay late. Called my loan company again and they said I actually didnt have to pay til next month so I could continue being gracious to the parent. This is my testimony.

          • Cthulhu21

            Well, I may not agree with everything you say or think, but I don’t have a problem with you personally. If you’re trying to help others without shoving god at them, then more power to you. If you have questions though, don’t hesitate to ask.

          • adhoc

            “On atheism, you have no foundation for accepting or rejecting anything.”

            You got me there. As an atheist I have no foundation for accepting for rejecting “anything”, like Gravity or Capitalism, right? Sure, only in your mind.

            “You have a mutated monkey brain and your personhood is a chemical reaction.”

            Speak for yourself.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            On some level you tacitly know that my comments kick atheism in the balls and leave it curled up on the ground in a fetal position, gasping for the air that it knows it doesn’t deserve but that it selfishly sucks down anyway to satisfy its solipsistic hedonism. Search your feelings, butthurt boy, you know this to be true. Yours is a worldview so petty, so trivial, so localized, so earth bound, so unworthy of the universe.

          • adhoc

            “On some level you tacitly know that my comments kick atheism in the balls…”

            Only in your mind.

            “Yours is a worldview so petty, so trivial, so localized, so earth bound, so unworthy of the universe.”

            You can’t even defend your assertions. That is sad. I am sure you are going to project and deflect. Why won’t you answer the questions? It is because your assertions are crap? It sure seems so.

          • adhoc

            “Your world view doesn’t allow for ANYTHING to be wrong.”

            Only in your mind.

            How do you come to this conclusion? This appears to be projection from you.

          • adhoc

            Eh? Hitchen-Dawkins mind? Well, thanks, I’m flattered. You still didn’t answer the questions. I would think they would be easy to answer for someone as smart as yourself.

            Brain in a vat? Sye?!? Is that you?

            Remember, YOU made the claims. Can’t you back them up by answering my inquiries? Why should anyone take your claims seriously when you can’t even back them up?

            Your insults do nothing to further your argument, amusing as they are.

      • thinker

        If reasoned discourse is a rule, why not add something new to the discussion? Why not find a reasonable reason humans killed other humans. What is the environment in France. What events preceded the attack? With humans the complex superior force that is the entire hope for the future, I would think you would defend all people quickly. Reducing anything to morals is just to simple, and religious!

        • adhoc

          “If reasoned discourse is a rule, why not add something new to the discussion?”

          Depends on what “something new” is and what the discussion is about.

          With humans the complex superior force that is the entire hope for the future, I would think you would defend all people quickly.

          Eh? What does this mean?

  • OpenMyEyesLetMeSee

    “American Atheists will continue to strongly defend the absolute right of all people”….I’m glad AA has come out against the attack. But this phrase is curious. What “absolute rights”? There are no absolute rights only civil rights.

  • Heathen

    Looks like we are the new targets of islam…

    What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

  • WallaceLeMay68

    The bitter irony is that you neck bearded douchers are Shariah’s best ally as you are constantly trying to sanitize Christian history and tradition from Western civilization, leaving a void that only Shariah can fill.

    • Cthulhu21

      What are you talking about?

      • Truth

        He’s being stupid, as religionists are apt to be, by claiming our society has only two choices — dominion by savage, uncivilized, barbaric and entirely fantasy-based Christianity, or dominion by savage, uncivilized, barbaric and entirely fantasy-based Islam.

        • WallaceLeMay68

          Thanks for this steaming nugget of regurgitated, pseudo-intellectual, Hitchens-Dawkins parroting, neck bearded blather you preening, faux-analytical, basement dwelling clown. This comment really opened my eyes. I mean, this is powerful stuff. After all, we are all atheists towards Thor, right? Some people are just enlightened enough to take it one step further. And we all know Darwin has already explained how the entire universe can function without any need for a creator. Except, well … the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, teleological argument, First Cause / Unmoved Mover, the impossibility of infinite causal regress, the necessity of at least one unconditioned reality, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality, Plantina’s modal ontological argument, the free will defense to the problem of evil. … Your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and logic half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life!

          • Cthulhu21

            You didn’t prove anything, you just made many claims without explaining why these are the case.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Wow it sounds like you’re pretty smart, AND an atheist too? You must have read a lot of books. I guess God is imaginary then. Check mate, monothesim! Religion flies people into the moon! The Jesus story was stolen from Thor! If only believers just understood evolutionary cosmology better! Aquinas’ Five Ways were disproved by cosmic background radition. Oh, you don’t know about cosmic background radiation, you poor ignorant theist. Something about Zeus, Baal, Apollo… One step further! Dogs and bees can smell fear…. Baah! Allah also died and resurrected. Oh, you say he didn’t, well why should I have to know theology if God is imaginary. Baaah, the emperor has no clothes. Existence is not an attribute. We know now from quantum mechanics that nothing has a cause. The human head weights 8 pounds. Yada yada. Did I just pretty much sum up your entire view of reality?

          • Cthulhu21

            Your inferiority complex and your 1 demesional view of atheists are duly noted.

          • WallaceLeMay68

            No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’ 2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound (and I AM NOT advocating suicide) the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position.

          • Bible Belted Betty

            Blah. Blah. Blah. I don’t want to rid the world of religion because my business relies on superstition and I’m very greedy. I’m a capitalist. I sell tiny crucifixes with movable legs so you can push Jesus up and down the cross and this is a hot item in Mexico City. I choose to exist because I like pie and that is reason enough. Pie. I’m also in a highly sadomasochistic personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He cusses at me and I cuss right back. Our personal relationship is completely dysfunctional and complicated as indicated in our FB status. I think he wants to send me to Hell because he makes ugly threats when he talks to me through my hair dryer. Also, the virgin birth is funny. If I kill myself, I’ll never get to enjoy another laugh at the virgin birth. I also enjoy imitating Jesucristo during Holy Week (Semana Santa) in Mexico City. I am in a theater troupe that stages blasphemy. If I kill myself, I’ll never get to play sexy Christ in huarache sandals again. We also have a pigeon in the role of the Holy Spirit because doves are impossible to get although pigeons defecate more on stage. You shouldn’t upvote your own posts. It isn’t humble. Praise!

          • WallaceLeMay68

            Well this comment really opened my eyes. I mean, this is powerful stuff. After all, we are all atheists towards Thor, right? Some people are just enlightened enough to take it one step further. And we all know Darwin has already explained how the entire universe can function without any need for a creator. Except, well … the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, teleological argument, First Cause / Unmoved Mover, the impossibility of infinite causal regress, the necessity of at least one unconditioned reality, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality, Plantina’s modal ontological argument, the free will defense to the problem of evil. … Your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and logic half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life!

          • Taylor Dillon

            It’s hard to take your argument seriously when it can be answered so simplistically.
            1. Atheism has no objectives, nor does it have to have one. Atheist is merely a label for a person lacking a belief in supernatural dieties.

            2. Why can’t someone simply live to enjoy life? After all, to our knowledge you only live once, right? Have you ever heard about existentialism? It is a philosophy which suggest that because of the preface that we only live once, we live life to the fullest. There is no authoritative figure of theolgical dogma instructing you how to live your life and we don’t belive in an afterlife. You’ll find that the majority of atheist are existentialists. I mean, have you ever seen a happy atheist, just live his or her life to enjoy it? I’m sure you have.
            Meanwhile, it could be asked why religious people even bother living if there is a an afterlife, these “heavens”, which relatively better than the life here down on Earth. Seems like they’d be quick to serve their lord and off themselves (a high I guess is the case for so many Muslims going on suicide missions).

            It may just be a hard to accept reality for religious zealots that after we die, that’s it. The reason to keep living is to enjoy the life we have while we still have it.

            I hope that answered that question.
            By the way, sorry for the 1 year wait.

          • Arka

            can’t even speak properly. Why these blunt headed psycho’s are allowed to post.

  • C Miller

    Wow, did not know this was an atheist magazine…..all I can say is “I’m sure those killed if they could come back, would say what the King said to Abraham, from Hell. ” Can you please tell my 5 brothers not to come to this place, lest they also come into this place of torment? Abraham replied ” They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.. ” If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded through one rose from the dead”. Luke 16:28, 29, 31.

    • Cthulhu21

      What the heck are you talking about?

      • WallaceLeMay68

        No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’ 2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound (and I AM NOT advocating suicide) the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position.

        • Arka

          Again an idiot. No meaning and a complete loss of 10 mins. Should be banned for wasting other’s time. Atheists live for values , live to enjoy life and to help others enjoy it too notwithstanding god to help them for it.

          After 5 mins find out ur brain cells are dead so did not read the rest of the post. Rascal.

  • JuJu Crafts

    Now’s your chance atheists.org … off to Duke University since the Muslim prayer will be forced on NonMuslims, nonreligious, and atheist students EVERY Friday from their bell tower and will be “amplified” for the entire campus to hear… go go go !

    • adhoc

      … EVERY Friday from their bell tower and will be “amplified” — the entire campus will be forced to hear it as will the surrounding community, …”

      Seems more like a noise ordinance issue.

  • gfkjgbf

    The Pope came in support of islam under the pretense of “toleration.” Just like when cops invade a neighborhood all gangbangers from all gangs unite against common threat, same in religion: all crooks unite against common sense. Religions are gangs, religious leaders are crooks and members of religions live in constant fear of their top dog and hope of a “break.” Facts do not lie…look at what the leaders are saying anytime one of them comes under attack, read their holy books and listen to their sermons: fear and hope, for a price.

    • WallaceLeMay68

      “When everything is moving at once, nothing appears to be moving, as on board ship. When everyone is moving toward depravity, no one seems to be moving, but if someone stops, he shows up the others who are rushing on, by acting as a fixed point.”
      Blaise Pascal, quoted in The Silence of Adam: Becoming Men of Courage (Page 170)

  • sayit

    Murder is always wrong. Still, not having faith does not require hating all people of faith. The goal is to work together to make a better society, using the best of diverse skills, ideas, and talents. No one would like generalizations of their own circles to be made based on the actions of others (when negative). It is also unintelligent, lazy thinking. The whole reason we reject racism and sexism among others. We are each resposible for our own and only our actions. Let us all continue to work towards peace and posperity for all!

  • Religious freak

    The people who disobey what their religion calls for (ex. no murdering) demonstrate a lack of faith. Just like a good parent doesn’t need their kids getting into fights over “yo momma” jokes, God cares more about us following Him than defending Him. He’s a big God.

    • Cthulhu21

      Somehow, I believe (actually I know for sure) that depicting Mohamed, as written in the Koran, calls for killing as it is considered a sin. They didn’t disobey anyone as far as they’re concerned.

  • Sunnynoclouds

    .Muhammad was a terrorist of the 600s. No peace was ever upon him. He was not a man of peace. He was a man of violence and war. That is why there are so many Islamic terrorists. They are just following the violent and intolerant way of Muhammad, the man who made up the BS called Islam.
    .
    .
    Picture of Muhammad:
    …..O
    …..l/
    …….l
    …../..
    .
    Close up picture of Muhammad;
    …..——
    ….l——l
    ….l.O..O.l
    ….l….o….l
    …..l…w…l
    ……——

  • rwnot

    There are here, like on any other blog site, some intelligent and well thought out statements but also way too many undecipherable and/or insane comments. The posts have gravitated into name calling and some are way off message. The central link to the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the new event in Chapel Hill, NC is that there are misguided people all over the world and they have in common a “belief system” so strong that they become detached from reality. In the case in Chapel Hill the murderer must have had a number of problems, the worst being his worshiping of the Gungod! He had posted a photo of his Gungod on Facebook along with expressions of his love for it. Some god worshipers are quite docile and non-threatening but way too many are fanatics like the KKK, Al Qaeda, ISIL and all the other COWARDS that use some form of god worship to justify rape, torture and killing of innocent people. On the arguments about whether there is a god: The more someone argues that there is – the more they prove that they are stupid, ignorant, or have an ulterior motive Our knowledge from all of history doesn’t equate to one molecule of water compared to all the molecule of water on earth. And that’s being very conservative. Now, show me that smart man or woman that has the answer to everything. Of all the great things done by mankind, no where is there a scrap of evidence of this super being, except in the sick minds of some “believers”.

Copyright 2013 American Atheists