Skip to Navigation | Skip to Content


Einstein on God


The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual ‘props’ and ‘rationalization’ in Freud’s language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

With friendly thanks and best wishes,


A. Einstein

(via skepticalavenger)

All your life, he has presented religious assertions and claims to you. Now he has discovered that you are not convinced. I emphasize that phrase because that is how you should describe your position. An atheist is a person who is simply not convinced of the existence of gods.
You need more than some other people do to be convinced. Quaint fables, soaring sermons, impassioned testimonials, the endless repetition of reassuring clichés, and a pervasive system of social rewards for believing and social penalties for doubting have not been sufficient to convince you.

That’s not your fault. It’s the fault of a presentation that is inadequate for your needs.

This is not about being superior or inferior; it’s just a difference. Some people need more of certain vitamins than others to be healthy. Some people need more calories per day than others to maintain their weight. Some people need more than hearing words to convince them of invisible, intangible things.

This stance of being unconvinced puts the work back where it ought to be, on the shoulders of your dad, the person who has been making the assertions and claims. Do not be put on the defensive for being unconvinced. He should have to defend and support the assertions and claims that he had hoped you would easily accept.

Richard Wade (Ask Richard: Atheist’s Christian Father Poses Challenging Questions)

The entire article is great - I highly suggest checking it out.  ~JJ

(via teachthemhowtothink)

(via teachthemhowtothink)

Woman Not Allowed to Drop Off Pagan Books at School After Bibles Were Handed Out


Ginger Strivelli delivered on her promise to bring Pagan spell books to North Windy Ridge after the intermediate school made Bibles available in December. She said school officials said they would allow for the availability of her materials, just as they did the Bibles from a local group of Gideons International.

When Strivelli brought the Pagan books to the school Wednesday morning, she said she was told “a new policy is being crafted.”

“I’m not surprised a bit. That’s fully what I expected,” Strivelli said. “Basically, they were calling my bluff thinking I wouldn’t bring in the books.

“They’re changing the policy, which is wonderful. They shouldn’t (allow) it, but they shouldn’t have done it to start with. That makes it unfair after they have given out Christian propaganda.”

Strivelli was first angered on Dec. 19 when she said her son brought home a Bible that he picked up from North Windy Ridge.At the time, Principal Jackie Byerly said, “If another group wishes to do the same, I plan on handling that the same way as I have handled this.”

“I’m glad they’re changing the policy,” she said. “But the people who made the wrong decision to start with still need to be punished and held accountable. They should’ve had the correct policy in place to start with,” said Strivelli.

How unsurprisingly hypocritical.  They only change policy when called on it and “conveniently” right before they have to follow through with their promise to treat all religious books donated to the school in the same fashion.

(Source:, via seriouslyamerica)

Catholic Bishops Fear That Support For DOMA May Mark Them As Bigots


Bishop William Lori of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee on Oct. 26 about the “grave threats to religious liberty that have emerged even since June.” Lori specifically singled out the administration’s refusal to defend the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and state efforts to expand marriage equality to gays and lesbians:

The federal Department of Justice (DoJ) has ratcheted up its attack on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by mischaracterizing it as an act of bigotry….If the label of “bigot” sticks to our Church and many other churches—especially in court, under the Constitution—because of their teaching on marriage, the result will be church-state conflicts for many years to come.

As I shared earlier this week, many Catholics do not share the views of the Church’s leaders on many LGBT issues.

(via liberal-life-deactivated2011110)

Family Research Council Against HPV Vaccine for Boys Because it Enables Homosexual Behavior


The Family Research Council has issued a statement in reaction to yesterday’s CDC recommendation that boys get the HPV vaccine too.

The CDC is quick to point out that the vaccine also protects against anal, mouth, and throat cancer—but they downplay the fact that these cancers are almost entirely the result of men having homosexual sex! Apart from the cost of the shots (upwards of $140 million a year), perhaps the most infuriating aspect of all this is the government’s insistence that we look for ways to minimize the impact of promiscuity instead of working to encourage the end of it. Rather than asking young people to change their behavior, society is scrambling to enable it. It’s like trying to address the problem of drunk driving by making better airbags. We can’t tackle long-term safety with short-term solutions. And unfortunately, tiptoeing around the fundamental problem—premarital sex and homosexual sex—shows how far off course we are.

(Via: JoeMyGod)

(via liberal-life-deactivated2011110)

Page 1 of 2