Of course men have their moments of obvious irrationality. The competitive nature of most men results in highly irrational behavior. Especially when it comes to property. It's pretty regular as well. You'll have a hard time finding a guy with lots of money on the bank without something in front of the door to show it off. I've already spent too much money one ultimately useless junk to be able to deny it :)

Woah, I've just enjoyed the sketch because of it's mocking nature. It's basically what every comedy act has been doing for the past millennium or so. Why do people have such a hard time distinguishing entertainment from advocacy? They may borrow some aspects from one another, but they're fundamentally different concepts.

The right wing populist political parties are becoming a trend in Europe. We've got the PVV (party for freedom) with Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Belgium has their Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) and the UK has the BNP (British Nationalists Party) with Nick Griffin and partly the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) with "Malcolm Pearson, Baron Pearson of Rannoch". I'm sure other countries have the same problems. There's even an international organization, Euronat, combining all of these right wing populists parties. It's a disgrace, this short after the war. It seems people easily forget lessons learned. History seems to be doomed to repeat itself, once again.

I don't think it would be that much of a problem. It's covered by our constitution, article seven. Only a judge can disallow certain imagery, or parliament of course, through law. Just like we've done with the swastika. But the funny thing is, if you can see Satan's genitals, and the organization can't prove people visiting the festival are at least 16 years old, it's illegal. There's a chance a conservative judge would deem a goat man pooping on a half naked dying man god nailed to a piece of wood offensive. But I truly doubt it.

A very well written article, good job!

The less closed minded Christian scholars, the ones who claim God's omnipotence is indeed limited by logic, are great opponents on the physics playing field. It's simply hilarious to watch them trip over thermodynamics or relativity. Too bad there aren't that many of them left. I guess most of them got enlightened.

If a higher being would be all knowing, the second law of thermodynamics dictates such a being cannot possibly exist. Being all knowing in a physical realm would take an entity larger than everything (see Turing, a.o.), and for it to interact with this universe to be a part of it as well. That's pretty much a paradox. So, I ask you, how do you reconcile your belief in a supreme being with the second law of thermodynamics?

Humanism isn't that easily defined. It's more like a way of thinking about things. In philosophy, humanism describes the homo-centric natural point of view, absolutely banning everything supernatural. Because of that, humanism is loosely connected to the scientific method for resolving philosophical dilemmas. Many humanists are extremely confident in the capabilities of the human race. That's why many leftist philosophers and politicians can be considered humanist.

As I've said, humanism can't be easily defined. The most prominent humanist movement is secular humanism, which I've just described. But during the past few decades a new form of, mostly American, humanism appeared. This new movement describes how people need religious activities, and a new form of humanism could provide these without introducing new supernatural dogma. It's even related to modern Satanism, which incorporates many of it's ideas. Albert Einstein was one of the people behind the new religious humanist movement, the First Humanist Society of New York (I had to look that up), which is still active today for all I know.

As you can see, humanists, just like atheists, can't be grouped together that easily. They share some common ideas, but that's about it.

Thanks for visiting our little corner of the Web, angiebarna.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you completely. This post is largely about religions. Of course there are some people, like yourself, who say they don't recognize themselves in a major religion. Okay, right, so this isn't about you then. If you're happy with your pipe dreams and delusional world view, go right ahead. If that's the way you want to live. We choose not to. This site tries to convince people the Christian world view is wrong, and presents viable alternatives. Likewise, you're welcome to convince us we're wrong. But I do have to say this attempt wasn't that convincing. Thanks for trying though.

We know about the fairytale of the separation between good and evil in the heavenly kingdom, but what does it tell us? I personally take sides with Lucifer in the story. He lead a revolution against an obviously oppressive regime. The regime kicked him out after a failed attempt to introduce freedom in the kingdom. Afterwards, God created humans in his own image. Right on top of Lucifer's home. Let's just ignore the contradiction that hell existed before the heavens and the earth. Apparently, the introduction of freedom by Lucifer was successful on the earth. According to the scriptures, we have Lucifer to thank for freedom of choice. Personally, I value freedom and justice (which depends on the existence of freedom) over some pipe dream of glory through self sacrificial altruism.

Oh my, this guy really doesn't know. The anthropic principle is useless. It violates the very scientific rules it uses to describe the constants. It's simply not falsifiable. He could just have said "God exists!" and he would have made exactly the same point.

Hmm, I still don't understand where you're coming from. Doesn't their holy scripture state that one should kill everybody who doesn't follow the rules, and love everybody else equally? I think "follow the rules of the fairytale or die" is pretty much geared towards individual, personal oppression. Those pesky Christians keep telling you about the love, because the alternative isn't that nice to tell potential church members about.