Still More Things Atheists Didn’t Do

This is another installment in our continuing series of  Things Atheists Didn’t Do.

A pedophile priest, not an atheist, claimed he was only giving his victim anatomy lessons.

Muslims in Pakistan stoned a Christian man to death.  His crime?  Drinking tea at a roadside stall that was designated for Muslims only.

When a Christian church that tortured a gay teen via an exorcism to rid him of his faggy demon was criticized for their stupidity, Dr Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission slammed the critics, accusing them of intolerance.

An Oregon couple let their 15 month child die of pneumonia, refusing medical treatment and praying for her instead.  If her parents had been atheists she would be alive right now.

A orthodox Jewish couple are suing their neighbors, claiming that an automatic hall light, which is triggered by people entering the hall, imprisons them in their apartment.  This, they claim, prevents them from leaving on the Sabbath.  If they were atheists instead of idiots they could leave whenever they want.

Eight people drowned a 22 year old mother of two trying to lift a curse from her.  She would have been much better off with atheist friends.

An Islamic woman starved one of her children to death, after torturing her, because she thought she was possessed.  Her other five children were seriously malnourished.  Too bad her mother wasn’t an atheist.

By Fr. Alphonse de Valk has declared that Atheism is a threat to civilization.  If he were an atheist he’d be smarter than that.  Not to be outdone, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor has declared that atheists are not fully human.

Opening a dialog between religions may not be a good idea.  Ernest McCullough, a Christan, got into an argument about religion with a Muslim, who ended the debate by shooting him in the leg.

In Maryland, a woman starved her son to death because he wouldn’t say Amen.  She’s expecting him to be resurrected.  That hasn’t happened so far.  Yet another child who would have been much better off with atheist parents.

In India at least 50 people went blind staring into the sun looking for an image of the Virgin Mary.  Atheists are never blinded by the light.

When woman with an atheist boyfriend asked Pat Robertson for advice about finding a middle ground with him, Pat told her to break up with him because he’s “serving the devil.”

In India a “Hindu Taliban” is attacking woman for drinking in bars and dressing inappropriately, including those wearing bathing suits at the beach and t-shirts with pictures of their deities on them.  There are no reports of atheists beating up women over religion.

In Afghanistan a Mullah who spoke out against suicide attacks was murdered by other members of his religion of peace.

In Russia two Jehovah’s Witnesses went on a murder spree killing 13 people to rid the world of sin.  (They should have just become vampires.)

In India two seven year old girls were married to frogs to prevent the disease outbreaks in the village.  Atheists don’t advocate girl-frog marriage.

A pretty sixteen year old girl was stabbed to death by her Muslim brother for listening to rock and roll and wearing makup.  He stabbed her 26 times.  He was preserving the family honor.


Our prep courses include the latest set of actualtests test preperation and google adwords certification exams with 100% guarantee for victory in security+ book and certkiller test preperation. Our 000-598 are simply the best in its quality.


38 Comment(s)

  1. Found a Jesus&Mo strip re: religious persecution. Hah!

    blufindr | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  2. Blufindr

    It seemed like you were accusing me of using emotional blackmail for a bit then. Though both I and Fundamentalists are religious it is a bad idea to hold one of us responsible for the others’ actions.

    When I talked about “more than” Stalin (even excluded him) and someone else started talking to me about what I supposedly said about Stalin that was a pretty illogical right from the start.


    Considering my voice is as load or quiet here as yours I haven’t been trying to shout you down here-trying to do so would be likely involve spamming and I have done that. You’re appear assuming the worst about my comments even when it doesn’t match what I’ve done.

    About victim mentality, note where I said I didn’t think discrimination was the “norm”. The case in Iowa appears to be discrimination and I’m not denying it happens, just the level you seem to assume it does.

    Also if you can see discrimination there well enough to recognize it there you should be able to see it well enough to recognize (or have “found”) it here.

    pplr | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  3. You never address the actual subject in your comments to me, pplr. Why is that? Perhaps because you know damned well you’re in the wrong, and you’re trying to backpedal?

    Let’s be VERY clear, here. Your blatant misrepresentation of what I said was:

    Its a good thing for Heidi you missed when she went through explaining how badly atheists are treated-including where she pointed to what a black lady was saying. The general premise of that is arguably “victim mentality” if you see things that way.

    This is the statement with which I have a problem, and it is the one we are discussing. Please try to stick with that one as the main subject. The reason I have a problem with that statement is that (as I have said multiple times now) my comments regarding discrimination were in response to your statement that “you really aren’t that badly off in terms of rights.” (And several similar statements that preceded it.) I corrected your less-than-accurate assumption.

    Now please explain how correcting you conveys a victim mentality or admit to your dishonest tactics.

    As for your change of subject, I do recognize discrimination very well. You’re not experiencing it. No matter how badly you wish it were so, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, you’re not being discriminated against.

    (relevant definition):
    treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

    You’re being laughed at and made fun of because you’re acting like an ass. Are People Who Act Like Asses a protected group under the Civil Rights Act? Or any other standard of judgment you care to impose? Should somebody start a People Who Act Like Asses Awareness campaign? Or should you maybe come to the realization that if you’re acting like an ass, you’re going to be treated like one?

    No one has made ANY statements regarding all people in your belief group, other than to say that we disagree with you on the merits of belief without evidence. I think it’s a dangerous, horrible thing. In fact, I believe I said there is nothing that can be applied across the board about all people who call themselves christians, other than the fact that they call themselves that (believing without evidence notwithstanding). Yes, I’m quite sure I said that. Scroll up.

    Heidi | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  4. @blufindr

    Great cartoon, and very appropriate to the conversation that follows it, eh?


    Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water…lol. I’m pretty sure he wears his underpants on his head.

    bobby | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  5. dun-dun…



    Maybe we can petition the cartoonist to make it Jesus, Mo and pplr for a few weeks. It could be like when Moses did a few guest shots.

    Heidi | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  6. I would have thought he has enough jesus points by now but apparently not, that imbecile.

    (there, maybe that will help)

    bobby | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  7. I was fired by a “christian” employer after they found out I was an atheist. I filed a complaint with the state and at the first hearing, they had 6 people there plus their two attorneys and the HR person, all “christians” and they all lied under oath. I was there by myself, no attorney, and won. They appealed, lied some more, and I won again. It took me two years and listening to a LOT of their lying under oath, but I beat those bastards.

    Proud Atheist | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  8. See, this is what I keep saying. Based on my experience, and now yours. Christians in general have no qualms about lying when they believe they’re doing in defence of their superstition. In fact, it seems to be a requirement. Never trust a Christian!

    bobby | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  9. I just came across a blog on diamond buying. I think it must be a Christian blog. I quote:

    When buying diamonds you must always remember the 4 C’s: Carat weight, Color and Cut.


    bobby | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  10. this is great. keep putting these kinds of blogs out there so people can realize how stupid their superstitions are.

    Josh | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  11. That’s excellent, Proud Atheist. (The winning, not the getting fired.) Congratulations.

    Heidi | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  12. @bobby: Actually, I’m ethically opposed against diamonds, too. :P

    Hoo boy. Let the flaming begin…

    blufindr | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  13. No flaming, I reserve that for people I don’t like. :-)

    However…As someone who has purchased many, many diamonds over the years, I know to deal only with reputable people who don’t buy conflict diamonds. They don’t get through to the wholesale market in Belgium, or so I’m told, and that’s where the people I use get theirs.

    bobby | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  14. @bobby: Hah, awesome.

    I’ve restricted myself to either buying estate jewellery, or simply not buying anything with diamonds. The way I see it, diamonds are muy overpriced, anyway.

    blufindr | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  15. Well, I know I won’t be buying any conflict diamonds. Or any other diamonds. Or pretty much anything else in a jewelry store. Expensive jewelry is not my thing, nor is it in my price range.

    Plus the whole DeBoers (sp?) engagement ring = 2 months salary thing pisses me off. Who the hell wants to walk around with 2 months worth of pay on their hand? And why? Just because the diamond people told you that you have to spend that much? Are they going to replace it if I get mugged? *pfft*

    Heidi | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  16. @Heidi: De Beers. And yes, the boyfriend and I were discussing this way back. We’re in agreement on this: De Beers is the reason diamond prices are jacked so high.

    Consider this: If you get a diamond now, even with certified papers and the like, you are extremely unlikely to recover your expenses unless you are very prudent at playing the jewellery game.

    And besides, what kind of woman or man wants to begin a new life with a new spouse in the financial red? Bri (the boyfriend) and I are perfectly willing to have tanzanite, sapphire, ruby, alexandrite… hundreds, hundreds of beautiful shiny rocks, that are a fraction of the price, and way more unique than what everyone else is wearing, anyway.

    blufindr | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  17. Apropos.

    blufindr | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  18. I’m kind of fond of moonstones, too. Or opals. Aventurine is pretty, too. Diamonds are overrated. They’re pretty, but not proportionately to their cost.

    I guess the Honduran children aren’t holy enough. They probably didn’t listen to the missionaries.

    Heidi | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  19. @Heidi: I have found so many pretty rings on Etsy, few of them actually featuring diamonds (having some as accents, but that’s about it), and most being under $500! That’s really fantastic.

    Bri and I have decided on titanium rings (since gold, platinum et al are too expensive, and silver tarnishes). They’re cheap, they’re practical, and they look great.

    I actually posed the question to Yahoo! Answers a couple of months ago, about the omni-forgiving thing (not sure what the proper term is…). Apparently, God is willing to forgive — but you have to ask for it. Great. So he loves us so much, he’ll doom us for not wanting to grovel to his non-existence. Good to know.

    blufindr | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  20. Take this, for example. What a pretty stone! And really, an engagement ring for that price? That’s incredible.

    Mind, my brother paid in the 5-digit range for his wife’s engagement ring. But that’s because he has more money than sense. :|

    blufindr | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  21. Also, LOL! Found that a long time ago, rediscovered it while going through my image dump folders on my computer. Brilliant, no?

    Oh, and if that doesn’t work, here: http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/rehab521.html

    blufindr | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  22. That is pretty. Oddly, I just read this on another ring there:

    *Australian Customs Service prohibits the importation of silver and gold jewelry, will not ship jewelry to Australia*

    Is that true? If it is, I guess it’s good you’re thinking titanium if you want it shipped from outside the country. :-(

    I’m kind of weirded out by the cake rings on the first page.

    Heidi | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  23. Again, my html skills are fail-tastic first thing in the morning…

    Maybe pplr is god. He’s other people, and he seems to be taking this whole no god thing personally.

    Heidi | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  24. This, too.

    Also, a little light humour.

    blufindr | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  25. @Heidi: Har. Fair point. :P

    No, Brian’s an American. Depending on how things go, I’ll be going up to him — either for college, or after it.

    That topaz ring is gorgeous, and those cake rings are weird. o_O

    Actually, given that we met through Physics-related blather, we were considering this. It’s very much pricey, but it’s also very pretty. So, I dunno.

    blufindr | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  26. Ooh, I really like the physics ring! And if you’re going to spend a lot, at least there’s a significance with it. Very cool.

    I need to show that site to my daughter. She makes hemp jewelry and wants to sell it.

    Disturbing Church Sign … And yet it explains everything.

    Heidi | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  27. @blufindr: Are you anywhere near Melbourne? They’re holding the 2010 Atheist Global Convention there in March. Richard Dawkins is going to speak, and so is PZ Myers.


    Sounds pretty cool for people close enough to go.

    Heidi | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  28. Has anyone else seen the Answers in Genesis post from the Creation Museum guy about the recent SSA visit?

    You can see a blog post about it on Pharyngula, or you can go straight to AiG and see it there.

    Notice how Hammy the Creationist photographed license plates and bumper stickers in the parking lot.

    Now notice how he says “Actually, I believe some of these messages really do reflect what the devil offered Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, “you shall become as gods . . . .””

    Look back at the photos. Notice what the devil is offering. It almost makes me wish this garbage were true, because it sounds like this devil fellow is a pretty decent guy. The desert cults are worshiping the wrong guy. Thank you Ken Ham for confirming my belief that you people read your won story wrong. God is the evil one. The other guy’s ok.

    Heidi | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  29. There is a problem problem with your idea that atheists have done abominable things as well (such as Oppenheimer and the invention of the bomb) and therefore you could make a similar list based on the the stupidity or villainy of Atheists as well. Every person on this list behaved stupidly, or violently, because of their religious beliefs, Oppenheimer however, did not make the bomb because he was an Atheist. His lack of faith played no role whatsoever. When Atheists do stupid or criminal things it is because humans do stupid or criminal things. I don’t know of any Atheist who has ever killed because of the fact that they don’t believe in God.

    “But wait!” you say, “what about Stalin, or Mao?” Both did horrific things, and killed a lot of people, and both were Atheists. However neither killed in an effort to spread Atheism, but rather because of a desire for power. Even when Stalin was killing the clergy, it wasn’t because they were religious that he killed them, but because the church posed a threat to his power.

    linus bern | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  30. @Heidi: Arh, good to know they can acknowledge it at least. I’m still disturbed as heck.

    I am actually about an hour from Melbourne. I’ve never heard of that before! Depending on how things go, if I’m still available in March (depending on university start times and that), I may attend. Thanks!

    Lawd. “You shall become as Gods”. Um, what about the self-righteous members of religion (generalising, here), who believe they have the moral authority to dictate what others do and do not do? Is that not taking on a Godly role?

    By that, I don’t mean just “Spreading the word of the Lord” (though that’s trouble enough). I mean actually preventing people from doing things, through moral or Biblical protest. Some recent examples: gay marriage; abortions; the teaching of evolution; sex-ed.

    On that note, does anyone else find it absolutely bizarre that Xtians tend to stick to only the parts of the Bible that suit their purpose? Mind, I suppose the same can be said of Bri, who chooses to turn a blind eye to all of the Old Testament. ::shrugs:: That being said, he’s not particularly devout, anyhow.

    @linus: A little late to the party, dear. ;) I think the other two have decided to bugger off.


    On a tangent: How on earth did my trackback show up here? I only just noticed it. o_O

    blufindr | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  31. I just saw one of the wacko Christian blogs go by in the cycle with an article claiming that there’s a new study which proves that religious rites increase brain activity in positive ways.

    You gotta admit they have a sense of humor.

    bobby | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  32. Heidi

    “Now please explain how correcting you conveys a victim mentality or admit to your dishonest tactics.”

    Easy, you’re stuck in the ‘I’m standing up for my “rights”‘ mentality so much you don’t recognize the norm in this nation is that your rights are respected and enforced.

    “As for your change of subject, I do recognize discrimination very well. You’re not experiencing it. No matter how badly you wish it were so, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, you’re not being discriminated against.”

    I believe “podlings” or something like it was the latest general insult you used. Pointing out the flaws in your arguments, version of history, and so on isn’t being an “ass”, it is refusing to go with the local group-think. And there are people here (including you at times) who made comments that are generally anti-religious/intolerant.

    Also, Dawkins is about as worth listening to as Rush Limbaugh.


    I’ve been getting busier than usual these last 2 weeks and on top of that my sister from out of town (as opposed to in) is visiting w. fiance so I’ve got more competing for my time.

    What did fellow GSA people say (especially if they read through this)?


    Suggest you start at the wiki links on “state atheism”. Don’t dodge that torture (different wiki link) was used to encourage people to become atheists like Heidi did.

    pplr | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  33. @Linus: Exactly.

    @blufindr: Oh, cool! I know Australia’s huge like the US, but I was hoping you’d be close enough if you wanted to/were able to go.

    Hemant posted today that Laurie Higgins, director of the Illinois Family Institute, wrote to the high school where he teaches math, and tried to get him fired. This because he was critical of her group in his blog. Apparently, she believes atheists shouldn’t be teaching children, and that parents have a right not to have their children in classes taught by atheists. This is regardless of the fact that she admits he’s never discussed his views in the classroom.

    Personally, I’d be happy to have Hemant teaching my kids math. And I wouldn’t be trying to play god with someone’s job.

    On that note, does anyone else find it absolutely bizarre that Xtians tend to stick to only the parts of the Bible that suit their purpose?

    Yes. But of course the parts they don’t like, and the parts that are demonstrably wrong are just metaphor. The rest is Really Really True™!

    I think the other two have decided to bugger off.

    pplr is never going to leave until he gets the Last Word. If we don’t STFU and agree with him, he’s going to be here whining in another ten years. (See below.)

    Easy, you’re stuck in the ‘I’m standing up for my “rights”‘ mentality so much you don’t recognize the norm in this nation is that your rights are respected and enforced.

    So in your opinion I should have just shut up and agreed with you that atheists aren’t discriminated against, rather than correcting your misconception. Ok, I’m glad we got that cleared up. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you and your demonstrably wrong beliefs needs to STFU. Who is the bigot, again?

    I believe “podlings” or something like it was the latest general insult you used.

    Yeah, that was a good one, wasn’t it?

    And there are people here (including you at times) who made comments that are generally anti-religious/intolerant.

    Yep. I have negatively described blind belief without supporting, and in the face of contrary evidence. I will continue to describe it negatively, and I will not quietly tolerate willful ignorance. I never said I was tolerant of religion, and I don’t ever intend to be. A person has every right to believe any nonsense they like. But they don’t have the right to expect me to agree that yes, Xenu really dropped evil alien spirits in the volcanoes. Now, given that we were speaking of discrimination, not intolerance, how am I infringing upon your rights, exactly? You keep believing your evidence-free nonsense, and I’ll keep believing you’re delusional.

    Heidi | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  34. @pplr: Apologies. I was unaware you had guests.

    GSA people took one look at the sheer number of comments, snorted, and decided to quit reading.

    Re: standing up for rights: I had a discussion with Brian (my partner, in case you missed the memo) some time ago. I was (and still am) of the opinion that atheists are discriminated against, for a few reasons, because we are not able to publicise our atheism. As previously noted, past attempts to give atheism the same kind of publicity that Xtianity has enjoyed for millenia are met with outrage and self-righteous indignance. Brian pointed out that there have been cases of door-to-door atheism, but that in these cases, they have been done primarily to annoy. But I, and many other atheists I know, would gladly volunteer my time to spread the message of non-belief. Why should we be kept hidden away like crazy uncle Ezekiel? (Kudos if you get this reference. I don’t even remember where it’s from exactly, it just feels relevant)

    Of course, as soon as atheists band together and start actually spreading our (non-)message, we’ll probbaly get bashed for being “insensitive” or some similar diatribe. It’s happened.

    @Heidi: Frankly, I don’t care whether Christians, atheists, fundies, Muslims, Wiccans, dance-around-a-maypolists, or green aliens from Mars teach my children. If my scions are happy and comfortable with their teacher, and said teacher is not enforcing beliefs on my sproglings, I couldn’t care less.

    That being said, Bri and I have agreed (already!) that we’d prefer a secular school for our kids. So… ::shrugs::


    On another note about the Bible thing, lookie what I found. Turns out, marriage is the last legal form of slavery. And the best part, it’s completely okay by the Bible. Who’da thunk that?

    blufindr | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  35. @blufindr: Ack, that was creepy! Gotta love how PZ tells it like it is, though.

    Heidi | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  36. This guy just won teh internets.

    Heidi | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  37. @pplr

    So, shit for brains, you’re back. No surprise there. Let’s get a couple of things straight. No one has “dodged” anything here except you, who convieniently ignore anything you can’t refute. Your continued hypocrisy is getting old real fast.

    As for the insults, they’re far less than your antics deserve, you should count yourself lucky. No one wants you here, you’re imposing yourself on people who are discussing the stupidity of religion. You don’t have to like it, butthead, no one here gives a damn what you think. If you can’t stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen, to paraphrase Harry Truman.

    You’re not going to get the last word. What you WILL get is a lot more abuse if you choose to stay. That’s a promise from me to you, you ignorant turd.

    bobby | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  38. OK Guys, I’m closing the comments on this article. I’ve just added a fresh list to the site, and you can carry on there.

    Hittman | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

5 Trackback(s)

  1. Mar 25, 2010: from My views on Religion and War(s)
  2. May 30, 2010: from Ainda Ateísmo « O Indivíduo
  3. Jun 7, 2010: from What is your view on the afterlife?
  4. Jun 15, 2010: from Assortment « Cubik's Rube
  5. Jan 16, 2012: from What is atheism by Atheism - Pearltrees

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.