This picks up midway in the essay. The main thesis of the essay was that Hebrew mythology originates from Greek and consequently Sumerian-Mesopotamia mythology. As an extension, the following is about connecting not only the characters and the stories, but also their implicit polytheism. Some of the formating was screw up, specifically the indenting and text styles, but I'm to lazy to correct this. Enjoy!

Notice how the order of events in Genesis and Hesiod are reversed, perhaps to further differentiate the two, like the Hebrews did with the devilish serpent that was derived from Mesopotamia [2].

Reddit this -- Digg this!

One of the methods used by the religious to marginalize atheists and our increasing visibility is to accuse us of becoming that which we originally opposed, or in other words, just like them. It’s even better if they have the convenience of one experience with these so-called “secular fundamentalists” from which they can draw unfounded conclusions as to the validity of this argument and, ultimately, the character of all those who have no belief in gods, goddesses, or other mythical creatures.

This is the route taken by Michael Brendan Dougherty in the November issue of The American Conservative. His article, entitled “Secular Fundamentalists: Can atheists form a movement around shared disbelief”, uses this year’s Atheist Alliance International convention as fodder for his clumsy attempt to represent atheism as a new phenomenon comprised of the dogmatically anti-religious.

The following is a very limited list of the proposed ammendmentst that never left the walls of Congress:

1876- An attempt to abolish the United States Senate
1876- The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding (I would like everyone to notice the year, and to take a minute to deal with your disapointment)
1878- An Exevutive Council of Three to replace the office of President.
1893- Renaming this nation "The United States of the Earth"
1893- Abolishing the United States Army and Navy
1894- Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities of human affairs (whew!)

This is a message I wrote to an ex-girlfriend when she asked me if I believed in love, because I didn't believe in God.

I remembered you wrote me a message asking if I believed in love and I never wrote you back. This is a subject that I have taken alot of my time tossing over. To answer your question, yes of course I believe in love. I have an immeasurable amount of love for my family and my close friends (The number of those has dwindled over the years). To me, love is the emotion that emerges when you care about someone's well being as much or more than your own. This emotion can easily be triggered without a belief in a God or Gods. One of the most basic of human instincts is the protective attitude mothers have toward their children. And likewise for emotions felt for the mother by the child. The saying "motherly instincts" did not come about by accident. Mothers have an innate disposition to feed, clothe and shelter their children. This is love in its purest form. Of course there are many different forms of love and the arising complications from this emotion are almost unlistable. (e.g. falling in love, falling out of love, platonic love, love of hobbies, love of possessions ect.)

It erks me when someone says "You think we are all just molecules.".
Not only is it just mouth stuffing, but as a Musician, it pisses me off.
How? Well, I doubt they would disagree that "Sound is nothing but waves!"
So, to there logic, any music is "nothing but waves".
And thus, they can't "Feel" or "Enjoy" enjoy music themselves.

they are shallow, in fact you don't even need to get that far to realize they are shallow.
If you can't think of a purpose, or feel something YOURSELF, then just maybe you are naught but molecules.

Jewish Assimilation into Greek Culture

By Rook Hawkins

Recently, I published several blogs on the mythicist position. One was in response to the recent occult-like followers of Acharya S on the radical claim of hers that both Krishna and Buddha had established some sort of influence on the development of the Jesus mythos. Why this is near impossible has already been discussed in that blog, and thee are other threads dealing with said topic in my Jesus Mythicist Campaign forum, and won’t be touched on much more in this entry. However, with the recent blog to Rick Hillegas who published in American Atheist magazine recently, I felt it necessary to explain what counts as credible acculturation and socio-cultural assimilation.

So I'm at my daughter's Remembrance Day assembly and the principal is making several nice points about how we are observing this day to honour the people who died fighting for our freedom and wouldn't it be nice if we all could fight less. Good stuff. Then Mrs. X [I'll withhold the name on the off chance that someone from the school sees this] gets up and gives us an emotional talk about her brother-in-law who was the killed in Afghanistan. She talks about her five-year-old son who told her that she shouldn't be sad about Uncle X because he's in heaven getting his wings and when he looks up in the sky and sees the brightest star he knows it's Uncle X looking down on him. Then she says "Who would have thought a five-year-old could be so wise."

hi, uhm. im sixteen, and a junior at a charter school in texas.

i'm atually at school right now, i was looking around on deviantart, browsing some amazing photography when i noticed on the side an advertisement for this site. usually i ignore such things, but the slogan caught my eye.

"believe in god? we can fix that"

i was curious. i thought without a doubt that i had read it wrong. an actual site dedicated to "bashing" God? no way. i thought at least people could be a bit mature about it, but.. wow. i've read some of the posts and such, and i read the FAQ. and i must say... its disgusting.

Right now my suite-mates are in the next room contently basking in the fact that the creator of the universe is on their side and, furthermore, loves them. There is a good possibility that the time they spend amongst their peers reaffirming eachother's positions and discussing the enlightening parts of the Bible has kept them from adequately questioning their own existence. These are the products of traditional Southern Baptist homes. Since the beginning of their existence they have been indoctrinated into this belief system and, likely, have never been provided an alternative viewpoint. This is the core problem with the growth of religion amongst civilized people. They have simply never questioned their belief system and, frankly, why should they? There has been no instance in their life that has provided them with an alternative explanation for anything. Why are we here? To serve God. Why be good people? Because God wants us to be. Who could really argue with conveniant worldview if they had never been rationally (hehe) provided an alternative viewpoint without someone (parent, pastor, friend) whispering dogmatic rationalizations in their ear?