Pastor Has Disabled Man Murdered For Insurance Money

A Baltimore pastor who worked with developmentally disabled people was charged Friday with befriending a blind and disabled man in his care, then paying a hit man $50,000 in church funds for an execution so he could collect life insurance money.

Police say Kevin Jerome Pushia, 32, who worked for four months as an operations manager for the Arc of Baltimore before abruptly quitting in January, confessed to plotting to kill Lemuel Wallace.

Pushia told police he persuaded Wallace and "numerous" other mentally challenged individuals to list him as a beneficiary on insurance policies.

A terse notation in Pushia's planning calendar for Feb. 5, the day after Wallace was found dead in a Leakin Park bathroom stall from multiple gunshot wounds to the head and back, reads: "L.W. project completed," police said.

Feel free to link to this the next time a xian claims our morality is derived from religion.

Where Do Atheists Get Their Morality?

There is a common misconception among the theists of this world that atheists must lack morality. This misconception is based on their false assumption that morality comes from their religion, Though this is obviously nonsense, unless we are to assume that 2000 years ago it was ok to steal, kill and rape. The Romans had civilisation and laws long before christianity and islam reared their ugly heads on this unfortunate planet.

A passing glance at the bible it's self shows us that morality can not be based in religious scripture, Unless you think selling your daughter into slavery is ok and owning slaves is ok. Two things which are the opposite of moral.

So where do atheists get their morality from? The answer is simple. We get it from the same place the religious do. Morality is just another way of describing behaviour that is conducive with a productive and cohesive society. Humans are social animals and we have been for some time. And like other social animals it is seen as unproductive to cause unnecessary unrest. When asked "if you don't believe in god what is stopping you from killing someone?" i always answer "why would i want to kill someone?". We don't do things based on what is stopping us. We do things based on it being either productive or enjoyable. Just like honey bees can congregate in a hive numbering into the millions. So why don't they kill each other? because then there would be no honey. And if the honey bee had the neuron capacity to philosophise or ponder they would no doubt question why they have this need, This hardwired behavioral trait, That makes them unlikely to kill randomly for no reason.

Morality is also an ever-shifting zeitgeist. What is seen as immoral today wasn't immoral 1000 years ago, And in the future what we are doing now may be considered immoral, Things like burning fossil fuel for example. If morality is divinely given it wouldn't change based on societies perception of what is acceptable. If god gave us morality then what is wrong now would always have been wrong and what will be wrong in the future will be wrong now. We only have to go back to 1928 in England, To a time when women were not granted the vote, To see how far the moral zeitgeist can shift in such a short amount of time. If morality is from god it would not shift according to social perceptions.

Christians Reject Nanotechnology on Moral Grounds

Thanks to Jasal for emailing this in.

Religion is said to be the driving influence behind Americans’ low moral opinion of nanotechnology, according to a researcher who surveyed public opinion on science and technology.

Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences, and a colleague found in their study that only 29.5 percent of respondents from a sample of 1,015 adult Americans agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.

When the survey was conducted in European countries, who are reportedly also key players in nanotechnology, the results were strikingly different.

In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent accepted nanotechnology on moral grounds. That percentage climbed higher in France where 72.1 percent of survey respondents expressed no moral qualms about the technology.

Scheufele presented results from the 2007 summer survey on Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He conducted the U.S. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU.

The professor said religion accounts for distinct differences between the moral opinion of Americans and Europeans in regard to nanotechnology.

"The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives," said Scheufele .

First Stem-cell research, Now nanotechnology. Do they oppose every technology that has the capacity to help sick people? It would have been interesting if they asked the people questioned what nanotechnology is, My bet would be that most don't have a clue.

Only Atheists Can Act Morally

Morality is a big subject in the world of Atheism v religion. On one side we have the religious saying that without god and celestial rules, Rules which, Should they be broken, Are punishable by eternal suffering there would be no morality. And on the other side we have Atheists saying morality is nothing more than a name given to productive social behaviour, A result of empathy and genetics.

We could sit down and explain to the religious how "morality" can come about via an evolutionary process, But going on the luck we have had trying to explain evolution to them it would be a futile waste of time.

Instead what i want to do is explain how "morality" can only, By definition, Exist in someone who doesn't believe in a god.

In most, If not all religions, There is a reward/punishment system at it's very core. Religion comes along, lays down some rules and convinces you that should you break any of these rules you will be subject to torturous punishment, pain and suffering for eternity. For eternity!.

In light of that, How can any action performed by a religious person be considered moral? How can it even be a result of free will? If you are told to do something and threatened with eternal suffering should you not comply or promised a reward should you abide how can your action be considered good? In reality we would call this type of thing at best coercion or bribery, At worst we call it threatening with violence.

The Atheist on the other hand has no fear of a punishment from god and no expectations of a reward. Every action performed by an Atheist is done entirely in the absence of a belief in god and in the absence of the belief that a posthumous reward/punishment system is in place. The Atheist does good entirely because [s]he wants to. Because it's the "right" thing to do.

So next time you hear a religious person claim we need a god to know what is moral tell them that if they need a god to be moral they are in fact the exact opposite of moral and are simply afraid of a punishment and looking for personal gain as a reward for their behaviour. Then ask them if in the case where the nonexistence of god was proven would they instantly start killing, stealing and raping.

What Religious Scum Do To Children

What would it take for a human being to mutilate the genitals of a defenceless child? One of two things. They either need to be a psychopath or they need to be religious.

I almost feel bad for lumping in psychopaths with religious scum, I doubt all psychopaths would be capable of inflicting such barbaric torture on a child. But with the religious, They are capable of anything providing it can be suggested to them at some point that it is what their god wants.

Here the newyork Times has a slide show depicting what goes on in an annual female circumcision ceremony, Conducted by "Female circumcisers" in the sanitary conditions of a school classroom.

Pay attention to picture four which has the caption "Tears are wiped from the face of a 9-month-old following her circumcision". Take note of the look of sheer terror on that babies face. A human who is only 9 months old is being tortured for god.

This is why Atheists oppose religion. It gives vicious scum a licence to abuse, torture and inflict their own primitive idiocy on children who deserve better.

Christian Morality Is Not Moral

Through fear of punishment and hope of a reward the christian filth faith can force it's followers to refrain from doing bad (sometimes) - Does that sound like morality?

The religious are brainwashed in to this idea that morality, A sense of right and wrong, Can only be known through their religion and their god. But if you only do good things because of a fear of punishment and hope of a reward, How moral can you be? If you are bribed and coerced in to behaving a certain way how much personal credit can you take for your actions? And what would you do if you weren't bribed and coerced?

In the christian model, Morality is nothing more than fear, The controlling force of christians and children alike. The church doesn't teach compassion, It doesn't teach empathy, It teaches fear. It doesn't tell you why you should do good, Only what will happen if you don't.

I'm not saying that "morality" doesn't exist, I'm saying it isn't the result of a god and it certainly isn't the result of christian teachings. Are we to assume that before mosses came down with the ten commandments people thought it was ok to steal, murder and rape? Are we to assume that before jesus' teachings people lacked compassion? we only have to reference the story of the good Samaritan, A story jesus told, To see that people had a sense of decency and compassion long before jesus.

So if we remove the god controlling aspect of morality, If we remove the fear aspect of morality we are left with religious people doing good for the same reason as atheists. And if they wouldn't do good without the threat of punishment and the hope of a reward we are left with compassionate atheists doing good and psychopathic religious people forced into not doing bad through fear.

Morality, Islam Style

An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has increased the number of lashes to 200 and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.

According to an Arab News newspaper, The 19-year-old woman, who is from Saudi Arabia's Shia minority, was gang-raped 14 times in an attack in the eastern province 18 months ago. Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to 5 years.

But the victim was also punished for violating Saudi Arabia's laws on segregation that forbid unrelated men and women from associating with each other. She was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for being in the car of a strange man.

On appeal, the Arab News reported that the punishment was not reduced but increased to 200 lashes and a six-month prison sentence.

This is the kind of law the Muslim council of Great Britain want for the UK. Apparently the UK can "learn a lot" from Islam.

A Response To John Shore

I just read a blog post by a christian named John Shore entitled An Honest Question: Atheists, How Do You Process Your Guilt?. Now John seems like a nice guy, So in this post i will try to turn down the venom and reply to him in the same polite way in which he asked the question.

In Johns post he asks how Atheists process guilt, I'm assuming he wants to know how they do it without the help of god. I could reply by asking why he would want to ask god for forgiveness and repentance when it was a human being which he treated unfairly, but that would risk me sounding feceasious (though i am tempted).

So here's my answer. I apologise and try my hardest not to do it again. it's as simple as that. I get forgiveness from the person i treated unfairly, If they wish to provide it. Not a god. A god who, In all fairness, Has no business accepting any apologies on behalf of someone else anyway.

John also mentions that without god he is unable to "better himself". personally i find that immensely sad. Because if you need god to better yourself, Do the right thing or process guilt it means that deep down you aren't a very nice person and only do things because the invisible sky buddy demands it of you. I don't for one second believe that John isn't a nice person, but i do think he believes that, Without god, he is not a very nice person.

This is a big difference between the religious and the Atheist.
The religious can rarely be trusted because you don't know if they are doing something because they want to or because they think it would please their god. With Atheists on the other hand, You know exactly where you stand. The Atheist fears no retribution for angering the deity.

I could go on an mention that a few hundred years ago people appeased their gods not by praying and asking for forgiveness but by sacrificing children. But i think I'll leave it there.

Christian Morality Activist Arrested On Prositution Charges

Coy Privette, the president of a Christian morality group and a former state legislator and Southern Baptist Convention leader, has been arrested on prostitution-related charges in North Carolina.

Privette, the president of the Christian Action League in North Carolina, was charged July 19 with six counts of aiding and abetting prostitution.

Privette, 74, is a former trustee of the Christian Life Commission (now Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission), the Southern Baptist Convention's moral-watchdog agency. He is a former trustee chair of the SBC's Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C.

Sex scandals have become more prominent in Baptist circles recently, with clergy sex-abuse cases recently shocking churches in Texas, Missouri, Kentucky and Florida. In 2006, Oklahoma pastor Lonnie Latham, a member of the powerful SBC Executive Committee, was arrested for “offering to engage in an act of lewdness” with a male undercover police officer.

source

Don't you just love it when the hypocricy of these people is exposed by thier own foolish imoral actions?

the president of a Christian morality group arrested for soliciting sex. It simply doesn't get any better than that!

Mother Teresa, The Fake Christian

Mother Teresa is often held aloft by the noisy religious as evidence that religion equals morality, Even though they usually other hold aloft other people and seldom point to their own works of charity to prove this.

There is no mistake, Mother Teresa had tried hard to help people and she did say she was a christian, But as we all know, Saying something and doing something are two very different things.

While her outward appearance was very religious and an appearance that was designed to portrait someone who completely believes in god, her personal writings show a very agnostic person who has nothing but questions.

"Lord, my God, you have thrown [me] away as unwanted - unloved," she wrote in one missive. "I call, I cling, I want, and there is no one to answer, no, no one. Alone. Where is my faith? even deep down right in there is nothing. I have no faith. I dare not utter the words and thoughts that crowd in my heart."

She added: "I am told God loves me, and yet the reality of the darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?"

She even compared her problems to hell and admitted that she had begun to doubt the existence of heaven and God.

"The smile," she wrote, "is a mask or a cloak that covers everything. I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God, a tender personal love. If you were there you would have said, 'What hypocrisy'."

This raises some very interesting questions. If Mother Teresa was able to do such good work even though she had "no faith" will this finally put to rest the unfounded claim by the religious that without religion man would have no morality? And secondly, How many other so called "christians" are simply paying lip service? How many other people, Especially politicians, Are simply claiming to have a belief in the invisible man in the sky when their actual belief is one of agnosticism, Or even better, Atheism.

I have read a number of people claiming that this was nothing more than a crisis of faith, A time when Mother Teresa was questioning her beliefs, A blip if you will. I prefer to see it as a revelation of reality.