When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to fuck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was.

In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!

Let's be upfront about this. George Carlin might have been a comedy god to his disciples and fans. But for nearly 50 years, he practically made a career out of not believing in God.

So don't go all sappy and commit the sin of saying that one of the most influential and controversial American humorists of our time, who died from heart failure at 71 on Sunday, now has joined some celestial Friar's Club in the sky, laughing at our foibles from on high with the brilliant likes of Richard Pryor and Henny Youngman.

As the notorious curmudgeon would so bluntly put it, "Bull (bleep)!"

Far-right religious zealots are to picket George Carlin’s funeral in protest at his atheism and bad language. The Westboro Church, which is infamous for protesting at the funerals of American troops, has issued a press release headlined: 'God Killed Potty-Mouth Comedian George Carlin And Cast Him Into Hell.'

Amid many biblical quotes, the fundamentalists said: 'George Carlin - the filthy blasphemer - the obscene potty-mouth skeptic, agnostic, and profane atheist - who had nothing but disdain for God and the Bible all the days of his tragic life - is now, at this minute and for ever writhing and screaming in exquisite pain pleading for mercy from that God he flipped off while performing for HBO for lucre.'

'Carlin made lots of money making fun of God; now he must deal with God - face to face - for ever.'

As far as I can see, the New Atheists have been slowly executing a strategic retreat. Many seem to admit that there is not now, and can never be, a knock-down proof for atheism. Many seem also to be admitting that, no matter what their skeptical friends write, belief in God is not only here to stay, but also seems to be rooted in human nature itself. It may even provide an evolutionary advantage.

Thus, the line of defense to which they have more and more frequently retreated seems modest and open-minded. As their reply to the question, “Is there a God?” their new answer is perfect for a bumper sticker: “I don’t know, and you don’t know, either.”

This is a mistake. The New Agnostic holds that the burden of proof is not on him; the burden is on others to “prove” to him that there is an object “out there.”

But the evidence about God is not to be sought “out there.” It does not reside among other classifiable, sensory objects in this universe. The question about God is essentially a question about one’s own personal identity. Do you yourself, Mr. Agnostic, find evidence within your own inner life (in a way that can be replicated by others) that your identity is not fully known until you admit that you participate in a life much larger than your own, drawing you toward becoming more fully developed and greater than you are? In a Light more powerful than the light of your own conscience? The question is about you.

Consider first the “prison literature” of the twentieth century. In the prisons of officially atheist regimes, Fascist and Communist, there were many who were thrown into their cells at a time when they thought themselves to be atheists. Only slowly did some discover that there was an inner demand in them, a demand that they not become complicit in the lies of the regime; they must not sign their names to the lies put in front of them. On this imperative to stay honest, even at the cost of great pain, rested their entire integrity. If they had compromised that, they would have become part of the universal depravity insisted upon by the regime: “There is no truth but the truth of the Party.” They would have become like their jailers.

But why did they come to hold that this inner drive for absolute honesty was essential to their own human identity? Their senses of touch, hearing, seeing, smelling, and tasting may have ached with pain and violation. They may have been without any feeling of assistance from anybody, human or divine. Even their ability to give reasons for what they were doing might have collapsed, because the pain was so great and the terror of death so acute. The arguments of their torturers may have come to seem evident to them – and yet some deeper inner light drove them to refuse to lie.

What is the source of that light within them, which refused to let them surrender, even when their bodies could bear no more? They experienced that source as something greater than any part of their own body or mind. Yet that light seemed integral to their own self-identity.

This is the evidence that led Sharansky, Valladares, Mihailov, and an unknown number of others to perceive that they in fact lived in a spiritual community larger than their own ego, a community with all other humans struggling to preserve their integrity under threat of pain, and more than that. They also experienced by a kind of connaturality a mysterious Other (incorruptible and insistent) within them, more important than their own bodies and their own temporal life.

Such persons felt inwardly that, if they were not faithful, their moral failure would matter to that Other, in a wholly different way than it would matter to their jailers. Their moral surrender would be interpreted by their jailers as yet more evidence that everybody, just like themselves, had a price at which they would surrender. In such a surrender, their own integrity would die, and so would the real presence of God.

A second bit of evidence within myself (evidence that I participate in a wholly other, inconceivable Source of light) is my own insatiable drive to ask questions. Nothing finite satisfies me. There are always more questions to be asked. No existing concept seems final. In fact, this unrelenting drive lies at the basis of the scientific impulse. But it arises also in our intellectual lives outside of the habit of science. It arises within the habit of being faithful to reason, even in areas where science itself cannot go.

Ought I to marry this particular person? Ought I to take this job, make this work the center of my life’s pursuits? Is this the right institutional home for me, the community best designed to keep me asking questions and growing morally stronger?

One can make such choices intelligently, with good reasons. On the other hand, one may fail to anticipate realistically later twists of fortune. Later, one can blame oneself for having been more blind than one ought to have been. One can deeply regret past choices. In brief, science itself is not the only use for reason; in practical life, reason is also extremely important.

Here, some philosophers observe that people deploying practical reason live as if in the presence of an objective Observer. This Observer cannot be deceived by a person’s own self-deceptions. This Observer keeps pushing one to become more honest with oneself. And this Observer is not "out there," but within. This Observer is sentinel not only over our scientific reasoning, but also our practical reasoning.

This, too, is evidence that we live in God, and He in us, at the very center of our identity. Within us is the Light, Judge, Merciful One, Brother, Inspirer, Prodder, Driver at the heart of our existence. Without becoming aware of this dimension of our own honesty and unlimited drive to understand, we cannot properly understand ourselves. We think ourselves smaller than we are.

The New Agnostic may not know, not yet, but a great, great number of us do know – yes, know – that the best drives within us do not come from our finite, sensory selves. We participate in them as an inner light all unbidden. Sometimes even as a torment. These inner drives are much greater than ourselves. They teach us that we are open to the Infinite.

Live and let let live. All the way up to and including the unlikely eventuality of an afterlife, God willing.

That sums up the humanist approach of self-described "agtheist" Christopher DiCarlo, a philosophy of science professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa. Responding to the views of three University of Windsor scientists, who recently came out on the side of God, DiCarlo begs to differ, respectfully.

DiCarlo coined the term "agtheist" to describe his position: essentially atheist, but with a strong steak of agnosticism -- willing to concede that there just might be a supernatural explanation for the origins of the universe. And, if ultimately there proves to be a God, DiCarlo hopes a good life, assisting others when he can and contributing to society, raising his own children properly while doing no harm to others, will be enough to assuage the deity's concerns about letting a non-believer into heaven.

A while ago, walking along a river bank in the country, I discovered the meaning of life in a piece of cow dung.

In that dried disc was sprouting a tiny forest of fresh green shoots, the seeds the animal had eaten, starting a new life cycle, reaching for the sun. For a moment I understood. Life exists, I thought, because it can. But only for a moment. Then, I thought, why can it? Why is there something and not nothing? And why is there this something instead of some other something?

Years before this I had what you might call a Road to Damascus experience in reverse.

It happened like this: I was in my kitchen, while outside the house my little girl was playing with our dog. I heard the squeal of car brakes, a dog's yelp, a child's scream. As I ran I prayed, "please God, please God". As one does. But even as I ran, something in my head said: "No use. There is no God. Whatever has happened has happened."

The worst had not happened. The dog ran onto the road, was hit by a car, and in its dying agony bit my daughter, who had run after it. She still has the fine scars on her cheeks.

That was the last time I prayed. To be honest, I had been wavering in my religious belief for some time before. But from that day, in my heart I knew. Now, I do not believe something outside of myself was talking to me. (Who? God, to tell me he doesn't exist? Satan, maybe?) It was, of course, my own voice. People who are not mentally ill know that any voice in their head is their own voice.

But while my heart knows, my mind doesn't. I don't know if God exists. I have no feeling that one does, but I don't know. And neither does anyone else.

Religious belief (where it is not held merely out of habit) is a matter of deep intuition, not knowledge. One person's deep intuition tells them there is a God, another person's tells them there isn't. Why is it, then, that the people who hold the former belief have been allowed, for so long, to claim the high moral ground?

I don't mind at all if people believe in God — though some believers seem to mind quite a lot that I don't. I respect their beliefs. What I do mind is the assumption of many that they are better people because they believe; that faith itself is a virtue and that, therefore, a lack of faith is immoral or, at best, to be pitied.

The unsuccessful American vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman declared before the US election that "we should not indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion". The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, made a similar statement recently. These sentiments are an insult to the 5% of Americans who have no religion, or the 40% of Britons, or the 30% of Australians.

Moreover, they are as little based on any empirical or scientific evidence as they are common.

There is no proven correlation between morality and adherence to any organised religion. Indeed, some might say the opposite correlation applies. I don't. It is impossible to weigh up paedophile priests, packed churches in Rwanda before and after the genocide, the extremism on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, against the vast amount of good that is done in the world by people who are acting out of religious motives.

Yet the question, "Where are your humanist or atheist organisations working to help the poor?" is in a way nonsensical. World Vision is a Christian organisation. Amnesty International, Oxfam, Medecins sans Frontieres and countless others have members who may or may not be religious. But whether they are or not has no relevance to the work of the organisation.

You (unbelievers) can't believe in any force higher than yourselves, it was said to me recently. Not true. I believe in plenty of things higher than myself: that oak tree outside my window, for one example; and every single child who comes into the world, new and hopeful. I just don't believe in a supreme supernatural being, that's all.

There is no evidence that those who believe in God are kinder, less interested in making money, or more moved by art, or music, or the beauty of the world. There is no evidence that they are either better or worse people. When a third of the population does not hold to any religion, is it not time the bluff that religion is necessary to morality was called? Support for this view comes from a perhaps surprising source: Richard Holloway, Bishop of Edinburgh, argues in his book Godless Morality that religion and ethics should be kept separate.

Morality is an evolved, human construct, and those moral imperatives that are permanent and universal, such as the one against murder, are held on moral, not theological, grounds.

I don't know the meaning of life. I believe it has the meaning we give it. It is wrong to describe people without religious faith as unbelievers. Atheism is the belief that no God exists; agnosticism is the belief that we do not know. These are beliefs. And are equally valid and deserving of respect.

This article was originally published on March 24, 2001.

In his interview with Charlie Rose on Public TV, Bill Gates has said he is “doubly blessed” to have worked at Microsoft and now at his Foundation. But, “doubly blessed” by whom? By what? What is the religion of Bill Gates? What is the religion of Warren Buffett?

Well, in a succinct email to me, Debbie Bosanek, Assistant to Warren Buffett, says: “Mr. Buffett is agnostic.”

And Bill Gates? In a November 1995 interview of Gates by David Frost, this exchange took place:

Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?

Gates: I don’t. I’m not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I’m a huge believer in. There’s a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very, very positive impact.

Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you’d say you don’t know?

Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.

On January 13, 1996, in a “Time” magazine profile of Gates by Walter Isaacson, there was this exchange:

Isaacson: Isn’t there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?

Gates: I don’t have any evidence on that.

Isaacson wrote: “Gates face suddenly becomes expressionless, his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at Microsoft that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis.”

Isaacson also quotes Gates as saying: “Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There’s a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning.”

There is no doubt that atheists in the United States form a persecuted minority. From general public opinion to specific Constitutional prohibitions, there are many barriers preventing atheists from equal recognition as American citizens, opportunities for holding public office, and the protections of civil rights legislation which defend other religious groups. However, in many ways, atheists are more fortunate than other minority groups. There are no differences in physical appearance with which they can be segregated, they have no formalized rituals or gatherings that could be used to distinguish them, and, if necessary, they can easily disguise their beliefs.

However, those who desire the right to free expression of their beliefs, which is theoretically given to everyone under the United States Constitution, must be prepared to face the consequences of a society still strongly biased against them. While it would be easy to assume that this bias is held only by a vocal but insignificant minority of the population, we were reminded last week that it is ingrained even in the highest levels of government.

Democrat Monique Davis has represented Illinois’s 27th House of Representatives district in the state’s General Assembly for over 20 years, and she has earned a reputation as one of the most influential members of the body. The rewards she has reaped during her term of services include a seat on the powerful State Government Administration Committee, and it is this position which gave her the opportunity to launch one of the most hateful tirades in modern American politics last Wednesday, a tirade which shows how far the United States has to go before atheism is given the respect as a philosophy which it is due.

The incident occurred as noted secular activist Rob Sherman was testifying before the committee on the question of a $1 million grant directed towards the Pilgrim Baptist Church. Sherman’s argument was that such an explicitly religious contribution amounts to nothing more than a state-sponsored religion, one which the First Amendment clearly prohibits. However, Rep. Davis, insistent on the grant’s passing, decided to ignore the Constitutional angle and turn the hearing into a forum on religious belief. She interrupted Sherman to comment, ” I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy – it’s tragic — when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school. I don’t see you [Sherman] fighting guns in school. You know?”

Already, Davis has set up a false pretense with which to attack Sherman; the hearing was neither about school prayer nor gun control. While it is true that Sherman has an established reputation as an opponent of prayer in public schools, this was irrelevant to the issue at hand. Furthermore, I very much doubt that Sherman has any desire to see weapons in schools either. Davis’s pointless tangent displayed a great failing in her role as a legislator; however, she was just getting started.

Rep. Davis continued, “I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.” Again, questions of what Sherman believes or even whether his personal philosophy has any validity have no bearing on the legality of the proposed grant, and again, Davis rashly assumes that Sherman’s atheism equates to a moral opposition or ambiguity to ensuring the security of children. It is interesting that she cited Abraham Lincoln to defend her point, a president known for making statements highly critical of organized religion.

Yet Davis would soon move in an even more venomous direction. “What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous” she railed, and when Sherman interrupted to ask “What’s dangerous, ma’am?” She responded “It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands.” What Davis seems to be proposing is the censorship of an entire belief system based on a wholly flawed assumption that it somehow supports violence in schools. Apparently, she is unaware of exactly how many lives have been lost in the name of Christianity and how many positive contributions to the progression of America those with atypical religious beliefs have made. The assumption is that the culpability for school violence rests on anyone who does not accept Rep. Davis’ chosen view of God, and, as someone whose beliefs clearly differ strongly from hers, I refuse to accept this. There is no room in a secular humanist worldview for the murder of children. Nothing could be more horrifying to me.

Davis finished her rant by nearly screaming, “I am fed up! Get out of that seat!” Sherman calmly responded “Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court…” but Davis shouted him down, continuing, “You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.” Apparently, Sherman has no right to free speech, no right to petition the legislators he helps to elect, and no right to defend his nation’s Constitution.

Monique Davis clearly has no understanding of the legislative process, of the United States Constitution, or of the respect due to all Americans, including Rob Sherman or any other nontheist. Yet what is even more frightening is the tepid public outcry over her bigotry. If she had launched the same tirade against Christians, Jews, or even Muslims, calls for her resignation or impeachment would be immediate and forceful. However, it is now over a week since the incident occurred, and there seem to be no plans to force her removal or censure her at all. It is a sad mark of how deeply held the anti-atheist sentiment of this nation is that Rep. Davis can get away with being this hateful and ignorant while retaining a powerful governmental position; the unfortunate conclusion is that we cannot be sure our public policy is being created by individuals who have some respect for the values of tolerance upon which this nation was founded.

Did you hear about the state legislator who last week blasted a Lutheran minister during a committee hearing for spewing dangerous religious superstitions, and then attempted to order the minister out of the witness chair on the grounds that his Christian beliefs are "destroying what this state was built upon"?

Of course you didn't, because it didn't happen and would never happen. Not to a Christian, not to a Jew, not to a Muslim or to anyone who subscribes to any faith.

Such an attack would rightly be considered scandalously out of bounds in contemporary society.

But you probably also didn't hear about what actually did happen:

Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, "What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

"This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God," Davis said. "Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

Apparently it's still open season on some views of God.

Outside of Change of Subject, where I posted a transcript and the audio, Davis' repellent, un-American outburst received no attention whatsoever.