The Rant Institute

Conservatives are funny sometimes (and downright scary the rest of the time). Just look at what they've done with Colin Kaepernick. It's fine to hate how Kaep has chosen to protest about police brutality of African Americans, but it's quite another thing to continually, and deliberately, mischaracterize his protest as something it is not. And a lot of these Con(artists)s do this intentionally in a number of ways. First, they deliberately claim - over and over again - that Kaep is protesting that HE is being oppressed, even though they know full well that his protest is directed specifically at police brutality of African Americans.  This allows those Con(artists)s who seek to express their (pretend) patriotism - by complaining about how upset they are that anyone would ever dare to disrespect their  sacred national anthem or flag (even as they often have no respect for other people's nation or flag) - to suddenly play the victim of "black brutality" at t

Every person has some bias in their own eye that prevents them from seeing what it is other people see. Most of the time, this bias leads us to the conclusion that the other person is simply wrong in their assessment of our beliefs and wrong about their own. But are they the one who is wrong, or are we? If you are a Christian, for example, your bias will often lead you to not only see the "virtues" of Christianity as far out weighing its vices, but also that the vices of not being a Christian far outweigh the virtues. And if you are an atheist, you see it the other way around. Such a bias can also lead some Christians to believe that their beliefs can only ever produce virtue (because God is pure virtue) and anything that produces vice (even within or in furtherance of their beliefs) is always the result of something that is most definitely not their Christianity. Atheists, as a group of people, may certainly have those within their ranks who feel the same way about the

For many Conservatives or religious believers (but not all, of course), there is often a common thread that weaves through most of their ideas, until it doesn't. "It doesn't" when their view of "objective reality," departs from the objectively real, of course, when they insist that miracles are acts of "god," rather than anomalies that illustrate how imperfect we are, and how "objective reality" is neither objective and (since god can arbitrarily change "reality" anytime he likes thru the use of such "miracles") may not even be real. The belief in an absolute "objective reality" that we can all agree on, as well as the belief that everyone can and does know exactly what constitutes that objective reality, is something both many Conservatives and Christians insist must be true. But even they don't believe this as much as they say, which is why they believe in God, angles & demons, and even miracles. 

Arbeit Mach Frei is the inscription written above the gates of the Auschwitz concentration camp were millions of Jews were reduced to ashes. It means, "work will make you free." Like the Benedictines and other Catholics/Christians, this idea is similar to the concept that "work is prayer," which was an idea used by people like Dr. Rev. Charles Colecock Jones to convince black slaves that they should be happy to submit to their masters. Colecock even wrote a book about it, called "How to Make A Negro Christian," written in 1837, about "the religious instruction of the negro."  But he was not the only one selling the idea that slavery was the road to salvation. Along with other Christian ministers, like Dr Samuel Cartwright and many others, convincing Christians that their toil was simply a tithing that could be depended on to help them reach heaven (even though Protestants insist that people cannot obtain salvation through their own "works&

One of the things I hate about religion is that it teaches people to judge each other, even as it claims that it tries to do the very opposite.  Religion teaches people to act like Cain, in other words, toward all those who wish only to be "like a child" as Christ put it, by being as happy, unencumbered, and appreciative of life as Able.  But if it were not for religion, most people would not have a rubric with which to judge each other in the first place. Or course, modern society, with it's ostentatious displays of wealth and botoxed photo shopped realty, and constant barrage of commercials designed to make us feel insecure so we will spend ever more to "fix" whatever such commercials program us to be insecure about, only teach us to unfairly judge ourselves all the time. Indeed, when we have created a society that leaves the vast majority of people unhappy and unfulfilled, it is no wonder America has the largest and most religiously addicted populations on

For those who have yet to figure this out, religion is simply a rorschach test. It's an ink blot that we look at, and everyone has a different interpretation of what they see. The "lie" perpetrated by Churches comes not from convincing people to quite literally "buy into" their interpretation of the ink blot - with mega churches making mega millions by turning the orgasmic experience of spiritual euphoria into a financial Ponzi scheme for themselves - but by insisting that those who see the "ink blot" in any other way are simply 'wrong.' Their "lie," in other words, comes from insisting that there is necessarily a "right way" to interpret religion or the bible, and there is a "wrong way." But just like the ink blots of a Rorschach test, there is no objective, "true" interpretation of anything - especially religion - that is and must be accepted as 'fact' by all, in faith (how ironic that the &

Jesus was spit on, beaten, attacked, and accused of all sorts of things before he was put to death, so the Christian bible claims. Yet despite all of this, he did nothing in retaliation. But his church was no so found of the idea that it should simply turn the other cheek. While Christ was willing to suffer every insult and injury inflicted upon him, his church would eventually decide that no such insults or injuries would be acceptable to God. The Church uses the idea of blasphemy not only to help keep its adherents in line, but also to prevent anyone from contradicting anything it says about god, moral law, and other things the Church claims it alone has authority to speak of. Yet there is nothing in the bible that shows Christ reproving anyone for offering a different perspective on his religion or his ideas about god. Indeed, Christ was offering his OWN interpretation of both, that eventually lead the Sanhedrin to behave in exactly the same way the Catholic Church would behave

There are any number of "beliefs" that people have, and indeed rely on. Some are big beliefs, like God or religion or patriotism, and others are more personal, such as the belief that a person can achieve a desired goal. And while many people often use one to help them with the other, there is a difference between the two that is important to understand. Why?  Because although some people prefer to link these two different kinds of beliefs together, others feel one is better exercised without a necessary dependence on the other. Is it better to believe in oneself without having to believe in God or religion? That depends on the person. God may be "real" or he may be simply a placebo of the mind that we happen to prefer to believe exists. It is not necessarily dangerous for a given individual to choose to believe in a personal god, or that they are being watched over by guardian angels, or even that they will see their loved ones after they die. Nor does it matter

It has been said that the war on terrorism can never be won, because "terrorism" is simply an idea, and an "idea" can never be defeated. One reason for this, for example, is that "war" is "terrorism." Hence the "war on terrorism" is simply a redundancy. But religion is also just an "idea," that uses weapons like "hell" and god's wrath, and judgement day, to intimidate people into "believing" in a particular religion or god, even if there is little or no evidence to support the claim that such "beliefs" make people behave more morally toward each other -  and plenty of evidence to show the very opposite is true. Christians and Muslims, of course, simply deny that the "evidence" of the great many sins of their religions should ever be considered to be the fault of their religions. For them, those sins are always the fault of the 'evil' their religions are designed to combat.

A recent study found that racism was more common among those who identified as religious believers. And since religion is a kind of spiritual racism, this should not be surprising. One of the great lies of organized religion, of which there are too many to count, is that there is a hierarchical order to moral truth and virtue. This lie, however, is so apparent, it goes without notice or objection by those who willingly accept it. And simply accepting such an idea is how the religion robs people of their "free will," even as it claims to be doing the very opposite (which is a means of mass manipulation that both advertisers and politicians have adopted to great applause and destruction). You see, there are at least two obvious reasons why such a "belief" is flawed, if not outright false. The first is that it presumes that some people are saints and others are sinners, even though assigning such rankings on an infinite scale is impossible. And the second is to mis

Christian's often like to point to the question Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" They argue that Jesus did not answer the question because he was, in fact, the truth revealed. But to accept that answer is not "the truth," but simply "belief" such Christians prefer, which is the very opposite of truth. And it is Christians - not atheists - who say so. Here is why. First, we have to ask the question: does truth matter? Or can we simply decide what we want to believe "truth" is for ourselves? Christians almost always assert that truth is fixed, and immutable, in Christ. They also believe in absolute moral truths, as well.  Sometimes, to illustrate their point that "truth is immutable," they will offer the example that 2 + 2 always equals 4.  But this is untrue. As David Gershaw has pointed out, it actually depends on what measurement scale we are using. Gershaw put it this way: there are four types of measurement scales

 The philosopher David Hume wrote, "The greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, to be compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion; Hence it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any inference in favor of a man's morals, from the fervor or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere." The question we are left to wonder about, therefore, is whether religion and religious beliefs actually make people more moral human beings, or less. Or do they have no real effect on us at all.  "Believers,"  naturally assume that their sacred "beliefs" actually make people more moral,  of course, even though non believers argue that such a "belief" is what actually leads such "Believers" to not only be self righteous in their conviction that they are right (about pretty much everything, unfortunately) but to commit some of the most immoral crimes imaginable - and always in the name

Not too long ago, Colin Kaepernick took a knee to protest police brutality agaisnt African Americans. He made this protest, which was an act in a larger movement called Black Lives Matter, because too often in America, Black Lives are treated as if they matter much less than white lives. And nothing demonstrates this better than America's bogus War on Drugs. But while his protest has been described as being disrespectful of American soldiers who died fighting to defend his freedom, in truth, it should properly be understood to be the very opposite of that.  Kaepernick's justifiable protest about America's systemic racism that clearly illustrates just how much Black Lives matter less than white lives (which is why white people would never agree to trade places with black people in America), has been hijacked and re-framed as a slap in the face of soldiers who died fighting for freedom and justice in America's wars abroad. But by reframing Kaepernick's protest as a

It is an indisputable fact that virtually all non Christians have noticed and commented on, that all Christian apologetics can be summed up in the simple ability of Christians to excuse their religion and their "gods" of any and all wrong doings, while at the same time finding ever clever ways to blame every other "belief systems" humanity has shackled itself with, as being responsible for all of the worst things humanity has done to itself. (Of course, to be fair, all "belief systems" are guilty of this.) Christian may deny this, as people in every cult are so often compelled to do. But the fact remains that Christians continually white wash their beliefs through the mental separation they create between their "idealistic" beliefs on the one hand, and the horrible human suffering such beliefs have been used to inflict and justify on the other. Although children were brutally mutilated and raped in the Netherlands during the 1950s by Catholic

I have never understood how Christians can believe that a God who only creates people who are prone to death and disease (even though he could easily create them to be impervious to either one), is somehow "benevolent" for choosing to "miraculously" heal a select handful of those suffering from either one. If a car or a mobile phone manufacturer operated in this fashion, such Christians would be justifiably outraged. But if it is God, they are overjoyed. Today, our understanding of genetics and the mapping of the human genome give us the potential to create human beings who are indeed immune to death and disease, potentially speaking. But just imagine if a "good" doctor somewhere, who possessed the ability to make all of his own children immune to death and disease, decided to make them susceptible to death and disease anyway. And all because that "good" doctor wanted to be able to use his medical knowledge and medicines to pick which of his ch

Why don't Christians have the humility to admit they may be wrong? I know Christians think their soul will receive rewards in heaven if they "save" atheists from NOT believing the stuff they are convinced is "real," like God, Mary, Jesus, Satan, Hell, etc., etc.   Hence they must think that atheists just fail to fully understand and accept the "truth" of what is real, because they KNOW that ALL of the things just mentioned are unquestionably real. But  even though their religion commands that they try to empathize with others, they never once try to put them self in the shoes of those who feel just as strongly that the Christians are practicing a lie, and that it is indeed the Christian who is suffering from the delusions.  Imagine, for example, if I wanted Christians to accept MY God – a different and NEW God, an improved God, "a kinder, gentler God, that I was sincerely convinced existed via divine revelation. And of course my God woul