The Rant Institute

I can think of no greater form of violence to truth, and nothing more offenseive to nature and reason, than that Christians teach their children to love and worship a God who created them as born sinners so he could butcher his own son to death for their spiritual deformities, which can only be fully forgiven by accepting a lifelong enslavement to a religion, and that if they question the wisdom of such a "dvine plan" they'll be burned for all eternity in an afterlife that makes Auschwitz look like Romper Room and Jesus's crucifixtion look like a hang nail, but if they shut up and simply obey a priesthood that protects its own child-rapists, they'll live happily ever after in shang gra la with a God who lives in the cloulds like that giant in Jack and the Beanstalk. If this is not the epitome of insanity mixed with pure evil, nothing is.

All Christians are required to do at least three things to maintain their status as a "good" Christian. The first is to never ask a question about their own religion that their religion cannot provide an answer for that only ever proves their religion is infallibly true.  The second is that, if ever they encounter a question that their religion cannot provide an answer for, they should convince themselves that either there is no answer or if there is, it simply doesn't matter because it would only prove their religion is infallibly true anyway.  And third, they must believe that, no matter what questions are asked that their religion cannot answer, it is their obedience to their religion that guarantees they will be both "saved" from eternal tortures and given all of the answers after they die.

Why would anyone ever confess to a murder they did not commit? Stranger still, why would anyone confess to a murder they could not commit, because it occurred 2000 years before they were ever born? As crazy as it may sound, people confess to crimes they did not commit more often than we might think. And confessing responsibility for the murder of an innocent man over 2000 years ago is not only common, for many around the world today, it is considered to be a requirement to being seen and accepted as a morally responsible member of the human race. But how does admitting responsibility for the murder of an innocent man 2000 years ago make a person more “moral” than defending one’s innocence of such a crime? If anything, such a “confession” would only seem to make a person morally dishonest. So why are so many billions of people around the world not only so quick to make such a confession, why do they even teach their own children of their need to do the same thing to be “saved”? And in...

The same way pornography reduces women to mere objects of pleasure for men, so Religion reduces people to mere objects of pleasure for a "God." One wants women to be brainless bimbos while the other wants people the world over to be brainless "true believers" in a "God." And religion combines a hatred of flesh with a lust for salvation by requiring us all to mentally masturbate to the "gornography" of the "passion" of Christ.

Ash Wednesday is when Catholics smear ash on their forehead in the shape of a cross to remind themselves that they “are dust and unto dust they shall return.” The point of this, other than selling the Catholic brand of guilt, is to remind people that they should be ashamed of being human, made of material stuff, sinful by nature because nature itself is less than a divine ideal. And the only way to overcome this shame is to aspire to "become like God," as the serpent in the Garden of Eden said to Adam & Eve, by shuffling loose their mortal coil and becoming that ideal, by becoming completely immaterial. Ash Wednesday, like Christianity on the whole, is simply a reminder that, to Hamlet's question of "to be or not to be," the Christian should always aspire "not to be," at least not in any physical sense, for that is the only way to be just like an wholly immaterial intelligence they call God. Thanks to the great St. Augustine, who infused Catholi...

My brother the Catholic Priest enjoys defending his Catholicism by equating atheism and a lack of belief in his particular brand of God with a “belief.” But is his comparison correct or in anyway accurate, and even if it is in some way, does that mean atheism is really “just a belief,” as he loves to say, and therefore no different than his own brand of Catholicism? First, notice the double-standard my brother is relying on when he insists that “atheism is just a belief.” When he does this, he is not only choosing to “believe” his comparison is accurate (which is highly debatable because it is like saying that darkness is the same as light, even though one is the absence of the other), but between the two beliefs he is simply choosing to “believe” can be compared – the orange of atheism to the apple of Catholicism – he is simply assuming the former is false and the latter is true; and all because he chooses to “believe” this is the case. But between two possible "beliefs" t...

In the movie “The Matrix,” Neo is trying to free himself from an illusion, which makes the movie a perfect analogy for person trying to free themselves from a religion. Religion is a glorified system of thinking that venerates certain necessary “beliefs” as if they are absolutely true. The only reason those “true” beliefs have yet to solve all the world’s problems, those who peddle their brand of religion will assure you, is because not enough people have accepted those “beliefs” to be infallibly true. If everyone converted to Roman Catholicism tomorrow, so the thinking goes, all of the world’s problems would disappear. So why hasn't Catholicism, with all of its supernatural sacraments designed by God himself to "cure" us all, effectively "saved" our species of their sinful nature after 2000 years? Because that's just how sinful we really are! Indeed, even the death of Jesus himself couldn't help us! Just read the Book of Revelation, and you'll see w...