War on the new year


So during the last week or so, the things trending in my facebook news feed were: the war on christmas, on why atheists can celebrate christmas, on why you can remove the “christ” from the christmas, and all those trying to remind that it is a mythmas. I have never given a fuck about christmas and this year is was no different. I am not into celebrating birthdays either. 2014 is just there and my balance in personal ‘fucks account’ is still zero. However, I totally understand, feel and not enjoy people celebrating these things. Its fun to watch and analyze how others get crazy. But this post is not about my personal preferences. It is about the incompetent yet pathetic war on celebration of the new year. But why did I tell you about me? We’ll see that later on…

Impersonally, I find January 1st, the best festival humanity has ever bothered to celebrate. It is the only part of the year when, for the greatest portion of human population, all the individual differences don’t matter. Some nationalists have pointed out to me that the Indian youth should celebrate the Indian Independance day more passionately than January the 1st. I often want to go “its like an animal celebrating the passage of a multiple of 365.25 days since the conquest of its native territory”. But I don’t, let them whine, I say. And as far as the country of my birth and residence (India) is concerned, the idea of independance is so funny, its almost like christmas, based on a propagated myth. If I happened to be in those countries where the idea of Independance makes sense, I might throw away a few social fucks about it, but its still about the shitty sibling of religion called nationalism. January 1st is, (and its likely to remain so for many years to come), the only day where the celebration crosses most political, regional, religious, social and economic and whatever fucking  differences.

Now someone would argue the same about christmas, as it does cross many of the barriers that January 1st does. Yes on December 25th, the majority of the human population does settle down and celebrate. Don’t worry I m not bringing the time travelling muslims to strengthen the case against christmas. A good fraction of non-christians don’t celebrate christmas at all (without having having any form of butthurt-itis characteristic of those time travelling muslims). Their reason would be simple, they don’t have enough christian friends around to create the hype. Or they never grew up celebrating christmas. India would be a good example, in a lot of clusters, people just treat christmas as a holiday, not a reason to celebrate. Of those that do celebrate, I dont think they share the same feelings about the festival. And there are things that people talk on each christmas like: the war on christmas, the boring historical reminders about the truth of december 25th and debates about the same, parent discussions about the recommended modifications in the myth about santa for children and blah blah. When the whole world needs a common day to celebrate, it has to be essentially free of time-inappropriate discussions like these.

It’s not the same with January 1st, people have more or less the same reasons for celebration and there little or no irritating discussions on the day. People relate their life events to the common global calender. It does make some sense to program yourself into pretending that, at the end of a calender year, your old shit is left behind, while in the head feeling that a long duration of time, called an year, has passed away and you need to gear up in life, do the things you are missing out on, or just recollect your year in a flashback. Just pointing that we don’t tend to do this rethinking and revaluating process on any other day, not even the birthday. Another important reason, it is on this day that we can mourn for the extremist muslims, who prefer to live as living fossils and declare a war on this peaceful festival.

Images of this kind are being shared as a part of this impotent verbal attack on the new year.


I encountered one such person today, in real life. She is a well respected and loved teacher. I didn’t bring in the topic of new year or even anything remote, not today, not ever! She knew I wasn’t going to do anything about the change of date, especially since I use only digital calenders! But she had to bring it out of nowhere, as a conversation starter, and piss me off…

She: I am glad that I am not a slave of the christians to celebrate their festivals, I am not going to wish anyone on the christian new year. (It is funny how these burqa packed women call others as slaves).

Me: Thanks for mentioning, it doesn’t make sense to wish you for the new year 2014, when I am the only one among us who is moving into it!

She: What? (she obviously didn’t get the intended joke, which is why I am telling you)

Me: But I am sorry I didn’t wish you on your birthday. (fake apology, obviously)

She: And I took care of it by not wishing you on yours, although I know you don’t care about your own birthday.

Me: Hmm. Very nice and smart of you to take your revenge without even hurting me. Your lot should learn something from you.

She: Yeah, whatever. (She was clearly offended about the phrase “your lot” but I strongly suspected that she didn’t catch any other part of the sentence. It is one of the techniques these theists use, they just don’t listen you intently, all their limited attention is for those more fanatic than themselves).

Me: (I couldn’t resist to clarify) I meant that if your lot could figure out ways to take a revenge without bombing others every now and then, that would do a lot good to the world.

She: (Vey angry) It is only a tiny fraction of muslims who blow up people. Islam means peace.

Me: (postponing the laugh about the second statement). I agree they are a smaller portion, but how are you different from them? Are you telling me that the audience of the gladiator shows who did the “thumbs down” were in principle, any different from the people who actually murdered others for fun?

I don’t care how each one of you interprets the quran, for each one of you is obviously free to follow things prevalent in the modern society, that are not dictated in quran, because for instance you celebrate your birthday. Did Mohammed celebrate his birthday? What kind of doll did Aisha demand for her 7th birthday? (She ran away but I continued in my head)…. It is the change you would want to see in the world that matters. A hardworking teacher and a suicide bomber, both think that jews and christians are what is wrong with the world. You belong to “their lot” precisely because you are travelling back in the same time-machine, you might be on the passenger seat, some of the others might be in the driver’s seat, but all of you want more and more people on board, including your infants and children. Is there even a single day in your muslim calender when all muslims unite to prove the world how your religion is a religion of peace?


Types of theists

I would classify theists into 3 classes based on how they deal with the overwhelming scientific knowledge and advancements.

The anti-science people
You would really need to dive too deep to understand their worldview. They don’t reject all of science (well nobody in the civilised world does). They only reject that part of science which conflicts with their religious beliefs which tend to be dramatically variable, even among the most fanatic of the same religion. For instance, Sarah Palin would just shut up and stay in the kitchen and Phil Robertson won’t grow hair like that, if they were really going by the bible. These people need to wall off each scientific fact from their scriptural stories and each modern law from the mugged biblical laws. They live among haphazardly built walls in their world view.

They are highly susceptible for Butthurt,trying to take offence for anything anybody has to say. Well that is how blood gets to flow to their brains, it is their substitute of the video games smarter people play in modern era. Otherwise, they would just get numb by peaceful repetition of the same hateful old Bronze Age texts.

They might be the most horrible theists, but as far as their genetic load is concerned, they are decreasing in percentages for various reasons. First thing, it’s simply not easy to be that wilfully ignorant and narcissistically stupid these days. No matter how deep is the stupid in them, they are more likely than not, to have progeny that are less ignorant compared to them. Second, at least some of them manage to kill themselves by virtue of their stupidity (faith healing, suicidal bombing, non-religious stupid acts, etc.,) or decide that “a special personal relationship” with the deity is a total alternative to sex, sparing the world of at-least their biological descendants.

The pro-pseudoscience people
These people are weaker than their anti-science friends in employing the ego-defence mechanism of denial. They are slightly smarter, and know at the back of their heads that their religious fantasies will not be coherent with existing scientific knowledge. They end up distorting some scientific theories and patch them up with pre-existing pseudoscientific theories to create an alternative world, so that they now live in two worlds about the same things, and keep jumping alternately among them, depending on their morale, whether they feel down-to-earth or angelic.

They brag about having peeped into some unexplored realm of science that somehow accounts for their egotistic expectations from the reality. Some may address their discovery as a reality scientists would endorse in the future, while others are just happy with their alternative catchy nomenclature. They are a pain in the ass for scientists and laypeople trying to improve scientific temper among the masses. It is this group of people who start off religion backed pseudoscience cults.

The pro-science:

They accept all the science that they understand but don’t reject the science that they don’t. They are the soldiers who didn’t find the battle interesting but intermittently whine when their kind is being criticised. So you can only really drag them into a sustained argument by making them whine first. Else they would just go back to praying to the money god to ultimately improve their chances at routine courtship behaviours!

So when they do talk, they don’t actually say that they know all of science, they kind of talk like they do. Yes, this includes people who don’t know that there is a theory of evolution or the Big Bang or why seasons occur and will simply give you gentler facepalms with their ignorance. Others are less innocent, they google and pluck out the gaps in evolution, or just repeat what Ray Comfort said. Most just behave like kids who want an imaginary friend to strengthen them to find their lost car keys, or like adults who can’t otherwise brag about having a celebrity friend or a political connection. The irony is that these people, who depend on the tiny gaps in evidence backed scientific theories, miss out that the entity they use to fill these gaps, their god, has at it’s rear end an unaccounted abyss of its own creation evading timeless existence than no creationist has or can ever account for.

P.S: Didn’t write this with a serious tone and didn’t care to be politically correct or exact or inclusive or shit!


Every demand of peace andreligion of peace every peaceful state isn’t positive. Say you are lost in the mountains, being chased by a beast, what is the beast’s idea of peace? It wants you to shut the chaos of rebellion and silently give in and be its food, rendering it a hearty peaceful meal. What is the idea of “peace” for a man enslaving a dozen men and women, merely for labor? He sees peace in their life long submission into slavery. Any rebellion on the part of his slaves disturbs not only his own peace of mind but also the peace of the workplace. Have this beast or this master ever questioned their acts? I would say the former is incapable of doing so, while the latter can, but doesn’t do so. Because, questioning is likely to result in lost of his present peace of mind, and that is enough reason to be in denial of his evil doing. The strength of this denial is proportional to the duration of such a way of life and inversely proportional to the man’s age at imbibition of such ideas.

Here, meet an average non-terrorist muslim. Take a closer look as to why and how his religion dictates him to bring about peace. All these arguments for “religion of peace” may or may not rest within the mind of a single muslim or a single group of muslims. But carefully seen, at least one of these reflect the idea of “peace” in any “practicing” muslim (does not apply to those blasphemers who prefer to call themselves as “muslims” for cultural reasons or for fear of execution).

  1. We are peaceful people, peacefully teaching islam to our children, making them read quran, the only true word of god, since they were young. But when you teach science to our children and make them question the word of god, make them blaspheme out of our ways, you disturb our peace.
  2. There is peace in our family because our women follow what we say. When women choose not to do so, the peaceful state is disturbed and we have to use our religious laws to punish her and bring back peace into our peace loving family.
  3. We are very protective of our women, we would lose our peace when they get sexually fantasized by other men. Hence we take precautionary measures, we keep our women (as young as 3, because quran does not dictate an age of eligibility for sexual contact, so we infer there isn’t one) indoors as far as we can, bar them automobiles and gadgets and social accounts on the internet. But since that cannot be done with perfection, especially since kafirs have made the world so fast, we need the age-old remedy from blocking other men to see the beauty of our women, the burqa. But according to the quran, the kafir women are slaves, and lustfully staring at them, molesting, capturing, raping and killing them are all right.
  4. Aisha peacefully agreed to marry our prophet mohammed at age 6, agreed to his “thighing” between ages 6 and 9, and peacefully agreed to consummation of marriage at age 9. We peacefully see that our girls follow suite. But when the kafirs try to change this, tell us that what our idol mohammed did was wrong, our peace is disturbed and we have to fight to restore this peace.
  5. We are peace loving muslims who don’t join the terrorists, even as we read about their jihadi acts in newspapers. But when people mock our ideal man, the messenger of allah, with cartoons, our peace is disturbed and we need to kill the cartoonist to teach the world that they shall never do such acts to disturb our peace.


The comedy of gifts

Where do we start off on a discussion about reproduction? A scientific discussion about reproduction starts with the development of germinal cells in a fetus which develop on their way to become fully functional adult reproductive organs and from there on to conception upto the child birth. But what are creationist discussions concerned about, under the heading of “reproduction”? Their idea of human life is a gift from god, and any discussion about the manufacture of this gift is often suppressed by “god did it”. So what is this gift supposed to be? Sperm? ovum? viable fetus? newborn? Creationists aren’t heard of talking like “god gifted the man a sperm and the woman an ovum, from which they could conceive a zygote”. So is it a viable fetus? No, because the knowledge of age of viability was not known in biblical times and jesus never bothered to get bible updated on this. Its not a newborn because there is a deadly idea called “anti-abortion”. Creationists aren’t heard of making distinctions between “zygote”, “embryo” and “fetus” in their anti-abortion propaganda, perhaps because of their ignorance of human embryology (I take it that they are ignorant of human embryology because it is actually a telltale of human evolution). Now, even if you confront a creationist with the implications of the differences between an embryo and a fetus, they are unlikely to care because it cant be like god put the fetus in there. He obviously did put the embryo. So it turns out that the starting point of any creationist’s discussion of “life” is that zygote which transforms into an embryo in no time.

How would you like if someone snatches away roughly 50% of the most awaited gifts that they sent to your doorstep? What if you learn that he snatches away some of those gifts as soon as he places them on your door? I m talking about this “gift” of life, which unknown to most people on earth, is taken away from the womb (aborted) 50% of the time, naturally, without human intervention. Most of these are due to inherent defects in the embryo/fetus that are incompatible with intra-uterine survival (let alone extra-uterine survival as a newborn). Since a creationist pro-lifer’s contention is that it is a sin to reject a gift from god, I take it that they assume that god is in control of the gifting process. What do we infer from this?
  1. God is the one of most inefficient manufacturers known sending you defective products 50% of the time. This single handedly shuts the flawed proposition that “god is impeccable”, “god has never failed”. Needless to point out that their scriptures themselves are a “proof” that god has failed in multiple famous biblical tales. The fact that his own creation can thoroughly figure out his mammoth failures undermines pascals wager and threats of a hell. What if 50% of the entries into hell are erred?
  2. Some theists might want to try shifting the blame to Satan, conveniently forgetting that the implication is that Satan is actually more powerful than god, screwing up 50% of his gifts. It would be even more shameful for god to prevent us from ethically increasing that percentage by a few extra percentages. As much as your god finds babies tasty, the best chance he seems to have against majority of human-induced gift-screwing is petty impotent anti-abortion campaigns by Christians.
  3. since some of the embryos do go on to be born, it implies that all humanity’s induced abortions combined are still not a match for god’s abortion rates. God was and remains the greatest abortionist ever.
Ok, we all know that god hates women, especially their reproductive tract, but since this article is not about it, we are not stressing here enough about how painful it must be for a woman to take all the care to make the fetus survive her uterus for 9months only to learn at the time of labour that the fetus had an abnormality which would make it incapable of survival outside the uterus.
It actually sounds like, knocking on your door and handing the gift into your hands and seeing it vanish in front of you. This should hit you, if you were indifferent about the gifts that he took away without your notice, as cited in previous section. Ok atheists find abortuses tasty, but creationist do count an “embryo” as a person. Their usual explanations for human suffering “god is testing you”, “god is punishing you”, “god is preparing you for something great”, are not applicable to the suffering of this fetus which a creationist values as equal to a person. What the heck are you teaching to an unborn who is gonna be born dead anyways? Why does god allow his “children” to pray for a safe 9months of pregnancy and a safe delivery and give them a dead-born child? Don’t you see that god is a psychopath here? Would you go like “god works in mysterious ways” if that child was to be your first born after a decade of infertility? But no, for the sake of your delusional faith, you wouldn’t have gone for an abortion if your fetus’s incompatibility with extra-uterine life was known much earlier in the pregnancy. Face it, you value your faith and hence yourself, over the growth of this embryo/ fetus into a stillborn. And so that your helpless attempt to safeguard your faith, your determination to not see your own idiocy and hypocrisy, will drive you to prevent other women from aborting a fetus that wasnt gonna survive anyways.

It doesn’t matter if your child was diagnosed with encephalocele, retinoblastoma that is making its survival outside the uterus short and painful. It doesnt matter if scientists find out ways to diagnose this earlier in the pregnancy. Christians would simply end the discussion saying “its still a life”, “you still dont have the right to change nature”. Each year, 5 million children die before reaching the age of 5yrs. What purpose is served in their miserable little life? The very same people who say that “god called my beautiful child because he loved them” also hold that god is omnipresent. How does an omnipresent god fail to have your beautiful living child by his side? How does an omnipotent god fail to find a less painful way of doing that? Why send them on earth when they die before even knowing what life is? How does it still hold that god is in any way, pro-life?<

Some would hold that the suffering of the child is a lesson to the parents, conveniently forgetting the obvious implication of the child’s life being lesser in importance to the parent. If god and his followers can see a child’s life as of no worth but a lesson to others, how do they overrate this “gift lesson” over the life of the pregnant mother?