I Don't Know

“I don’t know.” I grew up thinking this statement was a sign of weakness. My father set the early goal of making me a leader--with middling results--by establishing tenets drawn from self-help books and cliches such as “never let them see you sweat” and “shoot first, ask questions later.” His uncharacteristically geeky role-model, Captain Kirk, always had the answers even when the situation was completely unknown. While this worked out for the main character of a successful television show, but in the real world the “no-win-scenario” actually isn’t winable and some questions just don’t have accessible answers.

I eventually dropped Kirk as my inherited role-model for the more analytical Batman. This was partly because Bats was way cooler and partly because I didn’t want to end up as an away team red shirt. Bruce Wayne’s alter ego is considered “the world’s greatest detective” and is an accomplished scientist in many fields. (For the purposes of this argument, please familiarize yourself with the Batman of the comic books. I recommend Grant Morrison’s JLA or Batman: Hush. Christian Bale’s depiction was great and all, but he wasn’t the hero we deserved.) Among nerd conficts of superheroics, it is accepted that, given enough intel and perparation time, Batman could beat anyone. Seriously, Superman, Thor, Yahweh, anyone! I consider him a posterchild for the importance of knowledge.

via AmazingSuperpowers.com

Religion has proven itself a source for answers throughout history--and history has proven religion’s answers false at nearly every turn. Yet people still hang on to the few answers that religion holds over the growing wealth of verified human knowledge. Abiogenesis, pre-Big Bang and post-death happenings, and existential meaning are all supposedly answered by invoking a single word, “God.”  That kind of baseless research tells us nothing. We should instead sit at our Bat-computers, gather information, study, learn, and contribute to knowledge. If that all fails, we need to accept what theists and Kirk don’t understand--that “I don’t know” has value. The value is honesty.

The Grundist Manifesto

As much as I’d rather we live in a world where claims are based on observable reality and people feel fulfilled without the need for a higher power, humanity just isn’t there yet. In the midterm, I propose a stopgap religion that isn’t entrenched in an out-dated culture and is far more likely to be true than any of the crap we have now. I call it “Grundism.”

Before I get into my narcissistically named faith, first let me expand on why it is better than any of our Abrahamic options. Judisim, Islam and Christianity are all based on the Torah and assorted sequels written when slavery, racism  and sexism were the order of the day. We’ve had civil rights and enlightenments since then, so the bigotry of yesteryear need no longer apply. It was also a time of mysticism and superstition where stories were used to fill in the considerable gaps of human knowledge. Starting fresh, Grundism isn’t forced to either deny reality or convert failed “truths” from holy books into allegories. In short, my religion can take into account current science and make new speculations. While these speculations may be debunked in the future, I hope that by then religion will be universally denied and we can proceed to mankind’s destiny among the stars.

Okay, so what is Grundism?

Grundism is based on the simulation hypothesis. According to the S.H., we are artificial intelligence living out our “lives” within a Matrix-like program--however, the A.I. bit is an important distinction from the movie. We are not humans in pods feeding power to the machines, we are the machines. More specifically, we are computer programs. This seems like a crazy idea, but I submit that it is far less nuts than the ideas sold in church and I’ll tell you why. We can and do already simulate a bunch of stuff in order to learn, teach and play. If you don’t think World of Warcraft is an achievement, then consider that we can model the physical laws as accurately as human senses can perceive--albeit on very small scales. With Moores Law still in affect and quantum computing on the horizon, it’s conceivable that we will be able to simulate four dimensional space over long distances in the relatively near future. If a simulation indistinguishable from reality is possible, then A.I. as a function of a simulated human brain should also be possible. And if it is possible, then it will happen--our ability to find innovative uses for new technology has been true since the discovery of fire. In fact, as tech progresses and these simulations become easier to run, it will happen exponentially often. The point is, if this is possible, we have to assume that we are currently in a simulation. For every one physical universe, there could be trillions of digital universes. Odds are, we aren’t in the real one.

In Grundism, the Simulator (capital “S”) of our universe is, for all intents and purposes, God. He is the entity running the computer that runs us. Other sects of Grundism may break off defining the Simulator as the company that originally wrote the software, the hardware on which the software runs or the computer that simulates the universe in which our personal Simulator lives. Hopefully, Grundism doesn’t splinter too thinly, because I’m counting on church donations to put my kids through college.

The Simulator is the creator of our universe whether or not He or She first developed the software. He or She initialized the relevant program and that’s all that matters to me. And yes, the Simulator can be man or woman or transsexual or asexual or alien or whatever. There is no way for us to supersede what the software allows us to perceive. This is a philosophical quandary similar to the “brain in a vat” problem and something we all have to deal with whether you subscribe to Grundism or not.

Many of the hallmarks of religion apply to Grundism. One could pray to the Simulator and He or She may “hear” the prayer by means of a Google-like alert that monitors more than the Internet, but also every living thing’s words and thoughts. This would be far too much data for the Simulator to parse in real-time, but He or She is likely only looking for searchable keywords. Once heard, any prayer could be answered if it pleases the Simulator or serves the simulation. A “miracle” from our perspective could easily be accomplished with a new line of code.

Already believe in Noah’s flood, Moses’ sea parting and Jesus’ rise from the dead? That’s fine. These “miracles” could also be accounted for by one-time code executions. Hell, you could even say Jesus was the simulator entering His simulation to experience it first hand via a virtual reality interface. Grundism makes what was supernatural, natural--just digital. Belief in the Bible isn’t warranted, simulation or not, but I’m assuming the only people who have a need to adopt a new faith are those who already have one, so I welcome, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, Scientologists, Wiccans, whatevers--Grundism is for you!

Grundism Features

• Grundism solves evil! There is no “problem of evil” in Grundism. No one is saying the Simulator is benevolent. He is probably a scientist learning from the introduction of variables that, in His or Her mind, are neither good nor evil. Or he could be a bastard, there’s no telling.
• Grundism is compatible with any moral code! There is no baggage in Grundism. There is no guilt or shame associated with original sin. You can act however you like without regret. However, your actions have consequences within our world that may affect the continuned execution of your program and/or that of others. If you must believe morality is God-given, you can keep on believing this as a moral if/then statement...but I don’t feel like I have parameters on my life.
• Grundism's gods have gods! Grundism is not, strictly speaking, monotheistic. Our universe may be created and/or guided by one Simulator or many, but either way there are other Simulators running other universes.
• Grundism says you may not cease to be! Grundism allows for an afterlife, but doesn’t guarentee it. Unlike in Christian Apologetics, Grundists don’t presume to know anything about God's (the Simulator’s) motives. After we stop perceiving our time of earth, we may start perceiving another realm...or our program may no longer serve a purpose.

Grundism Bugs

• Grundism doesn’t account for the ultimate origin of the Simulator. We can’t assume He is eternal like most monotheistic traditions. The best we can do say what science shows us about the origin of this universe is true for the universe of the Simulator. We can only guess as to the ultimate origin, much like an eternal deity is a guess.
• There is probably an upper limit to processing power where either Moore’s Law breaks down or technology stops progressing due to heat death (or some other end) of the physical universe. This means that there isn’t an infinite number of simulated universes, just an awful lot. For this reason I don’t consider infinite regress as a possible “origin” of the Simulator. It also means that simulations within simulations may eventually crash the system.

That’s Grundism as I know it. It will take a while for this post to earn holy book status, but I can wait. If you can think of any reasons why Grundism is not superior to all other religions, please let me know in the comments. If you can’t, it’s only rational to convert or, better still, give atheism a shot.

The Atheist's Get Out of Halloween Free Card

Halloween parties can be a lot of fun, but they aren't all created equal. If you have a lame masquerade on your horizon, may I offer an easy out.

Say that you are going as God. It's the costume trump card that will save you a hassle and, by all rights, should win the costume contest.* How can anyone beat the Almighty? If anyone questions your legitimacy, just remind them that no one can prove that you weren't there. Not being seen or heard is simply staying in character.

*Seriously though, don't count on winning that contest.

Politics Shmolitics

In an effort to expand my topic base, I’m considering branching out into related areas. I figure a good way to make a religion themed blog even more heated and controversial is by adding politics. My only hang-up is that politics ain't my thing...mostly because I enjoy being right.

Religion is pretty cut and dry. There either is a God or there’s not. If I was a believer, many more debates could be had about the nature, powers, disposition, mouthpiece, etc. of God, but I'm not. This makes it simple. I have very little doubt that am wrong on this single issue which, so far, has been the driving force of Deity Shmeity. Hell, it's in the name.

If I started writing about politics, I’d be far to wishy washy to make a compelling argument. Being skeptical is not conducive with punditry. There is so much spin that the over arching narrative of both sides of fiscal policy seems to lead to the same place--fairness. Is it fair that the rich pay more taxes without any extra incentive while the poor pay nothing and receive handouts? Is it fair that our system makes it easy for the rich to become richer and the poor become poorer? No on both counts. Fairness isn’t a marketable trait for either party.

I’m socially liberal, but that’s about all I have to say. I’ve done a gay post. I support feminism as much as a next guy (key word being guy.) My only passion politically is keeping church and state separate, but this is only periodically a problem. While there are plenty who want more bible in the constitution, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

So politics are out. There are enough political opinion sites out there and most of them do the public a disservice. If this blog morphes into something else, it won’t be the O’Reilly Factor. You’re welcome.

The Unconvinced Jew

If you witnessed someone walking on water, consistently and visibly healing the sick, casting out demons, spontaneously creating bread and fish, turning water into wine, calming storms, killing trees with a glance, and raising the dead including himself--wouldn't you be convinced that the guy is the son of God? Even the most atheist of atheists would have to admit that is some pretty extraordinary evidence. It certainly meets my conversion standards.

Imagine if you were not only present, but you had a vested interest in believing this guy was the messiah. If he was one of your people and fulfilled the prophecy you've been staking your entire worldview on. Imagine you were a Jew in the presence of Jesus.

Yet, many Jews did not buy what Jesus was selling. Many did, sure, but considering the Moses-level miracles...why not all? Or at least 99%? If there is something I'm not getting about history, please let me know, but the way I see it, how am I supposed to accept claims two thousand years removed with here-say records when so many of the contemporary neighbors weren't impressed.

Maybe, just maybe, the "miracles" just weren't impressive.

Going Down the Foxhole

There are about a dozen words and phrases that can weaponize the more “militant” atheist. Using the descriptor “militant” is one of them, another is the similarly war-themed phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes.” Many a blogger has pointed out that this is historically inaccurate. It may even be currently inaccurate, but if there are no atheists in foxholes at the time you are reading this, it probably has more to do with less of an application for foxholes then their tendency to convert the godless.

The people who say “there are no atheists in foxholes” are assuming that religious thought in the face of death is inevitable. I don’t need to cite foxhole atheists to disprove that. If you want to know about atheists who stayed atheists to the grave, just Google them. They are many. Think Christopher Hitchens’ new book, Mortality, is about taking up Catholicism? Not so much.

There is always a problem with using words like “all” and “none” when referring to a group of people as numerous as atheists, which is what this sentence essentially does. (Ironically, there is also a problem using words like “always.”) Humans are a diverse bunch and very little applies to the entirety of any sect. It would be more accurate to say that “there are fewer atheists in foxholes.” This may be an accurate statement, I don’t know. I’d point out that if it is accurate, there could be other reasons than religious conversion as to why there are fewer atheists in foxholes. The godless might just trend pacifist or not like guns. After all, it’s the God-fearing Republicans who are typically for capital punishment, the NRA, and military spending. I just don’t know. I’d have to see some stats. Do they do surveys in foxholes? Didn’t think so.

If I were to tweak the statement even more, could there be any truth to it? Are there are fewer atheists facing eminent demise? It depends. It’s my experience that adults who embrace a label as politically loaded as “atheist” have thought about the decision for a long time. They have thought about death and have come to the conclusion that nothing awaits us once the body and brain are kaput. Ruling out hell is actually quite comforting and makes death nothing to fear. If by atheist the question refers to more than those who self-identify and includes the nonbeliever-by-default, then, yes, those people may make a last minute appeal to their vague idea of a deity. I imagine that happens on deathbeds and foxholes around the world, but, again, I don't know.

Okay, let’s recap. People who use the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes” are either stupid or lying. They are stupid for accepting and perpetrating a wild exaggeration that is based on someone’s anecdotal evidence that may or may not hold a kernel of truth; or they are lying to brand atheism as a cheap convenience to stifle the truth that atheism as a worldview is more valid then one based on mythology. I could just as easily say that "there are no theists outside of foxholes"--which holds as much metaphorical truth as the reverse and paints believers in a far worse hypocritical light. However, I won't say that, because I'm not stupid or a liar.

The Infideli Menu

You may remember my hilarious idea of an Infi-deli to serve cold cuts to the godless. After picking up some freelance work in menu design, I thought about what such a place might offer outside of deviled-eggs. I hope this attempt at humor makes you hungry for more.

Embiggen Here

The Church of the Pigskin

Football season is upon us! (American, not soccer) I love this time of year. It is a time to gather with friends and share the common experience of rooting for your team. It's infectious.

I hope this confession doesn't revoke my man-card, but I didn't get into sports spectating until college. A big reason for this is because I was never that in to sports performing either. A combination of laziness and anti-social behavior kept me in my shell until the needed quantity of Jack Daniels and fellowship was applied. At the University of Georgia, it was near impossible to not identify as a "dawg." I rooted for Georgia because everyone rooted for Georgia. It was the culture and I fucking liked it.

The college football culture is so strong in the south that whenever someone says "I'm a Georgia fan" or "I love Alabama" or "Let's go Florida" it is understood that they aren't talking about the state--they are talking about the universities, more specifically the athletic programs. This may not be a ringing endorsement for the region at large, but the conversational fact is that one's sports team is often indistinguishable from one's location. Hell, this time of year, it's one's identity.

Oh, wait, this is an atheist blog, right?

It occurs to me that people's obsession on this or that team relies on one of two factors the vast majority of the time. You root for team "X" because you either are geographically located near team "X" or your parents root for team "X." What do you think the percentages are that the same two factors play a heavy role for religious preference? Do most people you know practice the same faith as their parents? That may be anecdotal evidence, but statistics show this as well. It's impossible to argue that Hinduism isn't primarily practiced in Indian. Muslims and Christians have spread out some, but stick together just the same. "Jewish" as a term is so intrenched in cultural heritage that it identifies ethnicity every bit as much as faith. And I thought sports franchises and locations were interchangeable, Judaism has taken it to a whole new level.

You probably think it's silly for me to say that the Georgia Bulldogs are the objectively right team, but that is what the religious are saying. It's important to consider that belief in Jehova, Yahweh, Allah, or Vishnu is more dependent on convenience than correctness. If you have to believe in something, make it the dawgs!

You Are Not Gladiator.

Meet Gladiator, pictured left. He's an alien hero from the Marvel universe who is most known for his interactions with the X-Men. He has the apparent powers of Superman, the skin tone of a smurf, and the mohawk of...okay, let's be honest, no one rocks the mohawk like Gladiator these days. What's more, he's a testament to the fictional power of faith.

Before I ever read a Gladiator comic, I had something in common with him. We both believed we could fly. Of course, that's were our similarities ended. His belief in flight is what actually allowed him to fly. Gladiator is the only hero I know of with faith-based abilities. His mental state informs his physical state. His self-confidence is everything. In the real word, my belief that I could fly didn't translate into any measurable affect. It's a real shame.

Mind over matter is a concept I lingered on to far longer than I should. After my childlike superhero musings, I moved onto Christian Science, where the word "Mind" was always capitalized as a synonym for God. "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." ~Philippians 4:13. In retrospect, this was a step in the wrong direction. Youthful imagination can come up with some crazy ideas, but when I believed I could fly, I placed unfounded faith in myself. Placing unfounded faith in an unfounded deity is stupid squared, and I was guilty as charged.

Faith in the supernatural, from within or without, is an obsession that humanity needs to outgrow. That's why I write this blog. I don't want anyone to look as silly as a blue man with a mohawk.

Secret Origin

In the beginning, I was agnostic. Some say we are born atheist, but I don’t believe it. Belief is a choice. Disbelief is a choice. As an infant with no concept of God, my choice was to crap my diaper. It was all downhill from there.

I was baptized Catholic in the traditions of my Irish father. Living in an undesirable school district in the slums of Pompano Beach, Florida, my parents opted for a Catholic school. Church services woven into my class schedule was a mixed bag for a boy who was a fan or neither praying nor learning. I remember uniforms, pews, and children who weren’t any more moral then the kids in the ‘hood. I survived Catholicism with only a dusting of indoctrination.

Indoctrination is a bad word in the atheist community. It’s simplest definition is gaining answers without asking questions. Most of my answers came in the form of Christian Science, a little known flavor of Christianity often confused with Scientology. Christian Science was founded by Mary Baker Eddy, a woman who fell, injured her spine, and claimed she was healed by God. She then wrote a Bible companion called Science and Heath with Key to the Scriptures for the basis of her new religion.

Christian Science practitioners heal people like Jesus healed people. Eddy believed everyone had the faith in them to carry out the miracles of Jesus to heal, cast out demons, and (as a theoretical goal that was never quite reached) raise the dead. It isn’t simply mind over matter, it’s capital “M” Mind over matter. God is channeled through prayer to cure what ails ya. I could go on about how sickness is caused by errors in thinking rather than germs, but it just starts to get depressing. I believed this crap after all.

I stuck with Christian Science for as long as I did because church was an interactive atmosphere with people I very much liked. Church wasn’t really church. Sunday School lasts until 18 years of age in CS and seemed more of a discussion than a lecture. I could have asked the hard hitting theological questions, but they didn’t occur to me at the time. That’s the problem with indoctrination. It’s hard to realize a counterpoint when all you’ve ever heard is point.

I value my base in faith because it allows me to understand the perspective of the true believer. To consider an alternative viewpoint after being essentially brainwashed is unthinkable. You don’t get brainwashed strapped down to a chair with your eyelids peeled back as the propaganda plays, you get brainwashed talking amongst friends, rehashing the same topic in the same ways without any honest analysis.

During my tenure as a Christian Scientist, I got hurt. Lots. I prayed for God’s help...and it never really came. I was expected to accept a passing headache as a divine gift. I went to Wednesday night testimonials and the miracles sounded more and more like coincidence. I learned about the placebo effect. I learned about germ theory. I found out that Mary Baker Eddy was a bit of a hypochondriac in her younger days and that she filed a law suit for her injury after being "healed." I discovered the skeptical movement and became a critical thinker. I dismissed everything from cryptozoology to pareidolia to homeopathy. I learned that most of Mrs. Eddy’s doctors were homeopaths. Then I finally did what Christian Science taught me to, I fixed the errors in my thinking. I just had to drop the “Christian” to do it.

Thanks for reading. It feels good to share my atheism in a more personal story. My critical thinking genesis, if you will. This has been cross-posted to the Reason Being Blog as part of their "Road to Atheism" series. I encourage you to commit your journey to text as well. It's cheaper than a shrink.

What The Hell Am I?

Do you believe in God? It should be a binary, yes or no answer. It is a very simple, yet very big question and the answer defines you in an important way. How you view the world and live your life is likely contingent on your answer.

But there’s a problem. I don’t know if it’s the shifting political correctness of our culture, or just opposing viewpoints projecting their beliefs onto others, but the question has become muddled. Let me help you answer once and for all, are you an atheist, theist, agnostic...what?

This handy question tree should allow even the most inept call centers to ascertain your position. It’s important to note that “Do you believe in God?” is an opinion question. Whether your answer is yes or no, you need not worry about showing your work. You are essentially guessing. Evidence and arguments built on sound reasoning could provide for an educated guess, but a guess none-the-less. People who have dwelled on the topic of theology all their life and those who have just been introduced to the concept of God have equal rights to their opinion. However, if you have no opinion at all, you are an apatheist. This means you don’t care about one of the biggest questions humanity has ever posed and likely live your life as an atheist by default.

From your yes or no response, we come to a question of knowledge. Are you sure that God does or does not exist? Are you 100% positive? This is a hard position to defend no matter which side of the issue you’re on. Generally, theists claim gnostism because their belief system requires absolute faith for the eventual reward. It is my opinion that if you claim certain knowledge, you are mistaken. We are all agnostic, even if we are right, because the question of God as he is typically defined, is unknowable.

Famous agnostic atheist, Richard Dawkins, has his own scale of belief. 1 is a gnostic theist. 2 and 3 are different levels of agnostic theism. 5 and 6 are both agnostic atheists. 7 is the gnostic atheist. The new bit is number 4, the pure agnostic. This is someone who thinks it is just as likely that a higher power exists as not. I’m not sure how you come to such an exact conclusion, but I accept that some might be able to nail down their own belief better than I.

The final way to look at belief is a sliding scale of probability. There are few black and whites in the universe, so the possibility of a creator should allow for shades of grey as well. If you think that it is more than 50% likely that God is up there, you are a theist. Less? You’re an atheist. Exactly halfsies on the issue? That makes you the elusive pure agnostic. Measuring your belief isn’t an exact science, so we are guesstimating here.

Note: Each of these questions and scales may be applied to a vague concept of god or specific definitions of the deity such as Yahweh, Vishnu, Zeus...whoever. For instance, I’m 85% sure that there is no intelligent creator of the universe, but 99.9% sure that Zeus is imaginary. (I just can’t commit to that last 0.1%) While I don’t think one can be gnostic of the concept of god, you can be gnostic of specific Gods if you can prove or disprove their existence.

Some choose to not answer the question of belief for the vague concept of god. If this choice isn’t made out of apathy, they are likely ignostic--thinking a clearer definition is necessary to confess belief.

Quora Question Round-Up #2

Why does it seem that certain atheists' understanding of Christianity is ironically similar to that of Christian fundamentalism?

Most atheists are aware of the different variations of Christianity. They focus on Christian fundamentalism because it is among the most damaging. This focus makes it seem like that's all atheists know of Christianity.

I, for one, will voice my arguments against the belief in God when asked, but see no need to voice it constantly. I don't see most people's belief in God as something that absolutely needs to be corrected, even though I think it is misled. However, for example, teaching creationism in school is just factually wrong, so I do speak out against that whenever possible.

If Jesus Christ came back to life what impact would it have?

I think it depends on where he comes back to life. In the USA, I imagine that he would be met with constant news coverage. If his miracles were continuously caught on film, a world-wide pilgrimage to see him would occur. The US would probably have to limit this influx of people, especially from the largely Christian population of bordering Mexico. The government might even restrict Jesus’ movements for this reason.

If this incredibly documented Jesus could not do miracles on camera because it would no longer require faith from his followers, he probably would not do miracles at all. (Meaning no one would need faith, they would have visual, witnessed proof.) In this case, he would be met with massive skepticism. Jesus would amass some followers, but would eventually lose the public eye. Once he lost the public eye, maybe he could perform miracles and thereby regain the public eye, only to once again not be caught on camera.

Jesus would make a stir either way. Once he eventually died, either by civilian assassination, government intervention or old age (if Jesus can die of old age,) whatever good he achieved would pass in time. New churches would pop up to challenge existing churches’ claim on him. Wars would be fought over where ever the new holy land has become. Atheism, Islam, and Judaism would massively decrease in size; Hindu, Buddhism and other belief systems as well, but not as much. Otherwise, things would go back to normal.

All this is assuming that he doesn't come back Revelations-style.

Which people or organizations stand to gain economically or in other secular ways if the American public becomes more religious?

Whatever company makes those eucharist wafers, cross manufacturers, and Republicans.

Worst. Atheist. Ever.

Atheism is the most reasonable position as long as the evidence for a god is not compelling. In our reality, I feel this is true. In the fictional world of DC Comics, atheism and the most noted atheist character, is most probably wrong.

Mister Terrific would be an awesome atheist roll model. He’s one of the strongest minority characters in comics, has a mastery of science and his main “power” and is considered the third smartest man on the planet.* He would be an awesome atheist roll model...if his religious skepticism did not cross over into denialism.

For a little background, Mister Terrific is the modern incarnation of an older hero of the same name. His motivation to take up the Terrific mantle comes from a visitation from The Spectre who gave him a reason to live after his wife and unborn child died unexpectedly. It’s worth noting that The Spectre is the personification of God’s wraith. Yes, the Biblical God.**

Not only did God’s number one guy get Mister Terrific into the game, but Mr. T goes on to meet fallen angels and the gods that empower and inspire other heroes like Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel!*** The DC universe is so chock-full of mythology, that it not only validates Christianity, but also the old-school faiths of the Greeks and Romans. In fact, being atheistic towards any god is probably incorrect since every religion is mostly true.

I understand that this causes problems. Every religion as the true religion would be paradoxical to the extreme, but with DC’s continuity problems, I doubt they care. They accept their necessary position as an amalgamation of sometimes conflicting stories. Even if we try to explain it all away in tradition picture-book fashion--with a retcon--and say that all the “gods” depicted in the comics are just super-powerful aliens masking their nature in familiar folklore, Mister Terrific would still be wrong. The true creative force, and for all intents and purposes his God, is the comic book writer. No matter how you look at it, he’s the worst atheist ever.

*The first and second smartest characters are never identified. Some same his assertion that he is third is “just being modest.” Others say that it is probably Lex Luthor and Batman, who are also very secular characters.
**DC recently rebooted their entire line, so I’m not sure if Mister Terrific’s origin is the same as mentioned above. See, keeping track of this is complicated!
***Captain Marvel apparently goes by Shazam now.

The Faith Trilogy

This was posted way back in '08 by a message board parton known only as "RandomFerret." It's still one of my favorite analogies for the Abrahamic religions.

Think of it like a movie. The Torah is the first one, and the New Testament the sequel. Then the Qu’ran comes out, and it retcons the last one like it never happened. There’s still Jesus, but he’s not the main character anymore, and the messiah hasn’t shown up yet.
Jews like the first movie but ignored the sequels. Christians think you need to watch the first two, but the third movie doesn’t count. The Moslems think the third one was the best, and Mormons liked the second one so much, they started writing fanfiction that doesn’t fit with ANY of the series canon.