I’ve been hearing much lately from atheists about how religious people are silly because we believe in invisible things.

Of course, we do. I believe in all sorts of invisibilities like radio waves. I can’t see them but I know they’re there. Sound. I’ve never seen sound but once again I’m confident it’s there. Wind. I can’t see it but I recognize its effects.

Our eyes are limited. There are many things we do not see. Atheists, I believe, put much too much confidence in their eyes and ears. They are more than a little intolerant of those who believe in God.

This from the Houston Chronicle is a shining example of an intolerant atheist:

Some days it seems as if candidates are running for the nation’s office of first cleric rather than commander in chief. It is ironic that believing in invisible beings and hearing their voices is viewed as a qualification for an office in the West Wing when traditionally it qualified one for a room in a psychiatric ward. However, the majority of Americans seem to want a candidate who believes in God as well as America.

Isn’t that so sweet of her? Remember, insulting Christians is fine. Now, as if she didn’t start off stupidly enough she contradicts herself quickly as she continues:

We atheists are a small and misunderstood minority. Only 3 percent to 9 percent of Americans report that they do not believe in God. Professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi’s review of psychological studies reveals that atheists are less authoritarian and suggestible than religious believers, less dogmatic, less prejudiced, more tolerant of others, law-abiding, compassionate, conscientious, highly intelligent and well educated.

Some religiously inclined mistakenly believe that atheists are amoral. However, we atheists tend to subscribe to the highest moral principles and do so without being motivated by fear of hell or hope of heaven.

Firstly, without God how does one judge which moral principles are the “highest?” Whose benchmark? Also, if you’re so tolerant and unprejudiced what’s with suggesting all religious believers seek residence in the looney bin.

She continues:

Another benefit of having an atheist president is that bloodshed could be less likely. Some of the most brutal episodes in world history, including the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch burnings, genocides and bombings by Christian and Islamic fundamentalists, have been conducted in the name of God. Other countries might well be more trusting of our motives if religious subtexts were absent.

Does this writer have editors? Has she not noticed the…uhm…20th Century? Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Those atheistic fellows ran up a pretty good body count according to the history books. Let’s compare every witch burning that occurred in the history of man with a good afternoon by Stalin or Hitler.

Not realizing she’s rapidly approaching the world record of idiotic things said right in a row, the writer continues:

If religious tests were no longer required for public office and more atheists were elected, believers could focus more on their traditional realm of feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.

Hmmm…who told humans they should feed the hungry and clothe the poor. Uhmm. Anyone remember?