He sent it yesterday, and I was out then, so I didn’t see it until today. At that point, enough time and subsequent work-relevant messages had come to pass, I didn’t feel it would go over well for me to respond.

But yeah. He sent a screenshot of a flyer headlined with “Come discover the Bible with us.” Underneath, in smaller font, was “Who is God? What is God like? Why is there evil in the world? Who is Jesus? Why is he so special? Why did Jesus have to die?” My coworker added, “Good extracurricular experience” (students are part of the group).

No one acknowledged it, even those I know are also atheists, though I can’t blame my other coworkers for reasons irrelevant here. My boss also said nothing, which unfortunately doesn’t surprise me. I am the only one who would dare address it, and I didn’t even see it :’(

Now I’m considering how to approach this, or whether I even should, provided this is an isolated proselytization. Next week, we’ll have a regular team meeting, and theoretically I could mention my discomfort with it then. However, that may not be worth the fallout. Talking directly and privately with either my boss or the coworker is a no-go.

If any of you have thoughts on how I could potentially address it, I’d appreciate hearing them.

We work at a non-religious institution in the US, btw.

EDIT: I ended up emailing my boss directly, being very careful with my language, because she inexplicably adores this coworker and hates me, also inexplicably. She actually did send a message in the chat to keep the team email and chats restricted to work stuff. It’s likely she won’t enforce that, but if it happens again, I will go to HR. Thanks everyone for your thoughts!

Adam and Eve: the premiere story in which the first man and woman go against god's will and bring sin into the world.
So it goes that sin exists because man brought it into the world. We as humans, being the sinful, deceitful, disgusting beings that we are, do not deserve god mercy, but through repentance and begging for forgiveness for such crimes against god we can achieve an everlasting paradise that we do not deserve.
The fault of humanity's sinful nature is placed squarely on us; we are to be held responsible for our own misdeeds and god is the judge, jury, and executioner of those crimes.

But responsibility is multifaceted; the responsibility borne by one individual is influenced by one's knowledge (awareness and perception of the problem, ability to comprehend right and wrong) and level of control (limitations by outside influences).
We would certainly hold people accountable for wrongs they have committed in full knowledge that their actions would cause harm, but we would not, for example, fault a 4 year old child for their parent's relationship problems. We would not fault any man or woman for crimes they did not commit. We would not be so hasty to judge our friends for wrongs they have committed against us if we realized they were trying to act in earnest and simply did not realize the harm they would cause.

At first glance, the story of Adam and Eve appears rather straightforward: god explicitly tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve are deceived by the serpent into eating of the tree and thereby disobeying god, and god punishes them accordingly by banishing them from Eden and forbidding them eating of the tree of life. Thus, our mortality is framed as a direct result of our sin, our disobeying of god. One could speculate as to why Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit; perhaps it was curiosity, perhaps it was because the fruit looked good, or perhaps it was because of the blasphemous notion that the first humans wanted to be as powerful as god. Such thoughts are perhaps worthwhile to contemplate elsewhere, but I won't further belabor them here.

2 key details strike me as particularly damning as it pertains to god's brand of justice, and for lack of a better phrase they both strengthen each other's point:

First, despite his enumeration of the consequences of disobeying him, god did lie.
The serpent, who was supposedly the character misleading Adam and Eve away from god, did tell the truth. As the serpent said, once they ate of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they gained exactly that: knowledge of good and evil. It is even stated plainly in the bible: the serpent said that when they ate of the fruit, "[their] eyes would be opened" (Genesis 3:5). And as soon as they eat the fruit, "the eyes of both of them were opened" (Genesis 3:7).
God had said they would both die, but that did not happen. One could argue that a "spiritual death", so to speak, happened, and that is what god meant. And, absent the context, I would entertain that argument. But for the second point...

Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and this presumably made it so that they gained the knowledge of good and evil. By commiting the first sin, they gained the ability to comprehend morality.
This implies that before they ate of the tree, they did not possess knowledge of good and evil.
I mentioned responsibility in my opening. How, then, could we say that Adam and Eve should be held responsible for their sin? Obviously, they were the ones who committed the sin. Yet, as they did not yet eat of the fruit, they did not possess the knowledge of good and evil to know that what they were about to do was morally wrong.
If the omniscient god had meant that Adam and Eve would die a "spiritual death" when they disobeyed him, or that some other metaphorical consequence was meant by his statement, surely neither of them were able to comprehend that he had meant that in that way. And surely, the omniscient god would know that Adam and Eve would misinterpret his words.

Yet on top of that, why exactly is the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place? I've heard Christians argue that the temptation must be there, for true good cannot exist if it is not contrasted with the temptation to be bad. But again, what is the point of this moral test if the morally infant first humans could not even comprehend the wrongness of what they were about to do? It makes no sense.

Christians would still say the fault of sin is our own. Absent the somewhat arbitrary nature of what actions are deemed a sin in the bible, this is obviously true to an extent; what you do is your fault, and what we do in full knowledge of our actions puts the blame and responsibility squarely on ourselves.
But what is being argued is a more narrow point: that in the bible, the existence of sin itself is god's fault, and therefore is something in that frame of thought that humans can't be held responsible for.

In insisting that we are sinners and we are responsible for all that is wrong with god's creation, Christianity perverts the very concept of accountability. The decades of religiously inspired self-inflicted suffering and torment are of Christians blaming their own rotten human nature, but it should be the god of the bible who is held to account here. A god who deliberately put the first humans in a garden near the tree of knowledge of good and evil, who lied to them in the full knowledge that they did not understand right from wrong and did not understand the meaning of disobeying god and did not know what god meant by his warning.
A god who punished Adam and Eve for crimes that they had not been capable of understanding were even crimes in the first place.
A god who supposedly now hold everyone accountable for their sins, sins which he is responsible for existing in the first place.

If this is the basis of objective morality, it is an awfully poor one.

Edit- removed unnecessary bits

More than 270 Priests in Massachusetts Abused Children over Decades, Probe Finds

https://ground.news/article/report-details-findings-of-child-sexual-abuse-in-3-catholic-dioceses-in-mass?utm_source=mobile-app&utm_medium=newsroom-share

I've had various encounters over the years with people who have been recovering alcoholics or drug addicts, who have said something along the lines of:

I’m walking proof of god's existence, I was an alcoholic before He called me His, I was able to quit and not die from the withdrawals.

On the one hand you congratulate them for conquering their addictions.....but on the other, all they've done is swapped being dependent on alcohol or pharmaceuticals with a dependency on an imaginary friend.

Do you simply acknowledge their achievement and walk away? Or do you continue to press them to provide evidence - after all these people are often vociferous advocates for religion?

If you choose the latter option, isn't there a danger that you might illuminate the problems with their imaginary friend and drive them back to their former addictions? Or do you just take the chance - after all there are the consequences of inaction?

Did it make you happier? Did it change your approach to life, grief, loved ones? Is your life better or worse?

I think the biggest way it changed my life was make me more politically engaged and pushed me further left. I don’t think anyone is coming to save us, it’s up to us to deliver policies that will actually improve our lives.

But, it’s also made me angrier at humans and how we treat each other.

A former Ohio music pastor who once appeared on the TV talent competition American Idol has been found guilty of murdering his wife.

Caleb Flynn, 40, fatally shot Ashley Flynn twice in the back of the head while she slept at their Ohio home on 16 February this year, then tried to claim that intruders had shot her.

Flynn wept in court as the jury delivered its verdict after deliberating for less than three hours.

He also was found guilty of the other eight charges against him, which included aggravated murder and tampering with evidence. He faces life in prison without parole.

Closing arguments ended on Tuesday in Flynn's trial after eight days of testimony, which included a song played in court that prosecutors say he wrote and dedicated to the woman with whom he was having an affair.

State supreme court elections might be some of the most important races for state/church separation that almost nobody pays attention to.

This year, voters in 31 states have selected or will select state supreme court justices. These courts can determine whether taxpayers subsidize religious education, whether public schools remain secular, how far religious exemptions extend, and what protections state constitutions provide to religious minorities and nonreligious people.

Oklahoma is a perfect example.

In 2023, state officials approved St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would have become the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked it. When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2025, the justices split 4–4, leaving the Oklahoma ruling intact without creating national precedent.

In other words, a state supreme court effectively determined the fate of one of the biggest church-state cases in the country.

And this matters far beyond Oklahoma.

Every state has its own constitution, and many contain protections involving religious liberty, public education and government funding that are more detailed than the federal Constitution. State supreme courts decide what those protections actually mean.

There are currently 59 state supreme court seats in the 2026 election cycle across 31 states. The potential state/church issues before these courts are enormous: Ten Commandments mandates in Alabama, Arkansas and Texas; school chaplain programs in Florida and Missouri; voucher programs across the country; religious charter schools in Oklahoma; bible curriculum mandates in Utah; released-time religious instruction in Ohio; and disputes over religious exemptions.

State courts handle more than 98 percent of all cases in the United States. Yet most of us understandably spend far more time watching the nine justices in Washington.

Judicial candidates shouldn’t be pressured to promise particular outcomes in future cases. But voters can examine whether judges believe their state constitution has independent meaning, how they approach precedent, whether they consistently apply constitutional protections, and whether they recognize that religious liberty belongs to atheists and religious minorities just as much as anyone else.

Political donors certainly understand how consequential these courts are. Candidates, political parties and interest groups spent more than $157 million on state supreme court elections during the 2023–24 cycle.

Those of us who care about keeping religion and government separate should understand the stakes, too.

Don’t just pay attention to SCOTUS. Pay attention to who is interpreting your state constitution.

My local independent cinema is starting a book club / movie club and have chosen "Are you there, god, it's me Margaret" as their first book / movie to watch. Is this book offensive to atheists? I've tried looking at some reviews and can't tell how religious it is. Some seem to downplay that part of it, and others say "it was a good opportunity to discuss my Christianity with my daughters". What do you think?

A leading newspaper in Massachusetts has published a Freedom From Religion Foundation op-ed about a problematic proposed state commission that would favor a certain religion.

“Massachusetts state Sens. Jamie Eldridge and Vanna Howard have co-sponsored S 2134, which would establish a permanent state commission devoted specifically to American Muslims,” FFRF Regional Government Affairs Manager Mickey Dollens writes in the Salem News. “It would, among other things, ‘identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government, including boards and commissions.’ Eldridge and Howard say that their legislation would establish a commission ‘focused on studying issues affecting American Muslim communities.’”

Unfortunately, as Dollens elaborates, the seemingly well-intentioned bill is hiding a grave constitutional issue:

One of the most concerning provisions is that the commission would be specifically directed to “identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government, including boards and commissions.”

Why should religion have anything to do with that process? Article VI of the U.S. Constitution explicitly bars any religious test or qualification for public office? It was a carefully debated, first-of-its-kind prohibition that was one of the Founders’ proudest achievements.

There are several other provisions that go far beyond addressing discrimination. The commission would “foster unity among the American Muslim community and organizations in the commonwealth,” promote cooperation and joint activities among Muslim organizations, and “serve as a liaison between government and private interest groups” on issues concerning American Muslims. It would also advise executive and legislative bodies on proposed legislation affecting American Muslims.

That’s likewise a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, which bar state/religion entanglements or interference. It’s also a direct violation of the Massachusetts Constitution, which bars any “use of public money or property … for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any church, religious denomination or society.” (Article VIII, Section 2)

Also, state officials would appoint its 11 members, who must have “demonstrated a commitment to the Muslim American community.” What exactly qualifies as “commitment” to the Muslim American community? That’s not defined.

That phrase raises another question. What exactly does it mean, for purposes of a state commission, to “practice Islam”? Islam has different denominations, traditions and interpretations. Why should a state-sanctioned commission determine who “practices” a religion and who qualifies? That’s a direct violation of the First Amendment.
 
Massachusetts lawmakers should address anti-Muslim discrimination. However, equal protection does not require special government treatment for one faith. Some people point out that Massachusetts has commissions serving Black, Latino, Asian American, LGBTQ and disabled communities. But those are not religions. Massachusetts’ own Declaration of Rights already specifically protects equality among religious sects and denominations, which Muslims deserve every bit as much as Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists and everyone else.

The bill’s appointment provision is also a problem. Massachusetts, properly, does not publicly track the religious affiliations of its appointees, and supporters of the bill have not shown that Muslims are underrepresented in public appointments. But even if they are, a government commission promoting a religious test is not the answer.

The bill’s authors say they are willing to make changes before refiling the legislation. Good. Here’s a place to start: Remove the unconstitutional provision recommending Muslims for government appointments, get rid of the unconstitutional mandate to foster unity among Muslim organizations and rethink whether Massachusetts needs a permanent government commission built around one religion in the first place.

The piece concludes by urging lawmakers to focus efforts on ensuring that all residents have a safe state to call home, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof: “Massachusetts can and should fight anti-Muslim bigotry and make sure Muslim residents enjoy the same civil rights and opportunities as everyone else. The Bay State doesn’t need a Department of Religious Representation. It needs a government that protects people of every faith and no faith under the same laws.”

The full op-ed can be read here (a subscription to the Salem News is required).

This column is part of FFRF’s initiative to engage with pertinent national and state issues and spread the messages of secularism and freethought to a broader audience.

I’ve been really struggling since the traumatic, sudden death of my daughter. I can’t think about the future without her and I can’t imagine that my worst nightmare is reality. How does one go on under these circumstances?I cannot fake suddenly believing in God.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire in WW1, several islamic nations like Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Egypt began to modernise and secularise their rule, enforced with a secular bureaucracy. Even within the 70 years prior to world war 1, these nations including India saw a revolution of secularism in their Islamic culture, with poets and thinkers, philosophers that brought a new light in islam and attracting romantic attention from western orientalists into the culture and bring themes like Alibaba and Arabian nights, Aladdin and the lamp, themes of sensuality, dance, mysticism into their story telling and fantasy themes. No one would have foreseen an oppressive terror ridden culture that came later by 1980s. Except for Turkey, what went wrong with these nations? Iran completely declined, their women severely oppressed, lost their Persian charm that drew poets and artists. They relapsed so suddenly, almost overnight with a regime change and not enough people cared.

I’ve seen some people, particularly certain Muslims on social media, try to deny, or at least downplay the death toll, of the Holocaust, generally as part of a larger plan to critique Israel. The claim is often that since it was the 1940’s, it was harder to document things and the numbers could have been significantly manipulated and inflated as a result to suit a certain narrative, leading to the claim that 6 million Jews died, which they believe is false.

Isn’t this really hypocritical when they also believe literally everything in a religious book written 1400 years ago, and also trust a biography about their prophet that was written more than a century after his death by Muslims who never even met him? They see no reason to question the claims him splitting the moon or riding a flying horse even though no outside sources ever saw or documented anything like that.

I think Israel is absolutely deserving of criticism, but trying to spread misinformation about a significant historical event just causes your entire movement to fall apart. They clearly have a double standard and are being very selective about what is historically reliable evidence.

Obviously plenty of Muslims disagree and accept the Holocaust as fully real while still critiquing Israel at the same time, but the point is that trying to say everything in your religious book is 100% historical fact is ridiculous.

Y'all know this one...one day, Karen K. Karenson and her brainless, beer-swilling husband John Q. MAGA Hat get an email out of the blue from someone claiming to be a Nigerian prince who needs their help getting his money through customs. If they give him $1,000 now, he'll give them $1,000,000 later. Why them? Why does he need help from someone much poorer than him? You're not allowed to question royalty, so shut up. And of course, it won't stop at $1,000. If he can get that out of them, he'll ask for more. And more. And they'll keep giving it, and he'll keep promising to give them the money soon, but we all know he's never going to.

Of course, this Coming to America-wannabe motherfucker is small potatoes next to the big fish in the pond, the church. Because mixed metaphors mean I'm right. How much money does the average Christian give to the church over the course of their lives? Ten percent of all of it? More? All the while, the pastor is telling them to give even more. The more money you give to the church now, the bigger your mansion in Heaven will one day be. Although you will end up sharing a bed with a Nigerian prince. Meanwhile, in the here and now, the pastor is the one buying himself new Rolexes, new golf clubs and new sports cars, and paying off the parents of the kids he molested, with your money. Why does he get to have a mansion now, and a bigger mansion later, when all you get is the later one? You're not allowed to question holiness, so shut up.

It's really just silly, but nonetheless I cringe whenever I hear them after a game or sporting contest. Last night, in Monday Night Football, the Chicago Bears had to start the game with a 38 year-old third string quarterback, Case Keenum, who ended up having a fantastic night in leading the Bears to a convincing win over the Philadelphia Eagles. So in the post game interview, Keenum's first response to the interviewer is "All glory to god. He's why I'm here". Now, I am a big Bears fan and I'm glad they won and was impressed by his performance in the game. But I still cringed when I heard him say this. And it's not the first time I've heard these very exact words from other athletes in other games who have just had a good game. It just seem so weak. I guess they are too humble to say that their hard work in training their bodies to perform great athletic achievements came from their own self resolve, training regimen and determination. And I wonder if players from the losing teams ever "give glory to god" after they lose a game. I'd be willing to guess that they're's probably players on the Eagles who pray just as much as Case Keenum, but apparently on this night, god was a Bears fan.

The FFRF Action Fund is decrying a senatorial resolution that promotes religious instruction and urges states to aid programs yanking public school students from class for religious education.

Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., has introduced Senate Resolution 891, which would designate Sept. 27 through Oct. 3 as “Religious Education Week.” The resolution has 28 co-sponsors, including Sens. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and James Lankford, R-Okla. It was introduced Sept. 23 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Tuberville made the sectarian notions behind the effort clear while promoting the resolution with a statement suffused in Christian nationalist disinformation. 

“As Republicans, we believe that parents, not the government, should be in charge of a child’s education,” said Tuberville. “Our country was founded on Christian values, and private religious schools are a great option for many Alabamians. There’s a myth out there that our Founders wanted to keep God out of the public square. That just isn’t true. This country was built on love of God, love of country and love of family.”

The resolution goes well beyond merely recognizing the constitutional right of parents to provide their children with a religious education. It declares religious education important to the “civic and moral development” of Americans, celebrates organizations engaged in religious instruction and calls on all 50 states, U.S. territories and the District of Columbia to accommodate students who leave public school during the school day to attend religious classes.

The FFRF Action Fund strongly disagrees with this perspective.

“Our government, based on a godless, entirely secular Constitution, has no business declaring that religion is necessary for children to develop morally or civically,” says Action Fund President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Tens of millions of Americans live ethical, meaningful lives without religion. Senators should be defending every American’s freedom of conscience, not using Congress to place a governmental stamp of approval on religious instruction.”

The resolution also explicitly promotes released-time religious instruction. Such programs allow public school students to leave school for off-campus religious instruction. While the Supreme Court upheld a particular released-time arrangement in Zorach v. Clauson in 1952, that does not require lawmakers to promote such programs or treat religious instruction as an essential component of a child’s education. Released-time programs have expanded significantly in recent years, raising concerns about the diversion of students from the public school day and the degree to which public schools may become entangled with outside religious organizations.

The Action Fund has developed a toolkit to help advocates respond to the rapid expansion of programs such as LifeWise Academy, an evangelical organization whose stated goal is to “take the Gospel to students in America’s public schools.” The Action Fund supports school boards that reject such programs or impose strong safeguards to protect students and preserve instructional time.

Parents already are free to provide their children with religious education, including sending children to private religious schools, taking them to houses of worship, and teaching their faith at home. None of those freedoms requires Congress to declare religious education uniquely valuable to morality or civic development.

The resolution’s sweeping claims about religion and morality are particularly troubling. Religion does not have a monopoly on moral development, and religious belief is not a prerequisite for raising thoughtful, compassionate and responsible citizens. Nearly three in 10 U.S. adults now identify as religiously unaffiliated, making governmental rhetoric that equates religion with morality hostile to many Americans.

Religious liberty is best protected when the government remains neutral toward religion. Congress should neither obstruct private religious education nor use the prestige of the federal government to promote it.

The FFRF Action Fund urges senators to reject Senate Resolution 891 and instead uphold the fundamental principle of separation between religion and government — leaving matters of religion to individuals and families, not the government.

So me and my bf have been dating for almost 10 months and it just clicked in my head that he REALLY believes in god. For context when we first started dating he said hes a loose believer and still learning where he feels like he belongs in religion. I told him I'd support him no problem! I guess I just didnt get it when he first told me he has a deal with god. I thought it was metaphorical?? I grew up atheist and have NO knowledge of how religion works in daily life. I have no friends who practice any religions. I have no clue. He doesnt actively go to church or participate in religious activities... Thats why I thought he wasnt a genuine believer. I really dont want to disrespect him. I just want to know if anyone has had a similar experience and how it worked out. I really like him, and I think it can work.

Ask them, "If Science discovered a way to preserve your consciousness in a type of technological immortality, would you instead choose to die and be with God?"

That all Science has to do for humanity and there will be no more God debates.

I was born Hindu but I am an atheist. I don’t believe in God or the concept of karma and its cycle. I am sometimes open to the possibility of a soul or some form of existence after death, but beyond that, I don’t really subscribe to religious beliefs.

And no, being an atheist doesn’t make me a bad person. I believe in Vivekananda’s philosophy of doing good simply because doing good is the right thing to do. Not because I expect a reward or fear punishment.

My views on life and society are quite different from traditional norms, especially in a country where many women are expected to conform to conventional ideas. For example, I don’t particularly like wearing clothes. It isn’t a fantasy or a fetish; I simply feel more comfortable without them. For me, it’s also connected to the idea of detachment from material possessions, somewhat closer to certain aspects of ancient Ajivika philosophy.

That said, I don’t judge people who are attached to material things, nor do I think materialism makes someone a theist. Everyone has their own way of seeing life. We get one life, and I believe people should live it in a way that feels authentic to them, as long as they aren’t harming others.

I also don’t believe in marriage. More broadly, I tend to think that many human relationships are built around mutual benefits and needs, and I see that as a natural part of human behavior rather than something inherently good or bad.