Finally Some Anti-Atheist Jokes

How many atheists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

–About a hundred, since only 1 in 99 will prefer the light

What did one atheist say to the other atheist in the foxhole?

–I wonder when the fighting is going to start?

How many wars have been started/caused by religion?

–Let’s take warlike America as our case study…  Answer:  NONE!

The history of America proves you don’t need religious conflict to start a good war. ‘Cuz we’re advanced.

What did the atheist say when he finally met God?

–Oh good, I was wrong

What did the True Believer say when he met God?

–Oh shit, I was really wrong!

One day, an atheist was struggling with his moral conscience over what to do in a particularly ugly situation.  Then he remembered there’s no God and no accountability so fuck it! Wheh-hew!

Why are atheists so smart?

–They’re constantly reevaluating.

Why do atheists live in cities?

–Because they’re all they got.

Why are atheists more virtuous than theists?

–Guilty conscience.

Did you hear that Science disproves God?

–Sure, just take Boyle’s law, multiply it against Bernoulli’s Principle, divide by the second law of thermodynamics, add in General Relativity and Mendel’s laws of inheritance and you’ll find a dead god in the bottom of your test-tube every time.

Alan Brech 2012

Why Windows Wear Clothes: a product name “opposition research” paper ultimately discounted by Bill Gates

Windows is a bad name for a product. Looking at a window either means you’re indoors bored or you’re outdoors pervin’.  Oh yeah, and they break.

Windows are too much like people.  They get dirty.  They get fat under high humidity and lack of exercise.  Windows need clothes.  What else in the house besides you needs to wear a frilly skirt all the time?

Windows need blinds and curtains and screens and tinting and locks and alarms and brave-but-doomed men to scrub them 200 feet in the air.

And glass isn’t even a reliable solid–pure science tells us it’s just a lazy-ass liquid that hasn’t gotten around to spilling yet.

How much human blood has been shed over glass?  (None by me–I think with my feet, thank you.  But other people.  Oafs.)

And don’t forget Kristallnacht.  Those were windows.

Instructive riddle:  What’s the opposite of “safety glass?”


Windows are for prisoners. And un-adopted puppies.  For annoying insects that want to invade at night.

Successful executives turn their backs on windows in order to do their best desk-work.  By contrast, I was only a B+ student because of windows.

Boats won’t even call their windows windows, that’s how bad a name windows has.

The happiest people on earth in the pre-modern era–the Eskimo, Navajo, Plains Indians, Arab Bedouins, and Siberians–all lived without windows.  Now they’re miserable.

The Anasazi had windows and disappeared.  Because they knew.

Scientific instruments (microscopes, telescopes, etc.) only use windows that are round and curved and distorted–i.e., useful only to the extent that they do not function like a normal “good” window.  Give a scientist a rectangular plane of perfectly flat glass and he’ll say “What they fuck am I going to do with this?”

Windows kill birds.  They make us look fat.  They’re the weakest part of the bathysphere. They look creepy on old abandoned houses.  They look even creepier on some old un-abandoned houses!

Worst of all, having big ones supposedly prevents you from throwing those helpful stones your neighbors need to improve their lives or just leave.

The greatest looking-out-the-window thought was never recorded, but if it had been, it probably wouldn’t have been much better than “I bet it’s also raining on the houses of the unjust… Man, I wish they’d move out!”

People think they like windows. They don’t. They just hate walls more.  And that’s why windows wear clothes.

Alan Brech 2012

From the Annals of Linguistic History

The first person to ever use the grammatically passive voice was joking his way out of guilt.  He got a huge laugh and from then on people not only retold the joke (” ‘The sword– went through him! Ha ha ha!“) they also marveled at his avoidance of appropriate punishment (“Everyone in the mead hall was laughing their breath away! Or rather, I should say, ‘the floor of the mead hall had everyone rolling on it laughing!’ Everyone except the accused, who walked by!”).

Over time, the passive voice became less funny and less exculpatory until it is now considered a normal part of language for people who are obviously guilty or fuzzy.

The future imperfect tense also began as a joke, repeated not so much for any famed hilarity but for its perpetual usefulness.  “By the next moon, I will have begun to repay my debt in full.  And you can take that to the bank!”

More Barely-Burlesqued Quotations and Paraphrases from a Reputedly Great History of Western Culture (Part 3)

From Jacques Barzun’s Dawn to Decadence:  500 Years of Western Cultural Life (c. 2000).  See posts from May 24th and May 30th for Parts I and II.  Annotations are printed in italics.

• When the world gets Romanticist, and becomes less Classicist, that’s when we get Tacitus back at us (pp. 9, 247, 295, and 503).

• England has not had an English king since 1066 (p. 240).

Stupid gits

• Modern manners are an amalgam of the ideals of chivalry and mercantile rigor (p. 245).

Take sneezing for instance:  the “God bless you” part is chivalrous; the failure to offer a cloth handkerchief is mercantile.

• The reasserted Divine Right of Kings in the 17th Century led to the political marginalization of divine institutions (p. 247-248).

So if we just remove the Sanctity from marriage, divorce rates would plummet.

• Absolute power is never really absolute (p. 250).

And yet so many are absolutely corrupt

• Rimbaud, like Rambo, was bent on utter destruction (p. 618-620).

• Sexual liberation and women’s emancipation were parallel and intertwined (p. 626-627).

Men just used women’s lib. to get their freak on.

• There was no such thing as antiques until the 1890’s (p. 600).

• By the 1890’s “there was no such thing as the leisure class” because “everybody is now busy at all times, even on holiday” (p. 595).

Yeah, I feel so sorry for those bastards every time I see them sweating over their I-Phones on Cape Cod.

• History is not really a science (pp. 299, 568-570, and 578). And neither is anthropology (p. 578).

• Nurses were rightly associated with drunkenness and loose morals before Florence Nightingale (p. 580).

‘Reminds me of what old Radical Bill told me back in Gainesville:  “In my vast experience, the liveliest women in bed were nurses and Jewish women.”  If only there were more Jewish nurses…

• Some Westerners became Communist for the sex (p. 747).

• One should not read beyond one’s intelligence (p. 770)

Now he tells me–on page 770!

• Hasty intellectual judgments about scholars from the past are as deplorable as hasty moral judgments about other people in the present (p. 253).


What an asshole…

• Hamlet never vacillated, nor was he indecisive (p. 254).

And Lady MacBeth didn’t have a guilty conscience–she was just OCD.

• Machiavelli was not Machiavellian given his Italian origins (p. 256).

The enz justify the meanness when you’re waist-deep in guidos. Barzun anticipated The Jersey Shore by 10 years.

• The Puritans in England and America were not dour killjoys. They only shut down the theaters because of all the whores and hook-ups (pp. 261-262, and 278).

• Modern democracy originated with the Puritans (pp. 265 and 277).

Shit, that means that Romney’s a shoe-in!

• John Lilburne had prison-glow (p. 268-269). Defoe, the father of modern journalism, also had it (p. 310).

Jesus still has prison-glow…and Cross-glow… and grave-glow…

• It was the Libertarian ideas of the Puritans that led them to persecute each other and everyone else (p. 271)

So vote for Ron Paul!  

And kill everyone else!

• Just because Fundamentalists suppress free thought does not mean that they’re anti-intellectual–persecuting ideas and speech shows that you really care (p. 272).

• Both Ceaser and Cromwell were full of clemency (pp. 274 and 276).

Mao and Stalin were veritable push-overs.

• Converting to Calvinism causes deep psychological depression–e.g. Cromwell and Bunyan (p. 275).

• The old Calvinist/Protestant Head-Trip:

Step 1:  get depressed about your moral salvation

Step 2:  feel morally justified and act semi-evil

  The new Calvinist/Protestant Head-Trip:

Skip step 1  (p. 275).

• Like anti-Communism during the Cold War, “anti-Popery” in England was justified at least until the early 19th Century (p. 276).

I never realized that fragrant flowers and leaves in an open bowl could be so offensive or dangerous.

• The Puritans were big fans of dry-humping, which they called “bundling” (p. 279-281).

• The 13th Century was the real Age of Enlightenment (p. 281).

• The reason the Puritans were so uptight was because they foresaw the modern condition of materialism, atheism and Hobbesianism that so disquiets our current age (p. 282).

• Louis XIV was raised by a single mom (p. 285-286).

Shit, that means Obama’s a shoe-in!

• Nobles used to be rebels, but Louis XIV kept them in line with etiquette and entertainment.  Versailles was so polite and entertaining that “everyone was on tenterhooks” (pp. 286-288, and 296).

• Versailles was constructed to get away from the mobs and intellectuals of Paris (p. 287-288).

They could have just moved to Florida, I mean, he was the Sun King after all…

• Louis XIV could scan the crowd at Versailles and tell at a glance who was absent (p. 287).

He missed his true calling as a leader of one of those so-called “Million-man marches.”

• Louis XIV only lost his temper twice. His most severe rebuke (besides “Hey, where’s so-and-so?”) was “I was almost kept waiting!” (p. 281-291).

And that’s why he never bothered to get a driver’s license. Or vote. Or shop. Or go out on a second date.

(p. 290:  “He obtained a succession of mistresses without the use of tactics.”)

• Louis XIV’s best mistress (Athenais de Mortemart) was a Satanist. When he shacked up with a truly pious woman (Mme. de Maintenon), his kingdom went to Hell (pp. 291, and 300-301).

• The aristocrats of pre-Revolutionary France were too Germanic (p. 295).

• Modern societies have “recklessly prolonged life” (p. 525)

This from a guy who was born in 1907 and still isn’t dead.

• Regarding the disappearance of court jesters:  the increase in Rationalism at the onset of the Monarchical Age (1648–1789) meant the end of the role of “the inspired idiot” (p. 302).


Alan Brech, 2012

Bud and Lou Go to Grad School for Cognitive Psychology

Background information:  In October 2010, Professor Jeanine Hoo espoused a new psychological theory of cognition called What Theory (i.e., cognition as primarily interrogatory in nature). Its detractors were led by Professor Ronald Hizz, many of whom subscribed to alternative views referred to as That Theory (knowledge as primarily indicative), of which Hizz Theory, as it was called, was one of the leading doctrines.

Needless to say, this made for some unfortunate misunderstandings when the unprepared Lou tried to study with his more well-read friend Bud.

“Now let me get this straight—what is his theory?”

“No, What is Hoo’s theory.”



“Exactly what?”

“Yes, that’s Hoo.”

“Who is who?”

“Of course Hoo is Hoo, and What is the theory.”

“That’s what I’m asking!”

“And I’m telling you.”

“So what is his theory?”

“No, That is Hizz Theory.”


“No, That!  Look, all you have to remember is: That is Hizz Theory and What is Hoo’s Theory. Ok?”

“…. OK, so what is ‘that theory?’”

“No, now you’re mixing it all up. That Theory is not What Theory!”



“–And who’s ‘he’ in all this?”

“Hoo’s a she.’ ”

“’She?’  You said ‘his theory.’ ”

“And I meant Hizz Theory.”

“So who’s ‘she?’ ”



“Yes! I think you’re finally getting it! Like I said, Hoo’s she, Hoo’s What, and That’s Hizz.”

“What is ‘his?’”

“No, now you’ve lost it—What is not Hizz and Hoo’s is not That.”

“I guess I’ll never understand psychology.”


Alan Brech 2012