I freely label myself a heretic, an infidel & a heathen w/out fear because, like the religions they are derived from, those words have absolutely no substance.

I freely label myself a heretic, an infidel & a heathen w/out fear because, like the religions they are derived from, those words have absolutely no substance.

#christian religion creates failure, in the simple sense of not wanting, caring, or even creating enthusiasm to hear the truth. #atheist

 #christian religion creates failure, in the simple sense of not wanting, caring, or even creating enthusiasm to hear the truth. #atheist

I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist;

“I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion, I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.”

—	Christopher Hitchens

an #atheist requires confidence,strong self belief & courage 2 follow yr own path, not follow the herd or status Quo of religion. #christian

an #atheist requires confidence,strong self belief & courage 2 follow yr own path, not follow the herd or status Quo of religion. #christian

agnostic versus atheist

Agnosticism is a position concerning KNOWLEDGE.


a = not or absence of


gnostic (gnosis) = Greek for “knowledge”


An agnostic posits that a god does not exist in the context of human knowledge. What agnostics are doing by taking this position is to attempt to escape the stigma associated with admitting they don’t believe in a god by asserting that there is a “god” which is unknowable. This is worse than saying there is no god because it implies that even proof of a god cannot be admissible because there is no way of knowing of a god and, therefore, no way of knowing of proof of a god. God is completely shut out by the agnostic under the guise of acknowledging a god concept. As such, not a single attribute applied to a god by any religion can be postulated to an agnostic. The agnostic enjoys the benefit of the church having decided that any acknowledgment of a god is better than outright denial. But the agnostic has cleverly denied the existence of a god for GOOD!


Atheism is a position concerning THEOLOGY.


a = not or absence of


theism = belief in a deity or deities


Unlike the agnostic who cannot know of a god which is unknowable, the atheist is open-minded enough to accept demonstrable proof and upon such proof will know of – which is to say believe in – such god or gods. Historically, agnostics are considered more acceptable than atheists because of the false appearance in the acceptance that there is a god. But a god which is impossible to know of is much further away than a god which may be knowable given the proof that an atheist is willing to accept. An atheist who posits the absence of a god and furthers this assertion with the denial of the possibility of there being a god is just as close-minded as the theist in which they oppose. Dogma is dogma no matter which pole the attraction. I am not such an atheist. I am an atheist who does not believe in a god and who seriously doubts that there will ever be proof of the existence of any of the thousands of gods proposed by the human race. Monotheists have also since abandoned the thousands of other gods in exchange for one god. I’ve simply gone one god further than monotheism. This is called atheism. And given acceptable proof, I reserve the right to acknowledge a god or gods.

Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith.

Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
written by Christopher Hitchens

I'm not a proponent of "materialism"

personally..im not a proponent of "materialism" - that is..while many of my views may be consistent with that philosophy..i hold no philosophical position about how the universe is made up..if the evidence is reliable enough to demonstrate that there is something other than matter/energy that interacts with this universe..then I have no problem accepting that..i just have not been provided evidence that there's this immaterial (not matter/energy) stuff out there...

I've invented a weapon that kills god's. But, like gods it's invisible too so it will be tough to file a patent for it

I've invented a weapon that kills god's. But, like gods it's invisible too so it will be tough to file a patent for it

How absurd that a god wld become human 2 sacrifice himself 2 himself just 2 create a loophole 4 a rule that he created. #atheist #christian

How absurd that a god wld become human 2 sacrifice himself 2 himself just 2 create a loophole 4 a rule that he created. #atheist #christian

“Avoiding offense means that we don’t accept each other as equals.” ~Ayaan Hirsi Ali

“Avoiding offense means that we don’t accept each other as equals.” ~Ayaan Hirsi Ali

 definitive refutations of the ontological argument



1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.


2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator

.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.


4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.


5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.


6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.


Ergo:

7 God does not exist.

definitive refutations of the ontological argument

 definitive refutations of the ontological argument

1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.

2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator
.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.

4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.

5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.

Ergo:

7 God does not exist.

definitive refutations of the ontological argument

 definitive refutations of the ontological argument

1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.

2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator
.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.

4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.

5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.

Ergo:

7 God does not exist.

hitchens faith stalin hitler reason

Wiener: I know you’ve often been told that everybody has faith in something—for most Americans, it’s Jesus; for you, it’s reason and science.

Hitchens: That’s not faith, by definition.  You can’t have faith in reason.  It’s not a dogma.  It’s a conviction that this is the only way that discovery and progress can be made.

Wiener: The intelligent person’s argument for religion is that religion and rationality don’t compete—they deal with different parts of life.  Religion answers questions that science doesn’t: Why do the innocent suffer? What is the meaning of life?  What happens when we die?  

Hitchens: I wish it was true.  But, in fact, religion doesn’t keep its part of the bargain here.  It incessantly seeks to limit first discoveries and innovation in science and then their application.  Galileo, of course, but more recently discoveries about the possibilities of limiting the size of your family.  Really, they don’t want us to reconsider our place in the universe, because if we face the fact that we live on a tiny speck in an immense universe, it’s going to be difficult to convince people it was all created with that tiny speck in mind.  It’s not possible to believe that nonsense if you have any interest in science.

Wiener: The final killer argument of your critics is that Hitler and Stalin were not religious.  The worst crimes of the 20th century did not have a religious basis.  They came from political ideology.

Hitchens: That’s easy. Hitler never abandoned Christianity and recommends Catholicism quite highly in “Mein Kampf.”  Fascism, as distinct from National Socialism, was in effect a Catholic movement.  

Wiener: What about Stalin?  He wasn’t religious.

Hitchens: Stalin—easier still.  For hundreds of years, millions of Russians had been told the head of state should be a man close to God, the czar, who was head of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as absolute despot.  If you’re Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you can’t exploit the pool of servility and docility that’s ready-made for you.  The task of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity.  No society has gone the way of gulags or concentration camps by following the path of Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine.

The bible is a collaboration of stories written by naive, uneducated old men. At least we have evidence of that.

The bible is a collaboration of stories written by naive, uneducated old men. At least we have evidence of that.

god description - a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'

a supernatural creator that is
'appropriate for us to worship'

Constitutionality of birth control mandate

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As long as you're a #christian you will be seen as a slave to demons of your own making, but beyond your control. #atheist

As long as you're a #christian you will be seen as a slave to demons of your own making, but beyond your control. #atheist

You'll never find a dead Christian in a foxhole who didn't pray

You'll never find a dead Christian in a foxhole who didn't pray

I Don't have to be threatened with hell nor do I need to be rewarded with heaven to be a good person

I Don't have to be threatened with hell nor do I need to be rewarded with heaven to be a good person

U could claim that anything's real if the only basis 4 believing in it is that nobodys proved it doesnt exist #atheist #christian #teamjesus

U could claim that anything's real if the only basis 4 believing in it is that nobodys proved it doesnt exist #atheist #christian #teamjesus

What is so deceptive about the state of mind of the members of a society is the "consensual validation" of their concepts. It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas of feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing is further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing whatsoever on reason or mental health. Just as there is "folie a deux" there is "folie a millions". The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane. — Eric Fromm The sane society

What is so deceptive about the state of mind of the members of a society is the "consensual validation" of their concepts. It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas of feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing is further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing whatsoever on reason or mental health. Just as there is "folie a deux" there is "folie a millions". The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane.

— Eric Fromm

The sane society

 http://www.antarchia.org/en/content/folie-millions

tolerance of the religious intolerance is the same as cowardice...your silence makes U an accomplice 2 the injustice

tolerance of the religious intolerance is the same as cowardice...your silence makes U an accomplice 2 the injustice

Fundamentalist Christians ‘spanked’ daughter to death | Raw Replay

Fundamentalist Christians ‘spanked’ daughter to death | Raw Replay