Thursday, July 28, 2011
twitter accounts to key republican congressman on the debt ceiling vote
@RepKevinYoder @Rep_Joe_Wilson @USRepJoeWilson @RepWestmoreland @RepMikeTurner @RepStutzman @RepTimScott @RepDavid @TomRooney @DennyRehberg @benquayle @DevinNunes @CongJeffMiller @RepTomMarino @RepMcClintock @LandryForLA @TomLatham @Raul_Labrador @JackKingston @RepWalterJones @RepHuizenga @RepHultgren @RepMGriffith @RepTrentFranks @RepChuck @RepDanBurton @CongressmanDan @michaelcburgess @RepKevinBrady @Quico_Canseco @DesJarlaisTN04 @RepFincherTN08 @RepJoeBarton @RepJeanSchmidt
Monday, July 25, 2011
Without proof, your god is no different from an imaginary friend, wishful thinking, delusion or no god whatsoever.
Without proof, your god is no different from an imaginary friend, wishful thinking, delusion or no god whatsoever.
christians don't have morality christians don't have morality. Instead, they have obedience to authority and that's what they use as a substitute for genuine morality. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that it is a poor substitute.
christians don't have morality
christians don't have morality. Instead, they have obedience to authority and that's what they use as a substitute for genuine morality. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that it is a poor substitute.
christians don't have morality. Instead, they have obedience to authority and that's what they use as a substitute for genuine morality. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that it is a poor substitute.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
It cannot be all-just and believe in the idea that guilt can be transferred to someone else. This is not justice, it is obscenity. As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out so eloquently, I can, if I am very generous, take your punishment on your behalf, but I can never assume your responsibility for the crime. To do so would be to undermine the very basis of morality, which assumes that we are responsible for our own actions.
It cannot be all-just and believe in the idea that guilt can be transferred to someone else. This is not justice, it is obscenity. As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out so eloquently, I can, if I am very generous, take your punishment on your behalf, but I can never assume your responsibility for the crime. To do so would be to undermine the very basis of morality, which assumes that we are responsible for our own actions.
How can I make such a definitive statement? It is because, unlike some deist god who doesn’t intervene in the universe and whose existence or non-existence would therefore be entirely untestable, the Christian god is pretty clearly defined.
Since you write 'God’ with a capital G, I assume you are thinking of the Christian god? If so, I am absolutely certain it does not exist.
How can I make such a definitive statement? It is because, unlike some deist god who doesn’t intervene in the universe and whose existence or non-existence would therefore be entirely untestable, the Christian god is pretty clearly defined.
It is all-powerful
It is all-loving
It is all-knowing
It is all-just
It is the source of absolute morality
It created our universe and everything in it, including everything that lives
It is omni-present
It longs to be known and for us to believe in it
It answers prayers
It occasionally performs miracles
It heals
It was incarnated by means of a virgin
It died and was resurrected 3 days later
In so doing, it absolved us of all guilt for our 'sins’, provided we believe it has
It will judge us all, and those who pass muster (i.e. who believe that their sins have been forgiven through the death and resurrection of Jesus) will spend eternity in heaven and those who don’t (i.e. who don’t believe …) will spend eternity in hell.
And probably more besides. This gives us a lot of claims that are testable, by empirical experiment and by logic. If such a god existed, it should be possible to demonstrate the fact, because there is plenty here to work with. But the fact is, such a god fails at every turn.
Prayers demonstrably do not get answered more than we would expect through sheer chance.
Faith healing demonstrably does not work more than we would expect through sheer chance and placebo effect.
Alleged miracles are always totally lacking in reliable evidence.
Even theologians have acknowledged that this god cannot be all-knowing AND all-powerful AND all-loving because otherwise there simply could not be so much suffering in the world.
Evidence shows that living forms were not created but evolved; any suggestion that God drove the process of evolution would again immediately categorically contradict the characteristics of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, since evolution proceeds through the application of cruelty (remember: evolution is a statement of reality, not of desirability).
It cannot both long to be known and be all powerful and all knowing and yet STILL remain hidden to us
It cannot be just and yet consign any living being to eternal hell (no one – LITERALLY no one) has ever been so bad as to make that a just and commensurate punishment; and a punishment that isn’t proportionate to the crime is by definition unjust).
For the same reason it cannot be all-loving.
It cannot be all-just and believe in the idea that guilt can be transferred to someone else. This is not justice, it is obscenity. As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out so eloquently, I can, if I am very generous, take your punishment on your behalf, but I can never assume your responsibility for the crime. To do so would be to undermine the very basis of morality, which assumes that we are responsible for our own actions.
Morality has been shown to be a) not absolute and b) not to be remotely dependent on any deity but to have evolved and been shaped through entirely natural processes.
And so I could go on. The Christian God is logically impossible. I cannot say with absolute confidence that there is nothing out there that we might conceivably call a god (though there is not the slightest evidence for one and therefore I don’t believe in one); but even if there were, it could not POSSIBLY be the Christian one. The Christian one is impossible, by its own definition.
How can I make such a definitive statement? It is because, unlike some deist god who doesn’t intervene in the universe and whose existence or non-existence would therefore be entirely untestable, the Christian god is pretty clearly defined.
It is all-powerful
It is all-loving
It is all-knowing
It is all-just
It is the source of absolute morality
It created our universe and everything in it, including everything that lives
It is omni-present
It longs to be known and for us to believe in it
It answers prayers
It occasionally performs miracles
It heals
It was incarnated by means of a virgin
It died and was resurrected 3 days later
In so doing, it absolved us of all guilt for our 'sins’, provided we believe it has
It will judge us all, and those who pass muster (i.e. who believe that their sins have been forgiven through the death and resurrection of Jesus) will spend eternity in heaven and those who don’t (i.e. who don’t believe …) will spend eternity in hell.
And probably more besides. This gives us a lot of claims that are testable, by empirical experiment and by logic. If such a god existed, it should be possible to demonstrate the fact, because there is plenty here to work with. But the fact is, such a god fails at every turn.
Prayers demonstrably do not get answered more than we would expect through sheer chance.
Faith healing demonstrably does not work more than we would expect through sheer chance and placebo effect.
Alleged miracles are always totally lacking in reliable evidence.
Even theologians have acknowledged that this god cannot be all-knowing AND all-powerful AND all-loving because otherwise there simply could not be so much suffering in the world.
Evidence shows that living forms were not created but evolved; any suggestion that God drove the process of evolution would again immediately categorically contradict the characteristics of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, since evolution proceeds through the application of cruelty (remember: evolution is a statement of reality, not of desirability).
It cannot both long to be known and be all powerful and all knowing and yet STILL remain hidden to us
It cannot be just and yet consign any living being to eternal hell (no one – LITERALLY no one) has ever been so bad as to make that a just and commensurate punishment; and a punishment that isn’t proportionate to the crime is by definition unjust).
For the same reason it cannot be all-loving.
It cannot be all-just and believe in the idea that guilt can be transferred to someone else. This is not justice, it is obscenity. As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out so eloquently, I can, if I am very generous, take your punishment on your behalf, but I can never assume your responsibility for the crime. To do so would be to undermine the very basis of morality, which assumes that we are responsible for our own actions.
Morality has been shown to be a) not absolute and b) not to be remotely dependent on any deity but to have evolved and been shaped through entirely natural processes.
And so I could go on. The Christian God is logically impossible. I cannot say with absolute confidence that there is nothing out there that we might conceivably call a god (though there is not the slightest evidence for one and therefore I don’t believe in one); but even if there were, it could not POSSIBLY be the Christian one. The Christian one is impossible, by its own definition.
THE ULTIMATE BOEING 747
The argument from improbability is the big one. In the traditional
guise of the argument from design, it is easily today's most popular
argument offered in favour of the existence of God and it is seen,
by an amazingly large number of theists, as completely and utterly
convincing. It is indeed a very strong and, I suspect, unanswerable
argument - but in precisely the opposite direction from the theist's
intention. The argument from improbability, properly deployed,
comes close to proving that God does not exist. My name for the
statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is
the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.
The name comes from Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing
747 and the scrapyard. I am not sure whether Hoyle ever wrote it
down himself, but it was attributed to him by his close colleague
Chandra Wickramasinghe and is presumably authentic.58 Hoyle
said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater
than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard,
would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747. Others have
borrowed the metaphor to refer to the later evolution of complex
living bodies, where it has a spurious plausibility. The odds against
assembling a fully functioning horse, beetle or ostrich by randomly
shuffling its parts are up there in 747 territory. This, in a nutshell,
is the creationist's favourite argument - an argument that could be
made only by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing
about natural selection: somebody who thinks natural selection is a
theory of chance whereas - in the relevant sense of chance - it is the
opposite.
The creationist misappropriation of the argument from improbability
always takes the same general form, and it doesn't make
any difference if the creationist chooses to masquerade in the
politically expedient fancy dress of 'intelligent design' (ID).* Some
observed phenomenon - often a living creature or one of its more
complex organs, but it could be anything from a molecule up to the
universe itself - is correctly extolled as statistically improbable.
Sometimes the language of information theory is used: the
Darwinian is challenged to explain the source of all the information
Intelligent design has been unkindly described as creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
114 THE G O D D E L U S I O N
in living matter, in the technical sense of information content as a
measure of improbability or 'surprise value'. Or the argument may
invoke the economist's hackneyed motto: there's no such thing as a
free lunch - and Darwinism is accused of trying to get something
for nothing. In fact, as I shall show in this chapter, Darwinian
natural selection is the only known solution to the otherwise unanswerable
riddle of where the information comes from. It turns
out to be the God Hypothesis that tries to get something for
nothing. God tries to have his free lunch and be it too. However
statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking
a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable.
God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.
The argument from improbability states that complex things
could not have come about by chance. But many people define
'come about by chance' as a synonym for 'come about in the
absence of deliberate design'. Not surprisingly, therefore, they think
improbability is evidence of design. Darwinian natural selection
shows how wrong this is with respect to biological improbability.
And although Darwinism may not be directly relevant to the
inanimate world - cosmology, for example - it raises our
consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology.
A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the
easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and
teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing
complexity. Before Darwin, philosophers such as Hume understood
that the improbability of life did not mean it had to be designed,
but they couldn't imagine the alternative. After Darwin, we all
should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design.
The illusion of design is a trap that has caught us before, and
Darwin should have immunized us by raising our consciousness.
Would that he had succeeded with all of us.
The argument from improbability is the big one. In the traditional
guise of the argument from design, it is easily today's most popular
argument offered in favour of the existence of God and it is seen,
by an amazingly large number of theists, as completely and utterly
convincing. It is indeed a very strong and, I suspect, unanswerable
argument - but in precisely the opposite direction from the theist's
intention. The argument from improbability, properly deployed,
comes close to proving that God does not exist. My name for the
statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is
the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.
The name comes from Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing
747 and the scrapyard. I am not sure whether Hoyle ever wrote it
down himself, but it was attributed to him by his close colleague
Chandra Wickramasinghe and is presumably authentic.58 Hoyle
said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater
than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard,
would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747. Others have
borrowed the metaphor to refer to the later evolution of complex
living bodies, where it has a spurious plausibility. The odds against
assembling a fully functioning horse, beetle or ostrich by randomly
shuffling its parts are up there in 747 territory. This, in a nutshell,
is the creationist's favourite argument - an argument that could be
made only by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing
about natural selection: somebody who thinks natural selection is a
theory of chance whereas - in the relevant sense of chance - it is the
opposite.
The creationist misappropriation of the argument from improbability
always takes the same general form, and it doesn't make
any difference if the creationist chooses to masquerade in the
politically expedient fancy dress of 'intelligent design' (ID).* Some
observed phenomenon - often a living creature or one of its more
complex organs, but it could be anything from a molecule up to the
universe itself - is correctly extolled as statistically improbable.
Sometimes the language of information theory is used: the
Darwinian is challenged to explain the source of all the information
Intelligent design has been unkindly described as creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
114 THE G O D D E L U S I O N
in living matter, in the technical sense of information content as a
measure of improbability or 'surprise value'. Or the argument may
invoke the economist's hackneyed motto: there's no such thing as a
free lunch - and Darwinism is accused of trying to get something
for nothing. In fact, as I shall show in this chapter, Darwinian
natural selection is the only known solution to the otherwise unanswerable
riddle of where the information comes from. It turns
out to be the God Hypothesis that tries to get something for
nothing. God tries to have his free lunch and be it too. However
statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking
a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable.
God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.
The argument from improbability states that complex things
could not have come about by chance. But many people define
'come about by chance' as a synonym for 'come about in the
absence of deliberate design'. Not surprisingly, therefore, they think
improbability is evidence of design. Darwinian natural selection
shows how wrong this is with respect to biological improbability.
And although Darwinism may not be directly relevant to the
inanimate world - cosmology, for example - it raises our
consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology.
A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the
easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and
teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing
complexity. Before Darwin, philosophers such as Hume understood
that the improbability of life did not mean it had to be designed,
but they couldn't imagine the alternative. After Darwin, we all
should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design.
The illusion of design is a trap that has caught us before, and
Darwin should have immunized us by raising our consciousness.
Would that he had succeeded with all of us.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The easy confidence w/ which the #christian knows other religions are false shld condition them 2 question their own..but it doesnt #atheist
The easy confidence w/ which the #christian knows other religions are false shld condition them 2 question their own..but it doesnt #atheist
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Belief, Disbelief, and Denial: Disbelief is Not the Same as Denial Atheist Disbelief in Gods Isn't Always Denial of Gods
Belief, Disbelief, and Denial: Disbelief is Not the Same as Denial
Atheist Disbelief in Gods Isn't Always Denial of Gods
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Atheists who try to explain what atheism is and is not encounter significant hurdles created by the failure of so many people to understand basic terms like belief, disbelief, knowledge, and faith. Atheists can't expect people to truly comprehend how atheism is the absence of belief in gods if they don't understand how belief differs from knowledge or how disbelief differs from denial. Atheists who can explain these basic concepts may find it easier to have productive discussions with theists.
The Terms of Debate
What is Belief?1 A belief is the mental attitude that some proposition is true. For every given proposition, every person either has or lacks the mental attitude that it is true. Beliefs may be stronger or weaker, based on evidence or not, reasonable or irrational. Beliefs are a mental representation of the world around you — a belief about the world is the mental attitude that world is structured in some way rather than another. Beliefs are the foundation for action: if you believe something is true, you must be willing to act as if it were true; if you are unwilling to act as thought it were true, you can't really claim to believe it. This is why actions can matter much more than words.
What is Faith?2 Faith can be defined in religious contexts as a type of belief or as trust. Faith as belief is belief without evidence or knowledge. Christians using the term to describe their own beliefs are supposed to be using in the same was a Paul: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." [Hebrews 11:1] Faith as trust can be trusting that one is taught the truth or trusting that God will fulfill the promises made in the Bible.
What is Knowledge?3 Knowledge is a justified, true belief. To know something, the following three conditions must be true: you must believe it, it must be true, and your belief must be justified. A true belief that is not justified is not knowledge. A false belief that is very justified is not knowledge. Everything you know you necessarily also believe, but not knowing doesn't mean not believing — your belief simply doesn't rise to the state of knowledge.
What is Disbelief?4 Disbelief can be defined broadly as simply not believing or the absence of belief and narrowly as the rejection of belief. The broader sense of disbelief applies when someone lacks the mental attitude that some proposition is true for any reason — including ignorance of the proposition. The narrower sense applies when someone is aware of the proposition but is unable to form the mental attitude that it is true, for example not understanding it or not having enough evidence to accept it. By implication, a person who disbelieves in the narrower sense also disbelieves in the broader sense.
What is Denial? Denial is the positive assertion that some proposition is false and the contradictory is true. A person who denies a proposition does not believe it is true but does believe that the contradictory is true. They may or may not know that the original proposition is false; they may or may not know that the contradictory is true. By implication, a person who denies a proposition disbelieves the proposition in both the broader and narrower senses.
Applying the Concepts
Not Believing vs. Believing Not5: Many have trouble comprehending that "not believing X" doesn't mean the same as "believing not X." The placement of the negative is key: the first means not having the mental attitude that proposition X is true, the second means having the mental attitude that proposition X is false (or put another way, that the contradictory proposition is true). The difference here is between disbelief and denial: the first is disbelief in the broad or narrow sense whereas the second is denial.
What is Theism?6 Theism is the assertion that at least one god of some sort exists; it is the mental attitude that the proposition "at least one god exists" is true. It's not necessarily knowledge. It's not necessarily unwavering. It might be one god or many gods; it might be a personal or an impersonal god. Because there is no middle ground between the presence of a belief and the absence of a belief, everyone is either a theist or not.
What is Atheism?7 A-theism is the disbelief that at least one god exists; it is the absence of the mental attitude that the proposition "at least one god exists" is true. An atheist may claim to know that it is not true but they don't have to. An atheist may claim to know that some types of gods exist but not claim such knowledge about other gods. An atheist may disbelieve because of evidence and logic or because they were indoctrinated.
What is Agnosticism?8 Agnosticism is the absence of knowledge of whether any gods exist or not; an agnostic does not claim to know if the proposition "at least one god exists" is true or false. Because knowledge and belief are separate issues, a lack of knowledge is compatible with both belief and disbelief. An agnostic can believe without claiming to know or not believe without claiming to know. Because there is no middle ground between the presence or absence of knowledge, everyone is either an agnostic or not.
Atheist Disbelief in Gods Isn't Always Denial of Gods
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Atheists who try to explain what atheism is and is not encounter significant hurdles created by the failure of so many people to understand basic terms like belief, disbelief, knowledge, and faith. Atheists can't expect people to truly comprehend how atheism is the absence of belief in gods if they don't understand how belief differs from knowledge or how disbelief differs from denial. Atheists who can explain these basic concepts may find it easier to have productive discussions with theists.
The Terms of Debate
What is Belief?1 A belief is the mental attitude that some proposition is true. For every given proposition, every person either has or lacks the mental attitude that it is true. Beliefs may be stronger or weaker, based on evidence or not, reasonable or irrational. Beliefs are a mental representation of the world around you — a belief about the world is the mental attitude that world is structured in some way rather than another. Beliefs are the foundation for action: if you believe something is true, you must be willing to act as if it were true; if you are unwilling to act as thought it were true, you can't really claim to believe it. This is why actions can matter much more than words.
What is Faith?2 Faith can be defined in religious contexts as a type of belief or as trust. Faith as belief is belief without evidence or knowledge. Christians using the term to describe their own beliefs are supposed to be using in the same was a Paul: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." [Hebrews 11:1] Faith as trust can be trusting that one is taught the truth or trusting that God will fulfill the promises made in the Bible.
What is Knowledge?3 Knowledge is a justified, true belief. To know something, the following three conditions must be true: you must believe it, it must be true, and your belief must be justified. A true belief that is not justified is not knowledge. A false belief that is very justified is not knowledge. Everything you know you necessarily also believe, but not knowing doesn't mean not believing — your belief simply doesn't rise to the state of knowledge.
What is Disbelief?4 Disbelief can be defined broadly as simply not believing or the absence of belief and narrowly as the rejection of belief. The broader sense of disbelief applies when someone lacks the mental attitude that some proposition is true for any reason — including ignorance of the proposition. The narrower sense applies when someone is aware of the proposition but is unable to form the mental attitude that it is true, for example not understanding it or not having enough evidence to accept it. By implication, a person who disbelieves in the narrower sense also disbelieves in the broader sense.
What is Denial? Denial is the positive assertion that some proposition is false and the contradictory is true. A person who denies a proposition does not believe it is true but does believe that the contradictory is true. They may or may not know that the original proposition is false; they may or may not know that the contradictory is true. By implication, a person who denies a proposition disbelieves the proposition in both the broader and narrower senses.
Applying the Concepts
Not Believing vs. Believing Not5: Many have trouble comprehending that "not believing X" doesn't mean the same as "believing not X." The placement of the negative is key: the first means not having the mental attitude that proposition X is true, the second means having the mental attitude that proposition X is false (or put another way, that the contradictory proposition is true). The difference here is between disbelief and denial: the first is disbelief in the broad or narrow sense whereas the second is denial.
What is Theism?6 Theism is the assertion that at least one god of some sort exists; it is the mental attitude that the proposition "at least one god exists" is true. It's not necessarily knowledge. It's not necessarily unwavering. It might be one god or many gods; it might be a personal or an impersonal god. Because there is no middle ground between the presence of a belief and the absence of a belief, everyone is either a theist or not.
What is Atheism?7 A-theism is the disbelief that at least one god exists; it is the absence of the mental attitude that the proposition "at least one god exists" is true. An atheist may claim to know that it is not true but they don't have to. An atheist may claim to know that some types of gods exist but not claim such knowledge about other gods. An atheist may disbelieve because of evidence and logic or because they were indoctrinated.
What is Agnosticism?8 Agnosticism is the absence of knowledge of whether any gods exist or not; an agnostic does not claim to know if the proposition "at least one god exists" is true or false. Because knowledge and belief are separate issues, a lack of knowledge is compatible with both belief and disbelief. An agnostic can believe without claiming to know or not believe without claiming to know. Because there is no middle ground between the presence or absence of knowledge, everyone is either an agnostic or not.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Whenever life's hardships burden me, whenever I struggle to rise and face each day, whenever the clouds of sadness have taken the sunlight from my life... I think about how dumb religious people are and have a bloody good laugh!
Whenever life's hardships burden me, whenever I struggle to rise and face each day, whenever the clouds of sadness have taken the sunlight from my life... I think about how dumb religious people are and have a bloody good laugh!
Even Scientology is more credible than christianity, at least we can prove its creator existed
Even Scientology is more credible than christianity,
at least we can prove its creator existed
at least we can prove its creator existed
There is a good reason why the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment establishes a "wall of separation" between religion and government. You don't see any laws establishing such a wall between science and government do you?
There is a good reason why the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment establishes a "wall of separation" between religion and government. You don't see any laws establishing such a wall between science and government do you?
The difference between truth and god is that truth will always be there, and god never is
The difference between truth and god is that truth will always be there, and god never is
Thursday, June 23, 2011
there are easily and quickly 2 reasons we talk about god...though we don’t believe in god, we certainly believe in christians. They’re everywhere, it seems. And while most of them are harmless, a number of them are annoying… or worse. Much worse. They bomb abortion clinics. They do their best to hinder the advancement of science and the arts. They elect candidates based not on their competency, but on whether “he prays” (and says so more often than his opponent). They try to interfere — and get laws to do it — in the sexual lives of consenting adults. They ban stem cell research and contraceptives, thus condemning millions around the world to disease and suffering, because of books written by primitive desert nomads thousands of years ago. So, yes, christians are a problem. and Wouldn’t you try to help someone descending into alcoholism? Wouldn’t you care if you saw someone destroying their lives because of booze? Well, in a way, religion is like alcoholism. It attacks the mind, the power of reasoning, it makes people believe in absurd things. It destroys lives – both of the alcoholic / believer, and often those of their family, too. So it’s natural that some of us care — even about strangers. We don’t think we’ll ever “unconvert” fundamentalists; by definition, they’ve long stopped thinking about their belief critically — indeed, they believe that doing so would be a sin. But some people may be at a “crossroads”, so to speak. They may believe simply because they’ve never thought about it; everyone around them believes unquestioningly, and they’ve never even heard of an alternative. So maybe an atheist can make a difference.
there are easily and quickly 2 reasons we talk about god...though we don’t believe in god, we certainly believe in christians. They’re everywhere, it seems. And while most of them are harmless, a number of them are annoying… or worse. Much worse. They bomb abortion clinics. They do their best to hinder the advancement of science and the arts. They elect candidates based not on their competency, but on whether “he prays” (and says so more often than his opponent). They try to interfere — and get laws to do it — in the sexual lives of consenting adults. They ban stem cell research and contraceptives, thus condemning millions around the world to disease and suffering, because of books written by primitive desert nomads thousands of years ago. So, yes, christians are a problem.
and
Wouldn’t you try to help someone descending into alcoholism? Wouldn’t you care if you saw someone destroying their lives because of booze? Well, in a way, religion is like alcoholism. It attacks the mind, the power of reasoning, it makes people believe in absurd things. It destroys lives – both of the alcoholic / believer, and often those of their family, too. So it’s natural that some of us care — even about strangers. We don’t think we’ll ever “unconvert” fundamentalists; by definition, they’ve long stopped thinking about their belief critically — indeed, they believe that doing so would be a sin. But some people may be at a “crossroads”, so to speak. They may believe simply because they’ve never thought about it; everyone around them believes unquestioningly, and they’ve never even heard of an alternative. So maybe an atheist can make a difference.
and
Wouldn’t you try to help someone descending into alcoholism? Wouldn’t you care if you saw someone destroying their lives because of booze? Well, in a way, religion is like alcoholism. It attacks the mind, the power of reasoning, it makes people believe in absurd things. It destroys lives – both of the alcoholic / believer, and often those of their family, too. So it’s natural that some of us care — even about strangers. We don’t think we’ll ever “unconvert” fundamentalists; by definition, they’ve long stopped thinking about their belief critically — indeed, they believe that doing so would be a sin. But some people may be at a “crossroads”, so to speak. They may believe simply because they’ve never thought about it; everyone around them believes unquestioningly, and they’ve never even heard of an alternative. So maybe an atheist can make a difference.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
To be an Atheist is the ability to embrace & accept the mysterious nature of reality itself.
To be an atheist is the ability to embrace & accept the mysterious nature of reality itself.
Friday, June 17, 2011
and he should not B judged b/c he doesnt want 2 tie invisible chains around his ankles
and he should not B judged b/c he doesnt want 2 tie invisible chains around his ankles
Atheism is not a religion because it does not include god. Nor a dogma, or a theory. Atheism is a state of perception. Atheism is something completely different from religion.
Atheism is not a religion because it does not include god. Nor a dogma, or a theory. Atheism is a state of perception. Atheism is something completely different from religion.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Myth: Atheists are Making a Tactical Mistake by Insulting Religious Theists
Myth: Atheists are Making a Tactical Mistake by Insulting Religious Theists
Should Atheist Try to be More Polite, Less Impolite to Religious Theists?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Myth:
Atheists would be better off not insulting religious believers and theists with their criticisms and attacks on religion, religious beliefs, and theism. Atheists should moderate their rhetoric and stop pushing theists away.
Response:
An increasing popular criticism of atheists today is that they are too rude and insulting to religious theists — this typically goes hand-in-hand with the claims that atheists are "intolerant" and should be more "respectful" of religion, religious beliefs, and theism. According to purveyors of this myth, atheists are just hurting themselves and their own causes by being so rude and impolite. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so atheists should try to moderate their tone.
The primary problem with this claim is how the speaker leaves the concept of "insulting" to open. What exactly is meant by "insulting" here, who is doing it, how is it a problem, and what are the recommended alternatives? Without such information, the recommendation that atheists be more "polite" is little more than an invitation to open-ended self-censorship that could lead to all sorts of things not being said in the supposed interest of politeness.
This is not an idle or superficially semantic issue. Critics of the infamous Danish cartoons of Muhammad1 argued that they were rude and insulting, but without specifying exactly how they should be interpreted as "insulting" or what sorts of alternatives should have been chosen. Plays and books have been censored on the claim that they are "insulting" to "religious sensibilities" — indeed, there are some who argue that there should be no free speech right to say, write, or do anything that "insults" these "religious sensibilities."
Is this what people have in mind when they say that atheists shouldn't be "insulting" — that atheists shouldn't say or do anything which insults religious sensibilities? That's far too broad of a claim to be accepted or taken seriously. Atheistic critiques of religion cannot and should not be held hostage to the vague, unknown, and ever-shifting "religious sensibilities" of whomever might listen or read. This is akin to banning "pornography" where "pornography" is defined as anything that offends "local standards" — something that is unknown in advance and which limits a person's expression to the lowest common denominator wherever their material might be seen or read.
A second problem with the claim being made above is how easily it allows people to ignore the difference between criticism of beliefs and criticism of believers. Saying "religious believers are all stupid" certainly seems to qualify as an insult and I doubt that there are many circumstances where it would be appropriate or acceptable. Saying "theism is irrational and shouldn't be adopted" isn't an insult and isn't inappropriate, but it happens far too often that religious believers interpret this latter comment as if it were functionally equivalent to the former.
It is a serious and ongoing problem for atheists that believers take any negative criticism — never mind very sharp criticism or even ridicule — of religious claims and dogmas in a highly personal manner. This can be understandable, given how important these beliefs can be for people, but it's not legitimate to shut down all such commentary on the assertion that it's "insulting" and therefore inappropriate, illegitimate, and out-of-bounds.
There are of course better and worse ways of saying or putting things, but in the end religious believers cannot object to atheistic criticism of religion, religious beliefs, or theism by insisting that atheists stop being "insulting" and "moderate" their rhetoric. If religious believers really do feel that there is a problem with civility, they are obliged to be very specific about what they consider insulting, why, and what they think the reasonable alternatives are.
Should Atheist Try to be More Polite, Less Impolite to Religious Theists?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Myth:
Atheists would be better off not insulting religious believers and theists with their criticisms and attacks on religion, religious beliefs, and theism. Atheists should moderate their rhetoric and stop pushing theists away.
Response:
An increasing popular criticism of atheists today is that they are too rude and insulting to religious theists — this typically goes hand-in-hand with the claims that atheists are "intolerant" and should be more "respectful" of religion, religious beliefs, and theism. According to purveyors of this myth, atheists are just hurting themselves and their own causes by being so rude and impolite. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so atheists should try to moderate their tone.
The primary problem with this claim is how the speaker leaves the concept of "insulting" to open. What exactly is meant by "insulting" here, who is doing it, how is it a problem, and what are the recommended alternatives? Without such information, the recommendation that atheists be more "polite" is little more than an invitation to open-ended self-censorship that could lead to all sorts of things not being said in the supposed interest of politeness.
This is not an idle or superficially semantic issue. Critics of the infamous Danish cartoons of Muhammad1 argued that they were rude and insulting, but without specifying exactly how they should be interpreted as "insulting" or what sorts of alternatives should have been chosen. Plays and books have been censored on the claim that they are "insulting" to "religious sensibilities" — indeed, there are some who argue that there should be no free speech right to say, write, or do anything that "insults" these "religious sensibilities."
Is this what people have in mind when they say that atheists shouldn't be "insulting" — that atheists shouldn't say or do anything which insults religious sensibilities? That's far too broad of a claim to be accepted or taken seriously. Atheistic critiques of religion cannot and should not be held hostage to the vague, unknown, and ever-shifting "religious sensibilities" of whomever might listen or read. This is akin to banning "pornography" where "pornography" is defined as anything that offends "local standards" — something that is unknown in advance and which limits a person's expression to the lowest common denominator wherever their material might be seen or read.
A second problem with the claim being made above is how easily it allows people to ignore the difference between criticism of beliefs and criticism of believers. Saying "religious believers are all stupid" certainly seems to qualify as an insult and I doubt that there are many circumstances where it would be appropriate or acceptable. Saying "theism is irrational and shouldn't be adopted" isn't an insult and isn't inappropriate, but it happens far too often that religious believers interpret this latter comment as if it were functionally equivalent to the former.
It is a serious and ongoing problem for atheists that believers take any negative criticism — never mind very sharp criticism or even ridicule — of religious claims and dogmas in a highly personal manner. This can be understandable, given how important these beliefs can be for people, but it's not legitimate to shut down all such commentary on the assertion that it's "insulting" and therefore inappropriate, illegitimate, and out-of-bounds.
There are of course better and worse ways of saying or putting things, but in the end religious believers cannot object to atheistic criticism of religion, religious beliefs, or theism by insisting that atheists stop being "insulting" and "moderate" their rhetoric. If religious believers really do feel that there is a problem with civility, they are obliged to be very specific about what they consider insulting, why, and what they think the reasonable alternatives are.
Monday, June 6, 2011
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 solely 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, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically:We are reconciled to living only once, except through our children, for whom we are perfectly happy to notice that we must make way, and room. We speculate that it is at least possible that, once people accepted the fact of their short and struggling lives, they might behave better toward each other and not worse. We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true—that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
We don’t believe in God, but we certainly believe in Christians.
We don’t believe in God, but we certainly believe in Christians. They’re everywhere, it seems. And while most of them are harmless, a number of them are annoying… or worse. Much worse. They bomb abortion clinics. They do their best to hinder the advancement of science and the arts. They elect candidates based not on their competency, but on whether “he prays” (and says so more often than his opponent). They try to interfere — and get laws to do it — in the sexual lives of consenting adults. They ban stem cell research and contraceptives, thus condemning millions around the world to disease and suffering, because of books written by primitive desert nomads thousands of years ago. So, yes, Christians are a problem.
Wouldn’t you try to help someone descending into alcoholism? Wouldn’t you care if you saw someone destroying their lives because of booze? Well, in a way, religion is like alcoholism. It attacks the mind, the power of reasoning, it makes people believe in absurd things. It destroys lives – both of the alcoholic / believer, and often those of their family, too. So it’s natural that some of us care — even about strangers. We don’t think we’ll ever “unconvert” fundamentalists; by definition, they’ve long stopped thinking about their belief critically — indeed, they believe that doing so would be a sin. But some people may be at a “crossroads”, so to speak. They may believe simply because they’ve never thought about it; everyone around them believes unquestioningly, and they’ve never even heard of an alternative. So maybe an atheist can make a difference.
Wouldn’t you try to help someone descending into alcoholism? Wouldn’t you care if you saw someone destroying their lives because of booze? Well, in a way, religion is like alcoholism. It attacks the mind, the power of reasoning, it makes people believe in absurd things. It destroys lives – both of the alcoholic / believer, and often those of their family, too. So it’s natural that some of us care — even about strangers. We don’t think we’ll ever “unconvert” fundamentalists; by definition, they’ve long stopped thinking about their belief critically — indeed, they believe that doing so would be a sin. But some people may be at a “crossroads”, so to speak. They may believe simply because they’ve never thought about it; everyone around them believes unquestioningly, and they’ve never even heard of an alternative. So maybe an atheist can make a difference.
kalam
P1: nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing ex nihilo.
P2: given (1), anything which begins to exist ex nihilo was not caused to do so by something which exists.
P3: the universe began to exist ex nihilo.
P4: given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.
P5: god is defined as a being which caused the universe to begin to exist ex nihilo
C1: given (4) (5), god does not exist by definition.
P2: given (1), anything which begins to exist ex nihilo was not caused to do so by something which exists.
P3: the universe began to exist ex nihilo.
P4: given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.
P5: god is defined as a being which caused the universe to begin to exist ex nihilo
C1: given (4) (5), god does not exist by definition.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Robert M Price exposes William Lane Craig - Part 1 of 2
This is the opening statement of Robert M Price in the debate he had against good old Bill on the historicity of the resurrection. If you want to hear what Craig said, you know very well what to do: go to any of the other debates, you know he allways presents the same arguments.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... Yeah, Christianity makes perfect sense.
The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Yeah, Christianity makes perfect sense.
Yeah, Christianity makes perfect sense.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Becoming an Atheist is the single most rational sane thing that ever happened to me.
Becoming an Atheist is the single most rational sane thing that ever happened to me.
Friday, May 20, 2011
#atheist #christian
#atheist #christian
“The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Abrahamic religion gives strong sanction to both- and mixes explosively with both. Only the willfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all, of the violent enmities in the world today. Without a doubt it is the prime aggravator of the Middle East. Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different now. All is changed, changed utterly.”
— Richard Dawkins
“The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Abrahamic religion gives strong sanction to both- and mixes explosively with both. Only the willfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all, of the violent enmities in the world today. Without a doubt it is the prime aggravator of the Middle East. Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different now. All is changed, changed utterly.”
— Richard Dawkins
Friday, May 13, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
reasons for not agreeing with pascal's wager
Reason 1: In the case where God does not exist, there really is a clear advantage to not believing. In other words, the payoff is not zero. For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying "Okay, I believe now" and getting on with your life. Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well. There's a reason why some towns have very affluent looking buildings for churches, and why large and elaborate cathedrals are possible: they're funded by folks who donate 1/10th of their income throughout their lives to tithing. This is surely quite a waste if the object of worship isn't real. That's to say nothing of the persecution of other groups that's been instigated in the name of God throughout the ages.
Reason 2: Even if you buy into Pascal's wager and decide you should believe, that doesn't give any basis for choosing which religion to believe in. Fundamentalists often use the wager to prove that you should be a Fundamentalist, but of course, Pascal was Catholic and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic! This just highlights the whole problem of which religion is the right one. Since many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are going to go to hell, Pascal's not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the Jews are correct, or perhaps the Muslims, or if reincarnation is right... or worse, if there's a perverse God who only lets atheists into heaven! It's not impossible. For all we know, maybe God exists but he doesn't care at all whether people believe in him.
Reason 3: If you can accept Pascal's wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Maybe if you don't own a complete library of Seinfeld episodes, you'll go to hell! Why not? You don't know. Maybe you have to send $10 a week to the Atheist Community of Austin for life. Hey, what's a measly ten bucks if it will save you from eternal hellfire? Or maybe God really likes nude mud wrestling and he will punish those who do not partake of His gift.
Does all this sound utterly silly to you? Good! That's probably because you know that you should only believe things that have some sort of clear evidence favoring them. You don't believe just any old preposterous claim about UFO's, pyramid shaped get-rich-quick schemes, or magic pixies just because somebody tells you they're true and because there's a chance you might be wrong. You have a brain—use it!
Further reading: "Pascal's Sucker Bet" by "Reverend" Jim Huger
from http://bit.ly/k8ySY2
Reason 2: Even if you buy into Pascal's wager and decide you should believe, that doesn't give any basis for choosing which religion to believe in. Fundamentalists often use the wager to prove that you should be a Fundamentalist, but of course, Pascal was Catholic and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic! This just highlights the whole problem of which religion is the right one. Since many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are going to go to hell, Pascal's not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the Jews are correct, or perhaps the Muslims, or if reincarnation is right... or worse, if there's a perverse God who only lets atheists into heaven! It's not impossible. For all we know, maybe God exists but he doesn't care at all whether people believe in him.
Reason 3: If you can accept Pascal's wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Maybe if you don't own a complete library of Seinfeld episodes, you'll go to hell! Why not? You don't know. Maybe you have to send $10 a week to the Atheist Community of Austin for life. Hey, what's a measly ten bucks if it will save you from eternal hellfire? Or maybe God really likes nude mud wrestling and he will punish those who do not partake of His gift.
Does all this sound utterly silly to you? Good! That's probably because you know that you should only believe things that have some sort of clear evidence favoring them. You don't believe just any old preposterous claim about UFO's, pyramid shaped get-rich-quick schemes, or magic pixies just because somebody tells you they're true and because there's a chance you might be wrong. You have a brain—use it!
Further reading: "Pascal's Sucker Bet" by "Reverend" Jim Huger
from http://bit.ly/k8ySY2
Sunday, May 1, 2011
#christian 's took themselves to the mountain top. Science took the entire world to the moon. #atheist
#christian 's took themselves to the mountain top. Science took the entire world to the moon. #atheist
the #christian religion has never set anyone free, but it has set quite a large number on fire. #atheist
the #christian religion has never set anyone free, but it has set quite a large number on fire. #atheist on fire. #atheist
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
how do you embrace a male god
how do you embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages; and that persecution still goes on today, all over the world.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
#atheists don't have any holidays set aside because every day for an #atheist is a holiday, free from religious bullshit.
#atheists don't have any holidays set aside because every day for an #atheist is a holiday, free from religious bullshit.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
#atheist #christian
Theist to atheist: "Life has no meaning if death is the end... I might as well be DEAD!"
Atheist reply: "Death has no meaning because it's the end of life... so you might as well LIVE!"
Atheist reply: "Death has no meaning because it's the end of life... so you might as well LIVE!"
Friday, April 1, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
christians don't have morality
christians don't have morality. Instead, they have obedience to authority and that's what they use as a substitute for genuine morality. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that it is a poor substitute.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
#atheist #christian #hitchens
Thus the mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still less can they hope to tell us the "meaning" of later discoveries and developments which were, when they began, either obstructed by their religions or denounced by them. And yet—the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything. Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what "he" demands of us—from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know more and more about less and less, yet can still hope for some enlightenment as we proceed, one faction—itself composed of mutually warring factions—has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude "belief" from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
"In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
the likelihood of the second must be weighed against the likelihood of the first.
A miracle is a disturbance or interruption in the expected and established course of things. This could involve anything from the sun rising in the west to an animal suddenly bursting into the recitation of verse. Very well, then, free will also involves decision. If you seem to witness such a thing, there are two possibilities. The first is that the laws of nature have been suspended (in your favor). The second is that you are under a misapprehension, or suffering from a delusion. Thus the likelihood of the second must be weighed against the likelihood of the first. If you only hear a report of the miracle from a second or third party, the odds must be adjusted accordingly before you can decide to credit a witness who claims to have seen something that you did not see. And if you are separated from the "sighting" by many generations, and have no independent corroboration, the odds must be adjusted still more drastically.
according to the New Testament, the thing could be done in an almost commonplace way. Jesus managed it twice in other people's cases, by raising both Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, and nobody seems to have thought it worthwhile to interview either survivor to ask about their extraordinary experiences. Nor does anyone seem to have kept a record of whether or not, or how, these two individuals "died" again. If they stayed immortal, then they joined the ancient company of the "Wandering Jew," who was condemned by early Christianity to keep walking forever after he met Jesus on the Via Dolorosa, this misery being inflicted upon a mere bystander in order to fulfill the otherwise unfulfilled prophecy that Jesus would come again in the lifetime of at least one person who had seen him the first time around. On the same day that Jesus met that luckless vagrant, he was himself put to death with revolting cruelty, at which time, according to the Gospel of Matthew 27:52-53, "the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." This seems incoherent, since the corpses apparently rose both at the time of the death on the cross and of the Resurrection, but it is narrated in the same matter-of-fact way as the earthquake, the rending of the veil of the temple (two other events that did not attract the attention of any historian), and the reverent comments of the Roman centurion.
according to the New Testament, the thing could be done in an almost commonplace way. Jesus managed it twice in other people's cases, by raising both Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, and nobody seems to have thought it worthwhile to interview either survivor to ask about their extraordinary experiences. Nor does anyone seem to have kept a record of whether or not, or how, these two individuals "died" again. If they stayed immortal, then they joined the ancient company of the "Wandering Jew," who was condemned by early Christianity to keep walking forever after he met Jesus on the Via Dolorosa, this misery being inflicted upon a mere bystander in order to fulfill the otherwise unfulfilled prophecy that Jesus would come again in the lifetime of at least one person who had seen him the first time around. On the same day that Jesus met that luckless vagrant, he was himself put to death with revolting cruelty, at which time, according to the Gospel of Matthew 27:52-53, "the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." This seems incoherent, since the corpses apparently rose both at the time of the death on the cross and of the Resurrection, but it is narrated in the same matter-of-fact way as the earthquake, the rending of the veil of the temple (two other events that did not attract the attention of any historian), and the reverent comments of the Roman centurion.
This supposed frequency of resurrection can only undermine the uniqueness of the one by which mankind purchased forgiveness of sins. And there is no cult or religion before or since, from Osiris to vampirism to voodoo, that does not rely on some innate belief in the "undead." To this day, Christians disagree as to whether the day of judgment will give you back the old wreck of a body that has already died on you, or will reequip you in some other form. For now, and on a review even of the claims made by the faithful, one can say that resurrection would not prove the truth of the dead man's doctrine, nor his paternity, nor the probability of still another return in fleshly or recognizable form. Yet again, also, too much is being "proved." The action of a man who volunteers to die for his fellow creatures is universally regarded as noble. The extra claim not to have "really" died makes the whole sacrifice tricky and meretricious. (Thus, those who say "Christ died for my sins," when he did not really "die" at all, are making a statement that is false in its own terms.) Having no reliable or consistent witnesses, in anything like the time period needed to certify such an extraordinary claim, we are finally entitled to say that we have a right, if not an obligation, to respect ourselves enough to disbelieve the whole thing. That is, unless or until superior evidence is presented, which it has not been. And exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.
Monday, February 21, 2011
why talk about god/christians if we dont believe in god...
there are easily and quickly 2 reasons we talk about god...though we don’t believe in god, we certainly believe in christians. They’re everywhere, it seems. And while most of them are harmless, a number of them are annoying… or worse. Much worse. They bomb abortion clinics. They do their best to hinder the advancement of science and the arts. They elect candidates based not on their competency, but on whether “he prays” (and says so more often than his opponent). They try to interfere — and get laws to do it — in the sexual lives of consenting adults. They ban stem cell research and contraceptives, thus condemning millions around the world to disease and suffering, because of books written by primitive desert nomads thousands of years ago. So, yes, christians are a problem.
and
Wouldn’t you try to help someone descending into alcoholism? Wouldn’t you care if you saw someone destroying their lives because of booze? Well, in a way, religion is like alcoholism. It attacks the mind, the power of reasoning, it makes people believe in absurd things. It destroys lives – both of the alcoholic / believer, and often those of their family, too. So it’s natural that some of us care — even about strangers. We don’t think we’ll ever “unconvert” fundamentalists; by definition, they’ve long stopped thinking about their belief critically — indeed, they believe that doing so would be a sin. But some people may be at a “crossroads”, so to speak. They may believe simply because they’ve never thought about it; everyone around them believes unquestioningly, and they’ve never even heard of an alternative. So maybe an atheist can make a difference.
and
Wouldn’t you try to help someone descending into alcoholism? Wouldn’t you care if you saw someone destroying their lives because of booze? Well, in a way, religion is like alcoholism. It attacks the mind, the power of reasoning, it makes people believe in absurd things. It destroys lives – both of the alcoholic / believer, and often those of their family, too. So it’s natural that some of us care — even about strangers. We don’t think we’ll ever “unconvert” fundamentalists; by definition, they’ve long stopped thinking about their belief critically — indeed, they believe that doing so would be a sin. But some people may be at a “crossroads”, so to speak. They may believe simply because they’ve never thought about it; everyone around them believes unquestioningly, and they’ve never even heard of an alternative. So maybe an atheist can make a difference.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
"Values are a certain kind of fact, Just admitting that there are right and wrong answers to the question of how humans flourish will change the way we talk about morality,"
he argued.
However, Harris quickly rejected the notion that religion would offer the answers to moral questions. Instead, he argued for a scientific approach to achieving a universal morality, one that conceptualizes human well-being as something that can be quantified and maximized in any number of equally successful ways -- much like health and nutrition.
He criticized the tendency to regard moral questions as matters of opinion rather than as questions that have scientifically verifiable right and wrong answers. "How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise, or moral talent, or moral genius, even?" he asked. "How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count?"
"Just admitting that there are right and wrong answers to the question of how humans flourish will change the way we talk about morality," he said.
he argued.
However, Harris quickly rejected the notion that religion would offer the answers to moral questions. Instead, he argued for a scientific approach to achieving a universal morality, one that conceptualizes human well-being as something that can be quantified and maximized in any number of equally successful ways -- much like health and nutrition.
He criticized the tendency to regard moral questions as matters of opinion rather than as questions that have scientifically verifiable right and wrong answers. "How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise, or moral talent, or moral genius, even?" he asked. "How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count?"
"Just admitting that there are right and wrong answers to the question of how humans flourish will change the way we talk about morality," he said.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
hitch on belief
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely 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, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically: the disagreement between Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Professor Richard Dawkins, concerning "punctuated evolution" and the unfilled gaps in post-Darwinian theory, is quite wide as well as quite deep, but we shall resolve it by evidence and reasoning and not by mutual excommunication.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Sam Harris end of faith excerpt...
What if all our knowledge about the world were suddenly to disappear?
Imagine that six billion of us wake up tomorrow morning in
a state of utter ignorance and confusion.
Our books and computers
are still here, but we can't make heads or tails of their contents. We
have even forgotten how to drive our cars and brush our teeth. What
knowledge would we want to reclaim first? Well, there's that business
about growing food and building shelter that we would want to
get reacquainted with.
We would want to relearn how to use and
repair many of our machines. Learning to understand spoken and
written language would also be a top priority, given that these skills
are necessary for acquiring most others.
When in this process of
reclaiming our humanity will it be important to know that Jesus was
born of a virgin? Or that he was resurrected? And how would we
relearn these truths, if they are indeed true'? By reading the Bible?
Our tour of the shelves will deliver similar pearls from antiquity like the "fact" that Isis, the goddess of fertility, sports an impressive
pair of cow horns.
Reading further, we will learn that Thor carries
a hammer and that Marduk's sacred animals are horses, dogs, and a
dragon with a forked tongue. Whom shall we give top billing in our
resurrected world? Yaweh or Shiva? And when will we want to
relearn that premarital sex is a sin? Or that adulteresses should be
stoned to death? Or that the soul enters the zygote at the moment
of conception? And what will we think of those curious people who
begin proclaiming that one of our books is distinct from all others in
that it was actually written by the Creator of the universe?
Imagine that six billion of us wake up tomorrow morning in
a state of utter ignorance and confusion.
Our books and computers
are still here, but we can't make heads or tails of their contents. We
have even forgotten how to drive our cars and brush our teeth. What
knowledge would we want to reclaim first? Well, there's that business
about growing food and building shelter that we would want to
get reacquainted with.
We would want to relearn how to use and
repair many of our machines. Learning to understand spoken and
written language would also be a top priority, given that these skills
are necessary for acquiring most others.
When in this process of
reclaiming our humanity will it be important to know that Jesus was
born of a virgin? Or that he was resurrected? And how would we
relearn these truths, if they are indeed true'? By reading the Bible?
Our tour of the shelves will deliver similar pearls from antiquity like the "fact" that Isis, the goddess of fertility, sports an impressive
pair of cow horns.
Reading further, we will learn that Thor carries
a hammer and that Marduk's sacred animals are horses, dogs, and a
dragon with a forked tongue. Whom shall we give top billing in our
resurrected world? Yaweh or Shiva? And when will we want to
relearn that premarital sex is a sin? Or that adulteresses should be
stoned to death? Or that the soul enters the zygote at the moment
of conception? And what will we think of those curious people who
begin proclaiming that one of our books is distinct from all others in
that it was actually written by the Creator of the universe?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Is Evolution a fact or a theory?
Is Evolution a fact or a theory?
The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.
Why isn't evolution called a law?
Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
why talk about god/christians if we dont believe in god...
- We don’t believe in God, but we certainly believe in Christians. They’re everywhere, it seems. And while most of them are harmless, a number of them are annoying… or worse. Much worse. They bomb abortion clinics. They do their best to hinder the advancement of science and the arts. They elect candidates based not on their competency, but on whether “he prays” (and says so more often than his opponent). They try to interfere — and get laws to do it — in the sexual lives of consenting adults. They ban stem cell research and contraceptives, thus condemning millions around the world to disease and suffering, because of books written by primitive desert nomads thousands of years ago. So, yes, Christians are a problem.
- Wouldn’t you try to help someone descending into alcoholism? Wouldn’t you care if you saw someone destroying their lives because of booze? Well, in a way, religion is like alcoholism. It attacks the mind, the power of reasoning, it makes people believe in absurd things. It destroys lives – both of the alcoholic / believer, and often those of their family, too. So it’s natural that some of us care — even about strangers. We don’t think we’ll ever “unconvert” fundamentalists; by definition, they’ve long stopped thinking about their belief critically — indeed, they believe that doing so would be a sin. But some people may be at a “crossroads”, so to speak. They may believe simply because they’ve never thought about it; everyone around them believes unquestioningly, and they’ve never even heard of an alternative. So maybe an atheist can make a difference.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
It is apparent that you have gotten your misinformation about Darwin from lying creationist web sites and books.
In contrast to what most of the Christians believed at that time, Darwin was quite progressive in his views on race, and he abhorred those who mistreated and enslaved the non-white races. He never thought they were subhuman. At the time that Darwin was developing his theory of evolution, Christians justified their enslavement of blacks on both the Bible and their belief that blacks were subhuman. So don't disparage Darwin because of the lies you find in creationist web sites and books.
Here is what Darwin said about the races in his Descent:
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are inferior?
Carefully read what he subsequently went on to say"
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n e g r o or Australian and the gorilla."
Considering that Darwin had said the similarities in intellect between whites and other races were insignificant, his remark about the separation between the N e g r o or Australian and the gorilla was certainly referring to the primitive way they were living in the wild in contrast to that of those who lived in a "civilized state," rather than to any perceived similarity to apes.
And he was not advocating the extermination of the N e g r o e s. He was making an observation of what could happen as a result the the Caucasian's actions toward them.
Again, since at that time most Christians believed that N e g r o e s were subhuman or intellectually deficient, you have no business singling out Darwin by attributing him with your erroneously perceived racism.
The following shows Darwin's attitude towards the enslavement of n e g r o e s in contrast with the Christian norm of the time.
"While strolling about the town Darwin was disgusted at the sight of black slaves, and upon returning to the Beagle he got into a big quarrel with Capt. FitzRoy about the ethics of treating humans as property. FitzRoy [who was a devout Christian] flew into a temper and forbid Darwin to share his dinner table with him ever again. After a short cooling off period Capt. FitzRoy apologized to Darwin and his privilege to dine with him was restored.
" 'We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he [FitzRoy] was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered 'No.' I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry ...'"
-- Charles Darwin [11]
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/voyage/voyage…
Now aren't you ashamed of yourself for defaming Darwin by passing on creationist lies? He was a better man than most Christians of the time.
I submit that you know nothing of either evolution or Darwin except the lies you find in creationist web sites and books.
Added:
"It is quite obvious that Darwin was not commenting on cultural differences, but supposed biological difference that he claimed to observe (that supposedly blacks were biologically primitive as compared to whites)."
Reread my excerpts from his works. I quote them again since you apparently failed to grasp what he said.
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are inferior?
You have absolutely no basis in saying that Darwin held that blacks were biologically primitive as compared to whites. All you are doing is trying to smear evolutionary theory by smearing Darwin.
That, coupled with Darwin's hatred of slavery in contrast with the Christian norm of the time makes your whole argument pitiful and disgusting.
Added:
"Yes. Darwin is quoted saying that whites are the most evolved, while the other races are less evolved. He said that blacks were only slightly evolved over gorillas. Darwin predicted that the other races would soon "be exterminated" leaving a larger evolutionary gap between the white races and the gorillas. These words of Darwin are quite racist and evil."
It is apparent that your mind has been raped by your having read creationist anti-evolution propaganda. Darwin was not condoning the future extermination of blacks. He was making a prediction based on his observations of what happened when the Christian colonialists of his day conquered the uncivilized peoples.
Darwin: "Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature...The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like Darwin thought blacks are only slightly evolved over gorillas?
I challenge you to provide a single quote from Darwin's works saying that.
Your mind has been so twisted by the anti-evolution propaganda you have been reading you cannot even think straight.
In contrast to what most of the Christians believed at that time, Darwin was quite progressive in his views on race, and he abhorred those who mistreated and enslaved the non-white races. He never thought they were subhuman. At the time that Darwin was developing his theory of evolution, Christians justified their enslavement of blacks on both the Bible and their belief that blacks were subhuman. So don't disparage Darwin because of the lies you find in creationist web sites and books.
Here is what Darwin said about the races in his Descent:
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are inferior?
Carefully read what he subsequently went on to say"
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n e g r o or Australian and the gorilla."
Considering that Darwin had said the similarities in intellect between whites and other races were insignificant, his remark about the separation between the N e g r o or Australian and the gorilla was certainly referring to the primitive way they were living in the wild in contrast to that of those who lived in a "civilized state," rather than to any perceived similarity to apes.
And he was not advocating the extermination of the N e g r o e s. He was making an observation of what could happen as a result the the Caucasian's actions toward them.
Again, since at that time most Christians believed that N e g r o e s were subhuman or intellectually deficient, you have no business singling out Darwin by attributing him with your erroneously perceived racism.
The following shows Darwin's attitude towards the enslavement of n e g r o e s in contrast with the Christian norm of the time.
"While strolling about the town Darwin was disgusted at the sight of black slaves, and upon returning to the Beagle he got into a big quarrel with Capt. FitzRoy about the ethics of treating humans as property. FitzRoy [who was a devout Christian] flew into a temper and forbid Darwin to share his dinner table with him ever again. After a short cooling off period Capt. FitzRoy apologized to Darwin and his privilege to dine with him was restored.
" 'We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he [FitzRoy] was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered 'No.' I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry ...'"
-- Charles Darwin [11]
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/voyage/voyage…
Now aren't you ashamed of yourself for defaming Darwin by passing on creationist lies? He was a better man than most Christians of the time.
I submit that you know nothing of either evolution or Darwin except the lies you find in creationist web sites and books.
Added:
"It is quite obvious that Darwin was not commenting on cultural differences, but supposed biological difference that he claimed to observe (that supposedly blacks were biologically primitive as compared to whites)."
Reread my excerpts from his works. I quote them again since you apparently failed to grasp what he said.
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are inferior?
You have absolutely no basis in saying that Darwin held that blacks were biologically primitive as compared to whites. All you are doing is trying to smear evolutionary theory by smearing Darwin.
That, coupled with Darwin's hatred of slavery in contrast with the Christian norm of the time makes your whole argument pitiful and disgusting.
Added:
"Yes. Darwin is quoted saying that whites are the most evolved, while the other races are less evolved. He said that blacks were only slightly evolved over gorillas. Darwin predicted that the other races would soon "be exterminated" leaving a larger evolutionary gap between the white races and the gorillas. These words of Darwin are quite racist and evil."
It is apparent that your mind has been raped by your having read creationist anti-evolution propaganda. Darwin was not condoning the future extermination of blacks. He was making a prediction based on his observations of what happened when the Christian colonialists of his day conquered the uncivilized peoples.
Darwin: "Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature...The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like Darwin thought blacks are only slightly evolved over gorillas?
I challenge you to provide a single quote from Darwin's works saying that.
Your mind has been so twisted by the anti-evolution propaganda you have been reading you cannot even think straight.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
becoming an atheist
Becoming an Atheist is the single most rational sane thing that ever happened to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)