Thursday, February 23, 2012
#christian religion creates failure, in the simple sense of not wanting, caring, or even creating enthusiasm to hear the truth. #atheist
#christian religion creates failure, in the simple sense of not wanting, caring, or even creating enthusiasm to hear the truth. #atheist
I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist;
“I am not even an atheist so much as I am an
antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the
same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect
of religious belief is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of
religion, I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to
wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am
relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life
would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.”
| — | Christopher Hitchens |
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
an #atheist requires confidence,strong self belief & courage 2 follow yr own path, not follow the herd or status Quo of religion. #christian
an #atheist requires confidence,strong self belief & courage 2 follow yr own path, not follow the herd or status Quo of religion. #christian
Sunday, February 19, 2012
agnostic versus atheist
Agnosticism is a position concerning KNOWLEDGE.
a = not or absence of
gnostic (gnosis) = Greek for “knowledge”
An agnostic posits that a god does not exist in the context of human knowledge. What agnostics are doing by taking this position is to attempt to escape the stigma associated with admitting they don’t believe in a god by asserting that there is a “god” which is unknowable. This is worse than saying there is no god because it implies that even proof of a god cannot be admissible because there is no way of knowing of a god and, therefore, no way of knowing of proof of a god. God is completely shut out by the agnostic under the guise of acknowledging a god concept. As such, not a single attribute applied to a god by any religion can be postulated to an agnostic. The agnostic enjoys the benefit of the church having decided that any acknowledgment of a god is better than outright denial. But the agnostic has cleverly denied the existence of a god for GOOD!
Atheism is a position concerning THEOLOGY.
a = not or absence of
theism = belief in a deity or deities
Unlike the agnostic who cannot know of a god which is unknowable, the atheist is open-minded enough to accept demonstrable proof and upon such proof will know of – which is to say believe in – such god or gods. Historically, agnostics are considered more acceptable than atheists because of the false appearance in the acceptance that there is a god. But a god which is impossible to know of is much further away than a god which may be knowable given the proof that an atheist is willing to accept. An atheist who posits the absence of a god and furthers this assertion with the denial of the possibility of there being a god is just as close-minded as the theist in which they oppose. Dogma is dogma no matter which pole the attraction. I am not such an atheist. I am an atheist who does not believe in a god and who seriously doubts that there will ever be proof of the existence of any of the thousands of gods proposed by the human race. Monotheists have also since abandoned the thousands of other gods in exchange for one god. I’ve simply gone one god further than monotheism. This is called atheism. And given acceptable proof, I reserve the right to acknowledge a god or gods.
a = not or absence of
gnostic (gnosis) = Greek for “knowledge”
An agnostic posits that a god does not exist in the context of human knowledge. What agnostics are doing by taking this position is to attempt to escape the stigma associated with admitting they don’t believe in a god by asserting that there is a “god” which is unknowable. This is worse than saying there is no god because it implies that even proof of a god cannot be admissible because there is no way of knowing of a god and, therefore, no way of knowing of proof of a god. God is completely shut out by the agnostic under the guise of acknowledging a god concept. As such, not a single attribute applied to a god by any religion can be postulated to an agnostic. The agnostic enjoys the benefit of the church having decided that any acknowledgment of a god is better than outright denial. But the agnostic has cleverly denied the existence of a god for GOOD!
Atheism is a position concerning THEOLOGY.
a = not or absence of
theism = belief in a deity or deities
Unlike the agnostic who cannot know of a god which is unknowable, the atheist is open-minded enough to accept demonstrable proof and upon such proof will know of – which is to say believe in – such god or gods. Historically, agnostics are considered more acceptable than atheists because of the false appearance in the acceptance that there is a god. But a god which is impossible to know of is much further away than a god which may be knowable given the proof that an atheist is willing to accept. An atheist who posits the absence of a god and furthers this assertion with the denial of the possibility of there being a god is just as close-minded as the theist in which they oppose. Dogma is dogma no matter which pole the attraction. I am not such an atheist. I am an atheist who does not believe in a god and who seriously doubts that there will ever be proof of the existence of any of the thousands of gods proposed by the human race. Monotheists have also since abandoned the thousands of other gods in exchange for one god. I’ve simply gone one god further than monotheism. This is called atheism. And given acceptable proof, I reserve the right to acknowledge a god or gods.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
written by Christopher Hitchens
written by Christopher Hitchens
I'm not a proponent of "materialism"
personally..im not a proponent of "materialism" - that is..while many
of my views may be consistent with that philosophy..i hold no
philosophical position about how the universe is made up..if the
evidence is reliable enough to demonstrate that there is something other
than matter/energy that interacts with this universe..then I have no
problem accepting that..i just have not been provided evidence that there's this immaterial (not matter/energy) stuff out there...
Saturday, February 18, 2012
I've invented a weapon that kills god's. But, like gods it's invisible too so it will be tough to file a patent for it
I've invented a weapon that kills god's. But, like gods it's invisible too so it will be tough to file a patent for it
How absurd that a god wld become human 2 sacrifice himself 2 himself just 2 create a loophole 4 a rule that he created. #atheist #christian
How absurd that a god wld become human 2 sacrifice himself 2 himself just 2 create a loophole 4 a rule that he created. #atheist #christian
Thursday, February 16, 2012
“Avoiding offense means that we don’t accept each other as equals.” ~Ayaan Hirsi Ali
“Avoiding offense means that we don’t accept each other as equals.” ~Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
definitive refutations of the ontological argument
1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.
2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator
.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.
4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.
5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.
6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.
Ergo:
7 God does not exist.
1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.
2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator
.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.
4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.
5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.
6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.
Ergo:
7 God does not exist.
definitive refutations of the ontological argument
definitive refutations of the ontological argument
1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.
2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator
.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.
4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.
5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.
6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.
Ergo:
7 God does not exist.
1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.
2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator
.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.
4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.
5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.
6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.
Ergo:
7 God does not exist.
definitive refutations of the ontological argument
definitive refutations of the ontological argument
1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.
2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator
.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.
4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.
5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.
6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.
Ergo:
7 God does not exist.
1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.
2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator
.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.
4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.
5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.
6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.
Ergo:
7 God does not exist.
Monday, February 13, 2012
hitchens faith stalin hitler reason
Wiener: I know you’ve often been
told that everybody has faith in something—for most Americans, it’s
Jesus; for you, it’s reason and science.
Hitchens: That’s not faith, by
definition. You can’t have faith in reason. It’s not a dogma. It’s a
conviction that this is the only way that discovery and progress can be
made.
Wiener: The intelligent person’s
argument for religion is that religion and rationality don’t
compete—they deal with different parts of life. Religion answers
questions that science doesn’t: Why do the innocent suffer? What is the
meaning of life? What happens when we die?
Hitchens: I wish it was true. But,
in fact, religion doesn’t keep its part of the bargain here. It
incessantly seeks to limit first discoveries and innovation in science
and then their application. Galileo, of course, but more recently
discoveries about the possibilities of limiting the size of your
family. Really, they don’t want us to reconsider our place in the
universe, because if we face the fact that we live on a tiny speck in an
immense universe, it’s going to be difficult to convince people it was
all created with that tiny speck in mind. It’s not possible to believe
that nonsense if you have any interest in science.
Wiener: The final killer argument of
your critics is that Hitler and Stalin were not religious. The worst
crimes of the 20th century did not have a religious basis. They came
from political ideology.
Hitchens: That’s easy. Hitler never
abandoned Christianity and recommends Catholicism quite highly in “Mein
Kampf.” Fascism, as distinct from National Socialism, was in effect a
Catholic movement.
Wiener: What about Stalin? He wasn’t religious.
Hitchens: Stalin—easier still. For
hundreds of years, millions of Russians had been told the head of state
should be a man close to God, the czar, who was head of the Russian
Orthodox Church as well as absolute despot. If you’re Stalin, you
shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you can’t exploit the pool
of servility and docility that’s ready-made for you. The task of
atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and
credulity. No society has gone the way of gulags or concentration camps
by following the path of Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas
Paine.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The bible is a collaboration of stories written by naive, uneducated old men. At least we have evidence of that.
The bible is a collaboration of stories written by naive, uneducated old men. At least we have evidence of that.
god description - a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'
a supernatural creator that is
'appropriate for us to worship'
'appropriate for us to worship'
Saturday, February 11, 2012
As long as you're a #christian you will be seen as a slave to demons of your own making, but beyond your control. #atheist
As long as you're a #christian you will be seen as a slave to demons of your own making, but beyond your control. #atheist
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
You'll never find a dead Christian in a foxhole who didn't pray
You'll never find a dead Christian in a foxhole who didn't pray
I Don't have to be threatened with hell nor do I need to be rewarded with heaven to be a good person
I Don't have to be threatened with hell nor do I need to be rewarded with heaven to be a good person
Sunday, February 5, 2012
U could claim that anything's real if the only basis 4 believing in it is that nobodys proved it doesnt exist #atheist #christian #teamjesus
U could claim that anything's real if the only basis 4 believing in it is that nobodys proved it doesnt exist #atheist #christian #teamjesus
Friday, February 3, 2012
What is so deceptive about the state of mind of the members of a society is the "consensual validation" of their concepts. It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas of feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing is further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing whatsoever on reason or mental health. Just as there is "folie a deux" there is "folie a millions". The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane. — Eric Fromm The sane society
What is so deceptive about the state of
mind of the members of a society is the "consensual validation" of their
concepts. It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of
people share certain ideas of feelings proves the validity of these
ideas and feelings. Nothing is further from the truth. Consensual
validation as such has no bearing whatsoever on reason or mental health.
Just as there is "folie a deux" there is "folie a millions". The fact
that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices
virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the
errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same
forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane.
tolerance of the religious intolerance is the same as cowardice...your silence makes U an accomplice 2 the injustice
tolerance of the religious intolerance is the same as cowardice...your silence makes U an accomplice 2 the injustice
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
there are easily and quickly 2 reasons we talk about 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.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
no..if gods were real the word #atheist wouldnt exist.. #teamjesus #christian
no..if gods were real the word #atheist wouldnt exist.. #teamjesus #christian
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
thieves can find policeman at the local station. if U show me a picture of yr god I'll show U a picture of a policeman. #atheist
thieves can find policeman at the local station. if U show me a picture of yr god I'll show U a picture of a policeman. #atheist
Monday, January 16, 2012
"Whenever the government provides opportunities and privileges for white people and rich people they call it ‘subsidies.’ When they do it for Negro and poor people they call it ‘welfare.’ The fact is that everybody in this country lives on welfare. Suburbia was built with federally subsidized credit. And highways that take our white brothers out to the suburbs were built with federally subsidized money to the tune of ninety percent. Everybody is on welfare in this country. The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem." --Martin Luther King Jr. Miami, FL
"Whenever the government provides opportunities and privileges for white people and rich people they call it ‘subsidies.’ When they do it for Negro and poor people they call it ‘welfare.’ The fact is that everybody in this country lives on welfare. Suburbia was built with federally subsidized credit. And highways that take our white brothers out to the suburbs were built with federally subsidized money to the tune of ninety percent. Everybody is on welfare in this country. The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem."
--Martin Luther King Jr.
Miami, FL
--Martin Luther King Jr.
Miami, FL
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Criminalizing abortion only replaces safe abortion with unsafe abortion.
Criminalizing abortion only replaces safe abortion with unsafe abortion.
#christian faith is like gonorrhea: I don't care if you have it, until you try to share it with me... #atheist #teamjesus
#christian faith is like gonorrhea: I don't care if you have it, until you try to share it with me... #atheist #teamjesus
Saturday, January 14, 2012
christianity controls people by promising them a salvation from the one thing humans truly cannot conquer...death...
christianity controls people by promising them a salvation from the one thing humans truly cannot conquer...death...
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
christianity should be practiced like sex
christianity should be practiced like sex, in private, behind closed doors, between
consenting adults. #atheist #teamjesus #godisnotgreat
consenting adults. #atheist #teamjesus #godisnotgreat
Thursday, December 15, 2011
no the worst moments 4 an #atheist R when we C another childs been beaten 2 death by a member of the christian death cult
no the worst moments 4 an #atheist R when we C another childs been beaten 2 death by a member of the judeo-christian death cult
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
If we lost all our hard-won knowledge and all our archives, and all our ethics and all our morals...and had to reconstruct everything essential from scratch, it is difficult to imagine at what point we would need to remind or reassure ourselves that Jesus was born of a virgin.
If we lost all our hard-won knowledge and all our archives, and all our ethics and all our morals...and had to reconstruct everything essential from scratch, it is difficult to imagine at what point we would need to remind or reassure ourselves that Jesus was born of a virgin.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
if it takes more faith to disbelieve, and faith is a virtue, then isnt it more virtuous to be atheist
if it takes more faith to disbelieve, and faith is a virtue, then isnt it more virtuous to be atheist
Friday, November 25, 2011
Argument From Cause
1. The universe had a beginning
No one has evidence of a universal beginning. Although the known expanding universe suggests a smaller volume universe in the past, this does not necessarily mean that it had a primordial "beginning." Recent hypothesis suggest that even a Big Bang does not require an absolute singularity. Furthermore, various "many-world" hypothesis proposed by physicists produce many Big-Bangs. There simply does not exist enough information to determine whether or not the universe had a beginning, or even what "beginning" means in terms of a universe.
2. Everything that had a beginning must have had a cause outside of itself.
Human short life spans do not allow knowledge about "everything" and we could not possibly have tested for everything in the universe to see if it had a beginning or not. Therefore we cannot possibly know everything much less know that everything had a beginning. And why would "everything" have to have an outside cause? Do quarks have an outside cause or a beginning? And what does it mean by "outside." Why not include whatever exists "outside" as part of the total universe?
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause outside of itself
Since we don't know whether the universe exists as open or closed, or whether many universes exist, or whether it had a beginning, or no beginning, we cannot possibly determine cause much less an "outside of itself."
No one has evidence of a universal beginning. Although the known expanding universe suggests a smaller volume universe in the past, this does not necessarily mean that it had a primordial "beginning." Recent hypothesis suggest that even a Big Bang does not require an absolute singularity. Furthermore, various "many-world" hypothesis proposed by physicists produce many Big-Bangs. There simply does not exist enough information to determine whether or not the universe had a beginning, or even what "beginning" means in terms of a universe.
2. Everything that had a beginning must have had a cause outside of itself.
Human short life spans do not allow knowledge about "everything" and we could not possibly have tested for everything in the universe to see if it had a beginning or not. Therefore we cannot possibly know everything much less know that everything had a beginning. And why would "everything" have to have an outside cause? Do quarks have an outside cause or a beginning? And what does it mean by "outside." Why not include whatever exists "outside" as part of the total universe?
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause outside of itself
Since we don't know whether the universe exists as open or closed, or whether many universes exist, or whether it had a beginning, or no beginning, we cannot possibly determine cause much less an "outside of itself."
Argument From Design
1. The universe has a complex design
Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the form of earthly based DNA life-forms.
2. Things that have a complex design, have and intelligent designer
A non-sequitur (it does not follow). Designs do not require a monogenetic single designer even for human design. Designs usually come about from many designers. A Boeing 747, for example, required many designers. In fact no one single person could have had all the knowledge required to design its entirety. Even inventions usually thought of as designed by one person (light bulb by Edison, the telephone by Bell, etc.) derive from the knowledge accumulated by many persons and many disciplines. Edison, for example, could not have invented the light bulb without prior knowledge of electricity brought about by scientists before him. I defy anyone to give an example of any physical invention created solely by a single inventor without annexing prior knowledge from others.
Taking the analogy to its extreme, everything in the universe could have come from pantheistic designers, trillions of them, where each designer (god) would consist of the dumbest possible entity needing only "knowledge" of one or two things (to react or not to react). Each designer here would consist of a subatomic particle. Thus we could have an entire universe built from many unintelligent gods. This would also explain their silence, and agrees perfectly with the science of physics.
Complex "designs" can come about without an intelligent designer at all. Snowflakes, crystals and life-forms for example. Order and complexity can even come out of disorder; for example, galaxies, star and solar systems, the Red Spot on Jupiter, hurricanes, etc. These all show order emerging from disorder.
3. Therefore, the universe has an intelligent designer
Another non-sequitur. Simply because complexity exists, says nothing about intelligence or a designer. Again, designs do not require a monogenetic single designer, much less an intelligent one. Complexity and order occurs many times without a designer at all. All present workable scientific theories about the universe and life-forms do not require a Designer for their understanding, much less from an intelligent designer or many designers.
Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the form of earthly based DNA life-forms.
2. Things that have a complex design, have and intelligent designer
A non-sequitur (it does not follow). Designs do not require a monogenetic single designer even for human design. Designs usually come about from many designers. A Boeing 747, for example, required many designers. In fact no one single person could have had all the knowledge required to design its entirety. Even inventions usually thought of as designed by one person (light bulb by Edison, the telephone by Bell, etc.) derive from the knowledge accumulated by many persons and many disciplines. Edison, for example, could not have invented the light bulb without prior knowledge of electricity brought about by scientists before him. I defy anyone to give an example of any physical invention created solely by a single inventor without annexing prior knowledge from others.
Taking the analogy to its extreme, everything in the universe could have come from pantheistic designers, trillions of them, where each designer (god) would consist of the dumbest possible entity needing only "knowledge" of one or two things (to react or not to react). Each designer here would consist of a subatomic particle. Thus we could have an entire universe built from many unintelligent gods. This would also explain their silence, and agrees perfectly with the science of physics.
Complex "designs" can come about without an intelligent designer at all. Snowflakes, crystals and life-forms for example. Order and complexity can even come out of disorder; for example, galaxies, star and solar systems, the Red Spot on Jupiter, hurricanes, etc. These all show order emerging from disorder.
3. Therefore, the universe has an intelligent designer
Another non-sequitur. Simply because complexity exists, says nothing about intelligence or a designer. Again, designs do not require a monogenetic single designer, much less an intelligent one. Complexity and order occurs many times without a designer at all. All present workable scientific theories about the universe and life-forms do not require a Designer for their understanding, much less from an intelligent designer or many designers.
Tuesday, November 22, 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.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe
It turns out, that in a flat universe the total energy of the universe is precisely zero...Because gravity can have negative energy. So, the negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter.
What’s so beautiful about a universe with total energy of zero?
Well, ONLY such a universe can begin from nothing… And that is remarkable… Because, the laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don’t need a deity. You have nothing… zero total energy… and quantum fluctuations can produce a universe.
<…>
Right now, we know it to an accuracy of better than 1%. The universe IS flat. It has zero total energy, and it could have begun from nothing. … And, I’ve written this piece (and, of course, I got a lot of hate mail) saying that in my mind this answers that crazy question that religious people always keep throwing out… Which is:
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
The answer is… There had to be. If you have “nothing” in quantum mechanics, you’ll always get something. It’s that simple. It doesn’t convince any of those people, but it’s true.
We humans believe that everything that happens to us is special... and significant. And that... Carl Sagan wrote beautifully about that in Demon Haunted World... That is MUCH of the source of religion. Okay... Every event that happens is unusual and unexpected. <...> Everything that happens has small probability... but, it happens. <...> The thing that physics tells us about the universe is that it's big, rare events happen all the time (including life), and that doesn't mean it's special.
What’s so beautiful about a universe with total energy of zero?
Well, ONLY such a universe can begin from nothing… And that is remarkable… Because, the laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don’t need a deity. You have nothing… zero total energy… and quantum fluctuations can produce a universe.
<…>
Right now, we know it to an accuracy of better than 1%. The universe IS flat. It has zero total energy, and it could have begun from nothing. … And, I’ve written this piece (and, of course, I got a lot of hate mail) saying that in my mind this answers that crazy question that religious people always keep throwing out… Which is:
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
The answer is… There had to be. If you have “nothing” in quantum mechanics, you’ll always get something. It’s that simple. It doesn’t convince any of those people, but it’s true.
We humans believe that everything that happens to us is special... and significant. And that... Carl Sagan wrote beautifully about that in Demon Haunted World... That is MUCH of the source of religion. Okay... Every event that happens is unusual and unexpected. <...> Everything that happens has small probability... but, it happens. <...> The thing that physics tells us about the universe is that it's big, rare events happen all the time (including life), and that doesn't mean it's special.
the wittiest atheist response in history
Below is an exchange I just saw on the FAQ section of the blog, Answers in Genesis Busted! The first section is a response to FAQ topics such as "If people came from monkeys, why are monkeys still around?" and "How did life begin?" This person I assume felt compelled to jump in and launch into a rambling monologue about love, truth, god, and satan. It is long and peppered with infuriating repetition, misspellings, and is basically word salad. But I promise, you will thank me when you read the wittiest atheist response in history that is below it.
The post:
"Let me tell you right now. I'm not going to convert you.
We both know only you ultimately decide for yourself what you want to believe. If you ever feel a certain way because of what I've said, maybe you should believe God is trying to tell you something. I'm not gonna, for your sake, pretend God doesn't exist. So when I say He does, you shouldn't get upset. But I know you will, and I know the reason. But since you didn't ask...I won't tell.
1) If you don't beleieve in God. Why do you believe in Love?
2) How can good and evil exist, if there is no God? How do we know of a destinction?
3) If you only see with your eyes, can you really tell me, you can love? I know its possible. Yet whenever you choose to ignore God, you lose that ability more and more. And I know thats what you've been going through. Love can't be seen, smelt, or heard. It can only be felt. So does that mean it doesn't exist? People marry because of love. Is it nothing? Its obviously not.
4) Tell me why you hate God. Do you hate all that is good and love? If you don't, then maybe its because you have the wrong idea about Him. After all if its the truth you love to much, why do you choose not to understand?
God exists. Seeing Him, isn't something I need to believe, because He is with me. Thats why I beleive. In any religion, nothing changes by them believing it. When you believe in God, He will be with you. He won't leave us on Earth with comeplete seperation and expect us to believe in Him. That will never happen. He will be with us. He will not force you to beleive. That is why we have a choice. Otherwise its not your free will. Its not a choice.
What do you, as an atheist, have to live for? Absolutley nothing. Theres no purpose or point. Is that true though, No. There is a reason. You can plainly see there is no reason without God. Its like your pretending theres a reason to keep your sanity, but then denying God. Did you think it will be simple to believe in Him. Do you think the Devil will allow you so easly to believe Him? Of course not.
Atheists will say anyway that none of this is true. But that is the very reason why its so hard for them to believe. The devil is trying to stop you. Its so easy to understand, yet I told you it won't be easy to believe in Him. Whatever I say won't make it easier so don't look for my help.
Ask God to help you understand. Is it so hard to hate a God who is love? Who is nothing like anything you've thought or have been led to believe by the Devil.
God is love and He made you and there is a connection, He wouldn't create you without the ability to love Him. Its not impossible to truly understand the truth.
There is absolutly no reason to say God doesn't exist, when He has always been with you. He will never leave you. Have you ever thought as a child about God? And not about what people think He is, but what He truly is.
You know you've been watched over. You might have felt alone but you've always known He was with you. And its probably not the idea you have of Him you've thought of, but it was Him. Don't let anyone tell you who God is. Find Him out for yourself. Not from others. To understand Him is to know Him. So find out for yourself. You may need help, and thats ok, but what I'm saying is, don't let others give you a false idea about God.
Heres a suggestion - Amazingfacts.org or .tv for videos. They can tell you all you want to know. Or any questions you have to ask. My name is Justin."
The response:
"Hi, JustinSkye! I read your message while passing by this site, and you're right about one thing: you're not going to convert anybody with that.
A few questions for you:
1) If you don't believe in Leprechauns, why do you believe in mischief and rainbows?
2) How can light and music exist, if there is no Apollo on his golden chariot?
3) If you only see with your eyes, can you really tell me, can you fear? I know it's possible. Yet whenever you choose to ignore vampires, you lose that ability more and more. Fear can't be seen, smelt, or heard. So does that mean it doesn't exist? People hide under the covers because of fear. Is it nothing? It's obviously not.
4) Tell me why you hate elephant-headed Ganesha, the four-armed Lord of Beginnings. Do you hate His domains of art, science, intellect, and wisdom? If you don't then maybe it's because you have the wrong idea about Him or his associated Muladhara chakra. After all, if it's the truth you love so much, why do you choose not to understand?
Xenu, my Galactic Overlord, exists. Seeing Him isn't something I need to believe, because He is with me. When you believe in Xenu, He will be with you. He will not force you to believe. That is why we have a choice. Otherwise it's not your free will.
What do you, as a non-believer in Thor, have to live for? Absolutely nothing. There's no purpose, no point, no comprehension of the apostrophe in the written lies of the non-believer. You can plainly see there is no reason (and no Jötunn-slaying) without Thor or the Sky-Father, Odin. Deniers of the Hammer-Wielding, Fiery-Haired One will say anyway that none of this is true. But that is the very reason why it's so hard for them to believe. Loki and those Jötunn are trying to stop you.
Ask the Blue Fairy to help you understand. Is it so hard to hate a Fairy who is love? Who is nothing like anything you've thought or have been led to believe by sneaking chupacabra.
Allah is mercy and He made you and there is a connection, He wouldn't create you without the ability to obey Him. It's not impossible to truly understand the truth as revealed by His Messenger, Mohammed.
There is absolutely no reason to say The Invisible Girl doesn't exist, when Susan Storm has always been with you. She will never leave you. Have you ever thought as a child about superheroes? In blue spandex? Have you ever thought as a grown man about Jessica Alba? Of course you have.
You know you've been watched over. You might have felt alone but you've always known the Ghost of Elvis was with you. And it's probably not the idea you have of Elvis you've thought of, but it was the Sideburned One Himself. Don't let anyone tell you who the Ghost of Elvis is. Certainly don't believe The Colonel, or anything Priscilla says. Find Him out for yourself. Thankyouverymuch.
You may need help, and that's OK, but what I'm saying is, don't let others give you a false idea about Yahweh, the Bronze-Age deity Who slaughters children, commands rape and slavery, and hates the shrimp He created.
Here's a suggestion: http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible1.htm or http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/11/16/an-evil-god-table-of-contents/ They can tell you all you want to know.
Good luck on your awakening!"
I can't credit the genius who wrote this, because clicking on his name links me to nothing, but I really want to know this person. :-)
The post:
"Let me tell you right now. I'm not going to convert you.
We both know only you ultimately decide for yourself what you want to believe. If you ever feel a certain way because of what I've said, maybe you should believe God is trying to tell you something. I'm not gonna, for your sake, pretend God doesn't exist. So when I say He does, you shouldn't get upset. But I know you will, and I know the reason. But since you didn't ask...I won't tell.
1) If you don't beleieve in God. Why do you believe in Love?
2) How can good and evil exist, if there is no God? How do we know of a destinction?
3) If you only see with your eyes, can you really tell me, you can love? I know its possible. Yet whenever you choose to ignore God, you lose that ability more and more. And I know thats what you've been going through. Love can't be seen, smelt, or heard. It can only be felt. So does that mean it doesn't exist? People marry because of love. Is it nothing? Its obviously not.
4) Tell me why you hate God. Do you hate all that is good and love? If you don't, then maybe its because you have the wrong idea about Him. After all if its the truth you love to much, why do you choose not to understand?
God exists. Seeing Him, isn't something I need to believe, because He is with me. Thats why I beleive. In any religion, nothing changes by them believing it. When you believe in God, He will be with you. He won't leave us on Earth with comeplete seperation and expect us to believe in Him. That will never happen. He will be with us. He will not force you to beleive. That is why we have a choice. Otherwise its not your free will. Its not a choice.
What do you, as an atheist, have to live for? Absolutley nothing. Theres no purpose or point. Is that true though, No. There is a reason. You can plainly see there is no reason without God. Its like your pretending theres a reason to keep your sanity, but then denying God. Did you think it will be simple to believe in Him. Do you think the Devil will allow you so easly to believe Him? Of course not.
Atheists will say anyway that none of this is true. But that is the very reason why its so hard for them to believe. The devil is trying to stop you. Its so easy to understand, yet I told you it won't be easy to believe in Him. Whatever I say won't make it easier so don't look for my help.
Ask God to help you understand. Is it so hard to hate a God who is love? Who is nothing like anything you've thought or have been led to believe by the Devil.
God is love and He made you and there is a connection, He wouldn't create you without the ability to love Him. Its not impossible to truly understand the truth.
There is absolutly no reason to say God doesn't exist, when He has always been with you. He will never leave you. Have you ever thought as a child about God? And not about what people think He is, but what He truly is.
You know you've been watched over. You might have felt alone but you've always known He was with you. And its probably not the idea you have of Him you've thought of, but it was Him. Don't let anyone tell you who God is. Find Him out for yourself. Not from others. To understand Him is to know Him. So find out for yourself. You may need help, and thats ok, but what I'm saying is, don't let others give you a false idea about God.
Heres a suggestion - Amazingfacts.org or .tv for videos. They can tell you all you want to know. Or any questions you have to ask. My name is Justin."
The response:
"Hi, JustinSkye! I read your message while passing by this site, and you're right about one thing: you're not going to convert anybody with that.
A few questions for you:
1) If you don't believe in Leprechauns, why do you believe in mischief and rainbows?
2) How can light and music exist, if there is no Apollo on his golden chariot?
3) If you only see with your eyes, can you really tell me, can you fear? I know it's possible. Yet whenever you choose to ignore vampires, you lose that ability more and more. Fear can't be seen, smelt, or heard. So does that mean it doesn't exist? People hide under the covers because of fear. Is it nothing? It's obviously not.
4) Tell me why you hate elephant-headed Ganesha, the four-armed Lord of Beginnings. Do you hate His domains of art, science, intellect, and wisdom? If you don't then maybe it's because you have the wrong idea about Him or his associated Muladhara chakra. After all, if it's the truth you love so much, why do you choose not to understand?
Xenu, my Galactic Overlord, exists. Seeing Him isn't something I need to believe, because He is with me. When you believe in Xenu, He will be with you. He will not force you to believe. That is why we have a choice. Otherwise it's not your free will.
What do you, as a non-believer in Thor, have to live for? Absolutely nothing. There's no purpose, no point, no comprehension of the apostrophe in the written lies of the non-believer. You can plainly see there is no reason (and no Jötunn-slaying) without Thor or the Sky-Father, Odin. Deniers of the Hammer-Wielding, Fiery-Haired One will say anyway that none of this is true. But that is the very reason why it's so hard for them to believe. Loki and those Jötunn are trying to stop you.
Ask the Blue Fairy to help you understand. Is it so hard to hate a Fairy who is love? Who is nothing like anything you've thought or have been led to believe by sneaking chupacabra.
Allah is mercy and He made you and there is a connection, He wouldn't create you without the ability to obey Him. It's not impossible to truly understand the truth as revealed by His Messenger, Mohammed.
There is absolutely no reason to say The Invisible Girl doesn't exist, when Susan Storm has always been with you. She will never leave you. Have you ever thought as a child about superheroes? In blue spandex? Have you ever thought as a grown man about Jessica Alba? Of course you have.
You know you've been watched over. You might have felt alone but you've always known the Ghost of Elvis was with you. And it's probably not the idea you have of Elvis you've thought of, but it was the Sideburned One Himself. Don't let anyone tell you who the Ghost of Elvis is. Certainly don't believe The Colonel, or anything Priscilla says. Find Him out for yourself. Thankyouverymuch.
You may need help, and that's OK, but what I'm saying is, don't let others give you a false idea about Yahweh, the Bronze-Age deity Who slaughters children, commands rape and slavery, and hates the shrimp He created.
Here's a suggestion: http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible1.htm or http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/11/16/an-evil-god-table-of-contents/ They can tell you all you want to know.
Good luck on your awakening!"
I can't credit the genius who wrote this, because clicking on his name links me to nothing, but I really want to know this person. :-)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Who but a delusional slave considers it "free choice" 2 have only 1 option available w/out fear of punishment or torture #teamjesus #atheist
Who but a delusional slave considers it "free choice" 2 have only 1 option available w/out fear of punishment or torture #teamjesus #atheist
Who but a slave thanks his master for what his master has decided to do without bothering to consult him?
Who but a slave thanks his master for what his master has decided to do without bothering to consult him?
Monday, November 14, 2011
Don't ask "What is the meaning of life?". Just ask "Does life have to have a meaning in order for me to live it?"
Don't ask "What is the meaning of life?". Just ask "Does life have to have a meaning in order for me to live it?"
It's better to live in freedom for one life time than to be a slave of God for an eternity.
It's better to live in freedom for one life time than to be a slave of God for an eternity.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
i'm not afraid of dying & going 2 hell or heaven. I expect death 2 B nothingness, 4 removing me from fears of death, i'm thankful 2 atheism
i'm not afraid of dying & going 2 hell or heaven. I expect death 2 B nothingness, 4 removing me from fears of death, i'm thankful 2 atheism
I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.
Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.
--Isaac Asimov
--Isaac Asimov
Saturday, November 12, 2011
#teamjesus comforts by telling us death is not real. Science comforts by telling us how incredibly lucky we are to have lived #atheist
#teamjesus comforts by telling us death is not real. Science comforts by telling us how incredibly lucky we are to have lived #atheist
Friday, November 11, 2011
morality is doing what is right regardless what we R told. christianity is doing what we R told, no matter what is right #teamjesus #atheist
morality is doing what is right regardless what we R told. christianity is doing what we R told, no matter what is right #teamjesus #atheist
If you seem to witness such a thing [a miracle], 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 seem to witness such a thing [a miracle], 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.
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.~ James Madison #teamjesus #atheist
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.~ James Madison #teamjesus #atheist
there is something feeble & contemptible about ppl who cant face life w/out the help of the comfortable #christian myth. #teamjesus #atheist
there is something feeble & contemptible about ppl who cant face life w/out the help of the comfortable #christian myth. #teamjesus #atheist
To be an atheist requires strength of mind and goodness of heart found in not one of a thousand.
To be an atheist requires strength of mind and goodness of heart found in not one of a thousand.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
You can’t sell stupidity, but you can disguise it as religion and make millions. #teamjesus #atheist
You can’t sell stupidity, but you can disguise it as religion and make millions. #teamjesus #atheist
When someone tells you that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed millions because they were Atheists, answer that they were not responsible for the horrendous atrocities; god was! Those three were simply acting out god’s great plan. That should shut them up.
When someone tells you that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed millions because they were Atheists, answer that they were not responsible for the horrendous atrocities; god was! Those three were simply acting out god’s great plan. That should shut them up.
The Sun provides life on Earth, so why not "pray" to the Sun? Would the Sun care if everyone died on the planet, or if a futurist predicted the end of the world? No. The Sun will set and rise over the horizon whether we are here or not.
The Sun provides life on Earth, so why not "pray" to the Sun? Would the Sun care if everyone died on the planet, or if a futurist predicted the end of the world? No. The Sun will set and rise over the horizon whether we are here or not.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
A Universe From Nothing
In a flat universe the total energy of the universe is precisely zero. Because gravity can have negative energy so the negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter. What's so beautiful about a universe with a total energy of zero? Only such a universe can begin from nothing. . . the laws of physics allow the universe to begin from nothing. You don't need a deity. You have nothing, zero total energy, and quantum fluctuations can produce a universe.
--Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing)
--Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing)
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
WHY I’M ATHEIST & NOT AGNOSTIC
Dear friend,
I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion we had on your live radio show last night, although there was one thing which left a sour taste in my mouth. This was your assertion that I am an agnostic and not an atheist. I know you meant this as a polite gesture, since in your view agnosticism is more palatable. In my view, it is just the opposite. Here is why I say this:
Agnosticism is a position concerning KNOWLEDGE.
a = not or absence of
gnostic (gnosis) = Greek for “knowledge”
An agnostic posits that a god does not exist in the context of human knowledge. What agnostics are doing by taking this position is to attempt to escape the stigma associated with admitting they don’t believe in a god by asserting that there is a “god” which is unknowable. This is worse than saying there is no god because it implies that even proof of a god cannot be admissible because there is no way of knowing of a god and, therefore, no way of knowing of proof of a god. God is completely shut out by the agnostic under the guise of acknowledging a god concept. As such, not a single attribute applied to a god by any religion can be postulated to an agnostic. The agnostic enjoys the benefit of the church having decided that any acknowledgment of a god is better than outright denial. But the agnostic has cleverly denied the existence of a god for GOOD!
Atheism is a position concerning THEOLOGY.
a = not or absence of
theism = belief in a deity or deities
Unlike the agnostic who cannot know of a god which is unknowable, the atheist is open-minded enough to accept demonstrable proof and upon such proof will know of – which is to say believe in – such god or gods. Historically, agnostics are considered more acceptable than atheists because of the false appearance in the acceptance that there is a god. But a god which is impossible to know of is much further away than a god which may be knowable given the proof that an atheist is willing to accept. An atheist who posits the absence of a god and furthers this assertion with the denial of the possibility of there being a god is just as close-minded as the theist in which they oppose. Dogma is dogma no matter which pole the attraction. I am not such an atheist. I am an atheist who does not believe in a god and who seriously doubts that there will ever be proof of the existence of any of the thousands of gods proposed by the human race. Monotheists have also since abandoned the thousands of other gods in exchange for one god. I’ve simply gone one god further than monotheism. This is called atheism. And given acceptable proof, I reserve the right to acknowledge a god or gods.
Atheists need proof
The types of proof an atheist will accept are based purely upon the assertions made by any particular religion concerning their god or gods. Remember, atheism is about THEISM, not about scientific wonders of some unexplainable force which you might conveniently label as a “god.” Your Abrahamic god is already clearly defined in scriptures which are claimed to be the word of this very god. So, it’s indisputable. And based upon these characterizations of the Abrahamic god, here are three examples of proof an atheist would accept:
It is written that your god answers prayers. I want statistics that show results of prayer are more probable than a coin toss.
It is written that your god loves everyone. I want all poverty and sickness and hunger cured absent any conditions imposed on the people being cured. Conditional love is a vice – not a virtue.
It is written that your god performs miracles. I want a demonstration. I don’t want naturally occurring phenomenon to be described as miracles performed by your god because they’re not. Nor is our emergence. Hard to conceive? Yes -much is. Miracle? No. An acceptable miracle would be for your god to simply reveal itself at once to a crowd of people of all different religions (I would like to be there too).
So far, the only “proof” anyone has ever been able to put forward concerning a god or gods is personal feelings or thoughts. By definition, a god is a supernatural being which is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Remove any of those attributes and you get something less than a god.
An omnipotent god has the strength and energy to manipulate anything in the physical realm. It was this god-force which was long ago (and still is today if you ask Pat Robertson) attributed to earthquakes and storms and fire and flood. We know that the forces of nature require no god to remain in full force.
An omniscient god knows all. Past, present, and future. This means that the idea of putting living creatures through a test while already knowing the outcome is nothing short of cruel and sadistic. All the prayers and worship and sacrifice made for this god by anyone – or the denial of this god by anyone – will not change their own outcome nor that of the universe. This means there is no free will. No choice. No chance to “change history” or “control our own destiny” for any of us.
An omnipresent god is a god who is everywhere all the time. Under the premise of this intrusive imposition, we are all being watched every moment of our lives. Even in our sleep. And including our most private thoughts. We cannot escape the surveillance of this god and therefore have absolutely no privacy. Our “free will” is threatened as we make decisions to appease this supernatural “peeping Tom” over ourselves and others.
An omnibenevolent god is one who loves and cares for everything. Although this all-loving god did not care enough about animals or plants to give them a soul and thus denying them the rights of passage to its “kingdom.” Although this all-loving god does not love those who don’t love it. Although this all-loving god does not love children enough to prevent their being molested or starved or becoming the unintended target of bullets or poison or still birth. Although this all-loving god does not love me enough to have placed the knowledge of its existence in my brain from birth and, instead, makes itself impossible for me to justify or acknowledge. And as if this weren’t enough, this planet, this universe, and everything in it, is subjected to the cruelty of chaos and extreme external and internal forces and does not reconcile with omnibenevolence.
But I get it. All of these god traits are obviously based upon a human desire to build a sense of security through ultimate control of everything. It is impossible for man to control everything and so having a “big buddy” who can is a clear advantage. A way to frighten enemies and rest easy at night. Although some of us are content with the absenceof an imaginary big buddy. We realize that by working together human kind can find REAL security and that collectively, WE are the “big buddy.” But through arguments that his god is the real one and her god is not, the “big buddy” remains only an elusive force of separatism among the faithful, affecting all of us.
In the atheistic view, the time for gods has passed. Mankind is entering a point where important decisions for our survival must be made using sound evidence and lesson’s learned, placing superstitions and dogma aside. We have great power over our environment and our future and unless we decide the world is in OUR hands and not at the mercy of some antiquated man-made myth, we just may bring forth the mass destruction which our oppressed desert-dwelling religious pioneers saw as the only way to wipe out their hell-bound enslavers while ending their own horribly miserable mortal lives in exchange for an imagined eternal bliss. They have planted the seeds of destruction by claiming their god wants this to happen. And we are cursed with this self-fulfilling prophecy as long as we continue to cling to these ancient superstitions.
In closing, I want you to know that aside from not having been presented with any proof for a god, I am an atheist because I don’t agree that the life we have now should be cheapened by the false promise of a better life after death. I think it’s extremely irresponsible to believe there needs to be a “final act” which amounts to suicide at a global scale. I don’t agree that our purpose is to serve a supernatural dictator that commands that we love it. And I loathe the idea of encouraging people, especially children, to pretend they love a mythical being using the “motivation” of eternal damnation. The human race can do much better than that.
Sincerely yours,
Sean Rowland
SupportAtheism.com
I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion we had on your live radio show last night, although there was one thing which left a sour taste in my mouth. This was your assertion that I am an agnostic and not an atheist. I know you meant this as a polite gesture, since in your view agnosticism is more palatable. In my view, it is just the opposite. Here is why I say this:
Agnosticism is a position concerning KNOWLEDGE.
a = not or absence of
gnostic (gnosis) = Greek for “knowledge”
An agnostic posits that a god does not exist in the context of human knowledge. What agnostics are doing by taking this position is to attempt to escape the stigma associated with admitting they don’t believe in a god by asserting that there is a “god” which is unknowable. This is worse than saying there is no god because it implies that even proof of a god cannot be admissible because there is no way of knowing of a god and, therefore, no way of knowing of proof of a god. God is completely shut out by the agnostic under the guise of acknowledging a god concept. As such, not a single attribute applied to a god by any religion can be postulated to an agnostic. The agnostic enjoys the benefit of the church having decided that any acknowledgment of a god is better than outright denial. But the agnostic has cleverly denied the existence of a god for GOOD!
Atheism is a position concerning THEOLOGY.
a = not or absence of
theism = belief in a deity or deities
Unlike the agnostic who cannot know of a god which is unknowable, the atheist is open-minded enough to accept demonstrable proof and upon such proof will know of – which is to say believe in – such god or gods. Historically, agnostics are considered more acceptable than atheists because of the false appearance in the acceptance that there is a god. But a god which is impossible to know of is much further away than a god which may be knowable given the proof that an atheist is willing to accept. An atheist who posits the absence of a god and furthers this assertion with the denial of the possibility of there being a god is just as close-minded as the theist in which they oppose. Dogma is dogma no matter which pole the attraction. I am not such an atheist. I am an atheist who does not believe in a god and who seriously doubts that there will ever be proof of the existence of any of the thousands of gods proposed by the human race. Monotheists have also since abandoned the thousands of other gods in exchange for one god. I’ve simply gone one god further than monotheism. This is called atheism. And given acceptable proof, I reserve the right to acknowledge a god or gods.
Atheists need proof
The types of proof an atheist will accept are based purely upon the assertions made by any particular religion concerning their god or gods. Remember, atheism is about THEISM, not about scientific wonders of some unexplainable force which you might conveniently label as a “god.” Your Abrahamic god is already clearly defined in scriptures which are claimed to be the word of this very god. So, it’s indisputable. And based upon these characterizations of the Abrahamic god, here are three examples of proof an atheist would accept:
It is written that your god answers prayers. I want statistics that show results of prayer are more probable than a coin toss.
It is written that your god loves everyone. I want all poverty and sickness and hunger cured absent any conditions imposed on the people being cured. Conditional love is a vice – not a virtue.
It is written that your god performs miracles. I want a demonstration. I don’t want naturally occurring phenomenon to be described as miracles performed by your god because they’re not. Nor is our emergence. Hard to conceive? Yes -much is. Miracle? No. An acceptable miracle would be for your god to simply reveal itself at once to a crowd of people of all different religions (I would like to be there too).
So far, the only “proof” anyone has ever been able to put forward concerning a god or gods is personal feelings or thoughts. By definition, a god is a supernatural being which is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Remove any of those attributes and you get something less than a god.
An omnipotent god has the strength and energy to manipulate anything in the physical realm. It was this god-force which was long ago (and still is today if you ask Pat Robertson) attributed to earthquakes and storms and fire and flood. We know that the forces of nature require no god to remain in full force.
An omniscient god knows all. Past, present, and future. This means that the idea of putting living creatures through a test while already knowing the outcome is nothing short of cruel and sadistic. All the prayers and worship and sacrifice made for this god by anyone – or the denial of this god by anyone – will not change their own outcome nor that of the universe. This means there is no free will. No choice. No chance to “change history” or “control our own destiny” for any of us.
An omnipresent god is a god who is everywhere all the time. Under the premise of this intrusive imposition, we are all being watched every moment of our lives. Even in our sleep. And including our most private thoughts. We cannot escape the surveillance of this god and therefore have absolutely no privacy. Our “free will” is threatened as we make decisions to appease this supernatural “peeping Tom” over ourselves and others.
An omnibenevolent god is one who loves and cares for everything. Although this all-loving god did not care enough about animals or plants to give them a soul and thus denying them the rights of passage to its “kingdom.” Although this all-loving god does not love those who don’t love it. Although this all-loving god does not love children enough to prevent their being molested or starved or becoming the unintended target of bullets or poison or still birth. Although this all-loving god does not love me enough to have placed the knowledge of its existence in my brain from birth and, instead, makes itself impossible for me to justify or acknowledge. And as if this weren’t enough, this planet, this universe, and everything in it, is subjected to the cruelty of chaos and extreme external and internal forces and does not reconcile with omnibenevolence.
But I get it. All of these god traits are obviously based upon a human desire to build a sense of security through ultimate control of everything. It is impossible for man to control everything and so having a “big buddy” who can is a clear advantage. A way to frighten enemies and rest easy at night. Although some of us are content with the absenceof an imaginary big buddy. We realize that by working together human kind can find REAL security and that collectively, WE are the “big buddy.” But through arguments that his god is the real one and her god is not, the “big buddy” remains only an elusive force of separatism among the faithful, affecting all of us.
In the atheistic view, the time for gods has passed. Mankind is entering a point where important decisions for our survival must be made using sound evidence and lesson’s learned, placing superstitions and dogma aside. We have great power over our environment and our future and unless we decide the world is in OUR hands and not at the mercy of some antiquated man-made myth, we just may bring forth the mass destruction which our oppressed desert-dwelling religious pioneers saw as the only way to wipe out their hell-bound enslavers while ending their own horribly miserable mortal lives in exchange for an imagined eternal bliss. They have planted the seeds of destruction by claiming their god wants this to happen. And we are cursed with this self-fulfilling prophecy as long as we continue to cling to these ancient superstitions.
In closing, I want you to know that aside from not having been presented with any proof for a god, I am an atheist because I don’t agree that the life we have now should be cheapened by the false promise of a better life after death. I think it’s extremely irresponsible to believe there needs to be a “final act” which amounts to suicide at a global scale. I don’t agree that our purpose is to serve a supernatural dictator that commands that we love it. And I loathe the idea of encouraging people, especially children, to pretend they love a mythical being using the “motivation” of eternal damnation. The human race can do much better than that.
Sincerely yours,
Sean Rowland
SupportAtheism.com
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
god hated the world so much that he sent his only son so that whoever does not believe in him will perish and be denied eternal life.
god hated the world so much that he sent his only son so that whoever does not believe in him will perish and be denied eternal life.
ppl dont argue over things they know exist..the very fact that there is an argument at all is evidence 4 atheism #atheist
ppl dont argue over things they know exist..the very fact that there is an argument at all is evidence 4 atheism #atheist
Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of awesome mystical power. We know this because they manage to be invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can’t see them.
Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of awesome mystical power. We know this because they manage to be invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can’t see them.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
there are easily and quickly 2 reasons
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.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
"We are called "infidels" and denounced as "unbelievers" because we will not march in the ranks of hypocrisy and dance to the music of Orthodoxy. We believe no statement which our reason cannot approve; we accept no doctrine which is contrary to commonsense; we have confidence in human nature; we believe in truth, justice, and love; we accept life as a blessing, and try to make it so; we believe in taking care of ourselves, in helping others and in being just and kind to all, and we say to the Christian Church, "If this be Infidelity, make the most of it!" Marilla Young Ricker
"We are called "infidels" and denounced as "unbelievers" because we will
not march in the ranks of hypocrisy and dance to the music of Orthodoxy.
We believe no statement which our reason cannot approve; we accept no
doctrine which is contrary to commonsense; we have confidence in human
nature; we believe in truth, justice, and love; we accept life as a
blessing, and try to make it so; we believe in taking care of ourselves,
in helping others and in being just and kind to all, and we say to the
Christian Church, "If this be Infidelity, make the most of it!"
Marilla Young Ricker
not march in the ranks of hypocrisy and dance to the music of Orthodoxy.
We believe no statement which our reason cannot approve; we accept no
doctrine which is contrary to commonsense; we have confidence in human
nature; we believe in truth, justice, and love; we accept life as a
blessing, and try to make it so; we believe in taking care of ourselves,
in helping others and in being just and kind to all, and we say to the
Christian Church, "If this be Infidelity, make the most of it!"
Marilla Young Ricker
Saturday, October 1, 2011
thieves can find policeman at the local station. if U show me a picture of yr god I'll show U a picture of a policeman. #atheist
thieves can find policeman at the local station. if U show me a picture of yr god I'll show U a picture of a policeman. #atheist
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
No Tolerance for Bigots!
No Tolerance for Bigots! Atheists Shouldn't Tolerate anti-Atheist Bigotry
Atheists Must Denounce Bigotry, Prejudice, Discrimination Against Non-Believers
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
If you are an atheist, an agnostic, a humanist, or secularist of any sort, then you have a problem in America because there is a significant number of people in this nation who don't believe that you can be as moral, as good, or as trustworthy as religious believers. They don't have to know you in order to arrive at such a conclusion; they believe this based solely on the fact that you don't believe in any god and/or don't have a religion like they do. Most people regard you as inferior.
Don't you think you should do something about this? Why allow religious believers to continue expecting you to submit to laws written to benefit them at your expense? Why allow religious believers to continue insisting that you hide your opinions lest public condemnation lead to you losing your job, your friends, or more? Why allow religious believers to continue imposing a religious test for public office that ensures few if any atheists serve in government despite the fact that such tests would be illegal if imposed officially?
No Tolerance for Intolerance, No Compromise with Bigotry
Atheists, agnostics, humanists, and secularists of all sorts must draw a bright, sharp line against any bigotry, intolerance, and discrimination they face from religious believers in America. There can be no tolerance for explicit or implicit claims that you have to be a believer to have morals, values, happiness, or meaning in life. There can be no tolerance for the assumption that one has to be a believer in order to be good, kind, or trustworthy. There can be no tolerance for efforts to carve out special, unjust privileges for people based solely on their having a religion or being Christian.
There can be no compromising with or accommodations for bigotry of any sort, even when bigots actively mask their prejudice in the guise of merely securing the "rights" of those who would be privileged over others. Bigotry isn't just a matter of treating one group as inferior, but also of treating another group as superior. Anti-atheist bigotry can be expressed by telling atheists that they aren't moral enough for politics and by telling Christians or religious believers that they are needed in politics because the government is in need of their moral values. They are two sides of the same coin and each must be opposed as strongly as the other
If You Don't Stand Up For Yourself, Who Will?
It's not always easy to stand out in a crowd and many atheists find it easier to just keep their heads down and not make waves, but no one ever accomplished anything good or important by hiding from negative public opinion. One of the reasons why it's difficult for atheists to come out of the closet is the influence which anti-atheist bigots and defenders of Christian privilege1 have, so it's imperative for someone to speak out publicly against such heinous beliefs and on behalf of the equal rights, dignity, and importance of secular atheists in America.
When you hear anti-atheist bigotry expressed in your presence, it's directed at you even if the speaker doesn't know that you personally are an atheist. Such bigotry exists to keep atheists quiet, subordinate, afraid, and submissive. When you fail to speak out, you are behaving exactly as the bigots want and so they succeed in oppressing you a bit further. Someone needs to speak out against such behavior and it's far too rare to find religious believers doing it. So, if you aren't going to stand up for yourself and defend your own equality, then who will?
High Standards & High Expectations for Religious Believers
Most religious theists probably won't express anti-atheist bigotry very openly, directly, or publicly. The more common situation is to have a small number of vocal bigots plus a much larger number group of people who passively nod their heads and go along with it, giving the impression that the bigotry expressed is natural, expected, and proper. In addition to standing up against the vocal bigots, then, atheists also need to set higher standards of behavior from the passive observers.
It's far too common for most people to stand by passively and allow all sorts of bigotry to foul the air: racist jokes, off-color comments about women's sexual behavior, generalizations about Muslims as terrorists, etc. Perhaps it's because they secretly agree or perhaps it's because they just don't want to make waves, but no such excuses should be accepted. People must be judged by the company they keep and if someone passively allows bigotry to pass by without objection, they must be deemed as guilty as the original speaker.
Religious believers must therefore be held to the standard that if they don't want to be treated or thought of as anti-atheist bigots, then they must be willing to publicly object to anti-atheist bigotry, religious privilege, and Christian privilege whenever they see it. This doesn't mean that they have to launch into a long argument about it, but they do at the very least have to willing to point out the bigotry of what was said, that it is wrong, and that they don't want to continue hearing it. Nothing less will do because nothing less can represent genuine or sincere opposition to such bigotry.
Atheists Must Denounce Bigotry, Prejudice, Discrimination Against Non-Believers
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
If you are an atheist, an agnostic, a humanist, or secularist of any sort, then you have a problem in America because there is a significant number of people in this nation who don't believe that you can be as moral, as good, or as trustworthy as religious believers. They don't have to know you in order to arrive at such a conclusion; they believe this based solely on the fact that you don't believe in any god and/or don't have a religion like they do. Most people regard you as inferior.
Don't you think you should do something about this? Why allow religious believers to continue expecting you to submit to laws written to benefit them at your expense? Why allow religious believers to continue insisting that you hide your opinions lest public condemnation lead to you losing your job, your friends, or more? Why allow religious believers to continue imposing a religious test for public office that ensures few if any atheists serve in government despite the fact that such tests would be illegal if imposed officially?
No Tolerance for Intolerance, No Compromise with Bigotry
Atheists, agnostics, humanists, and secularists of all sorts must draw a bright, sharp line against any bigotry, intolerance, and discrimination they face from religious believers in America. There can be no tolerance for explicit or implicit claims that you have to be a believer to have morals, values, happiness, or meaning in life. There can be no tolerance for the assumption that one has to be a believer in order to be good, kind, or trustworthy. There can be no tolerance for efforts to carve out special, unjust privileges for people based solely on their having a religion or being Christian.
There can be no compromising with or accommodations for bigotry of any sort, even when bigots actively mask their prejudice in the guise of merely securing the "rights" of those who would be privileged over others. Bigotry isn't just a matter of treating one group as inferior, but also of treating another group as superior. Anti-atheist bigotry can be expressed by telling atheists that they aren't moral enough for politics and by telling Christians or religious believers that they are needed in politics because the government is in need of their moral values. They are two sides of the same coin and each must be opposed as strongly as the other
If You Don't Stand Up For Yourself, Who Will?
It's not always easy to stand out in a crowd and many atheists find it easier to just keep their heads down and not make waves, but no one ever accomplished anything good or important by hiding from negative public opinion. One of the reasons why it's difficult for atheists to come out of the closet is the influence which anti-atheist bigots and defenders of Christian privilege1 have, so it's imperative for someone to speak out publicly against such heinous beliefs and on behalf of the equal rights, dignity, and importance of secular atheists in America.
When you hear anti-atheist bigotry expressed in your presence, it's directed at you even if the speaker doesn't know that you personally are an atheist. Such bigotry exists to keep atheists quiet, subordinate, afraid, and submissive. When you fail to speak out, you are behaving exactly as the bigots want and so they succeed in oppressing you a bit further. Someone needs to speak out against such behavior and it's far too rare to find religious believers doing it. So, if you aren't going to stand up for yourself and defend your own equality, then who will?
High Standards & High Expectations for Religious Believers
Most religious theists probably won't express anti-atheist bigotry very openly, directly, or publicly. The more common situation is to have a small number of vocal bigots plus a much larger number group of people who passively nod their heads and go along with it, giving the impression that the bigotry expressed is natural, expected, and proper. In addition to standing up against the vocal bigots, then, atheists also need to set higher standards of behavior from the passive observers.
It's far too common for most people to stand by passively and allow all sorts of bigotry to foul the air: racist jokes, off-color comments about women's sexual behavior, generalizations about Muslims as terrorists, etc. Perhaps it's because they secretly agree or perhaps it's because they just don't want to make waves, but no such excuses should be accepted. People must be judged by the company they keep and if someone passively allows bigotry to pass by without objection, they must be deemed as guilty as the original speaker.
Religious believers must therefore be held to the standard that if they don't want to be treated or thought of as anti-atheist bigots, then they must be willing to publicly object to anti-atheist bigotry, religious privilege, and Christian privilege whenever they see it. This doesn't mean that they have to launch into a long argument about it, but they do at the very least have to willing to point out the bigotry of what was said, that it is wrong, and that they don't want to continue hearing it. Nothing less will do because nothing less can represent genuine or sincere opposition to such bigotry.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
no the worst moments 4 an #atheist R when we C another childs been beaten 2 death by a member of the christian death cult
no the worst moments 4 an #atheist R when we C another childs been beaten 2 death by a member of the christian death cult
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Light Without a Light Source By Austin Cline
Genesis, the first book of the Bible, contains an error about the origins and nature of light. Genesis depicts God creating light on the first day before the creation of anything that could serve as a source of light. The stars and the sun aren't created until the fourth day, even though they would have to be the source of light described at the beginning. You can't have light without a light source, so the Genesis account of the creation of light is a mistake.
First Day of Creation
Genesis 1:3-5: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Fourth Day of Creation
Genesis 1:14-19: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. ...And the evening and the morning were the fourth day
There are multiple errors in these passages. First, you can't have the light described in the first day without some sort of light source, but the sources of light don't appear until the fourth day. Second, you can't have day and night without the sun to provide them but the sun isn't depicted as having been created until the fourth "day." How could there have been three previous days without the earth rotating in front of a source of light like the sun?
Humans in the ancient world didn't know and couldn't have known about how the sun and the start produce light, so we can't be surprised at presence of errors about this subject in human texts. Thus so long as we remember that the Bible is just a human-created text, there isn't a problem; as soon as anyone insists that the Bible is anything more, errors like this take on new importance.
Is this a legitimate, scientific error in the Bible or can the Genesis depiction of the the sources of light in the universe be harmonized with the facts of science? If you think you can answer this Bible error, explain how — but your answer cannot add anything new that's not already in the stories and cannot leave out any details that the Bible provides.
First Day of Creation
Genesis 1:3-5: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Fourth Day of Creation
Genesis 1:14-19: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. ...And the evening and the morning were the fourth day
There are multiple errors in these passages. First, you can't have the light described in the first day without some sort of light source, but the sources of light don't appear until the fourth day. Second, you can't have day and night without the sun to provide them but the sun isn't depicted as having been created until the fourth "day." How could there have been three previous days without the earth rotating in front of a source of light like the sun?
Humans in the ancient world didn't know and couldn't have known about how the sun and the start produce light, so we can't be surprised at presence of errors about this subject in human texts. Thus so long as we remember that the Bible is just a human-created text, there isn't a problem; as soon as anyone insists that the Bible is anything more, errors like this take on new importance.
Is this a legitimate, scientific error in the Bible or can the Genesis depiction of the the sources of light in the universe be harmonized with the facts of science? If you think you can answer this Bible error, explain how — but your answer cannot add anything new that's not already in the stories and cannot leave out any details that the Bible provides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)