I don’t really have much to add to this very well written article. Let’s see where the comments take us, if this gets any. Please read the full article before posting since I’ve not added anything of my own. Thanks.
Of course, the first day of suspension was for standing up to the bully. Both children got suspended. But, why did only the atheist get the lecture about respecting others? Why did only the atheist get an extra day of suspension? Wouldn’t it have been nice if the principal explained to the
Jesus freak preaching child that preaching in school is wrong? Wouldn’t it have been nice if the principal had explained a bit about respecting the choice not to believe? Oh well. At least mom got it right.
At last, we finally know why God is too busy to stop wars and solve hunger. It’s not just because He is too busy creating droughts, floods, extreme storms, wildfires, and all the rest. It’s because he’s busy interfering in the fair competitions of sporting events. Instead of allowing sporting events to remain fair, the Lord God Ruler of the Universe feels the need to get involved on the field and choose the winner.
At least, a quarter of Americans feel that this is what He is doing.
Why can’t humans dream up a god who is superior to us? What’s the point of creating an imaginary friend to whom one can pray for the temporary suspension of the laws of physics if said imaginary friend is no better than we are?
For the record, count me among the small number who disapprove of the expressions of faith mentioned in the article. I disapprove for the same reason I disapprove of thanking god for rain after a drought. Why not blame god for the drought in the first place?
Unfortunately, scientists are still in the position of having to respond to complete and utter bullshit. There are some good responses in here to why this is a real problem. Unfortunately, I bet there will be induhviduals who respond on this thread in defense of creationism. If you are about to do so, please make sure to at least watch the video first.
My favorite response in this particular video is the one regarding the human eye and jaw as they reflect on the incompetency of god and provide better evidence of unintelligent design than the other kind.
From the description on Amazon, this sounds as plausible as most mainstream religion and more plausible than some newer ones like Mormonism and Scientology. I probably won’t read this, but do find the description funny. Perhaps if I end up with a bit of extra time on my hands and need a good laugh, I’ll give it a try.
… oh … never mind. I found them.
Remember folks, if you do not believe in evolution, you do not believe in modern medicine.
Apparently, there are now people making the utterly ludicrous claim that contraception kills.
I should note that I am specifically responding to this quote from the FFRF blog post, not the one about the pill and cancer:
Midway through the rally, a glassy-eyed man with an infant came up to me, held up the baby, and solemnly told me: “Contraception would have killed her.”
In some cases, people really do seem to think that not conceiving a child is the same as killing one. Somewhat humorously, they do not seem to make the same claim about abstinence in general, or more specifically about the priests and nuns who disobey God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” (Actually, this may be a mistaken translation. I believe the original quote was “be useful and multiplex.”)
However, pointing out hypocrisies like priests, nuns, and religious murderers who let their own children die rather than use modern medicine to treat obviously treatable conditions like diabetes will only be a sidebar to this discussion.
The real point will of this post is the obvious fact that every person ever born has died or will die. No one gets out alive. Therefore, 100% of all human deaths have as the root cause conception.
Contraception prevents death.
For the purposes of this post, I am going to assume that those who mistakenly claim that contraception rather than conception causes death are the same induhviduals who believe life begins at conception. It seems a fair assumption. So, for those folks, I would point out not only that about 80% of all fertilized eggs “die” without implanting in the womb, but all of the others die as well. Every fertilized egg is a death waiting to happen, some will merely take longer than others.
So, to you religiose wackos who believe that contraception kills, I say this. Contraception has been preventing deaths since 1850 BCE. Contraception is the only means humanity has ever found to prevent death. Fairy tales won’t do it. Prayer won’t do it. Contraception succeeds where prayer fails.
Prevent death. Get a vasectomy or tubal ligation today. Not ready to make a permanent commitment to preventing death? Try contraception. Many types are quite effective at staving off the grim reaper. Ask your doctor which method is right for you.
I was recently surprised. I had what I thought were two original thoughts about Noah’s Ark. I googled both and found that I was far from the first to think of either, of course. But, there is a sub-thought to my second thought that does appear to be somewhat original.
What would you say upon meeting God at your death? For me, I’d do my best to get in one good shot. Before I get zapped for all eternity, I want to at least try to give God, whichever god I come to first, a punch in the nose.
But, I doubt if I could say anything much better than what Adam Brown says in this video.
I’m hearing a lot from atheist friends who don’t want to be offensive. They are upset by the tactics being used by some atheist organizations today. I have an alternate take on things.
Here are a couple of ads that show the kinds of things to which many on both sides of the fence seem to object.
To me, it’s obvious that the bible is offensive. I’m surprised that believers would agree. But, there you have it. Way to go Pennsylvania for declaring 2012 to be the Year of the Bible. It seems to be spreading the word about the offensive nature of the Bad Book beautifully, albeit with a bit of help from American Atheists and the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers.
Folks, the only thing on this sign that is not in the Bible is the graphic representation of the literal words in the book. If a simple graphic depicting what slavery means is offensive, then so is the concept and the book that condones it.
Again and again and again, our morals do not come from the Bible.
Thank God I’m an atheist!
Here’s a short collection of atheist, or more accurately antitheist, songs that I happen to like. Note that rather than having one line about atheism, all of these songs have it as a central theme. There are many more songs that have a single line about non-belief, e.g. Human League’s “Love Action” and The Clash’s “Death or Glory”. I have not included such songs on this list.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive. Please note that for me, the music stopped in about 1988. I know very little music from after that. I have no good excuse. I guess I’m just not that into music as a whole. I like some music very much, but have never really taken a strong interest in it. And, lately what music I have added to my collection has been older rather than newer.
Regardless, here are a few of my favorites with antitheist themes.
In a shocking op-ed piece entitled Many Faiths, One Truth, the 14th Dalai Lama, thankfully writing as Tenzin Gyatso rather than under the title of Dalai Lama, the only mention of people of no faith is:
Radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold to religious beliefs.
I am an antitheist primarily because of the violence in the Bible and other religious writings, regardless of how much of it actually happened, and because of the violence directly caused by people’s reading of the Bible and/or other religious writings. Many modern members of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion (deliberately singular) believe that the people that have caused such atrocities are misinterpreting the written words of this religion. Many even claim that religion is inherently peaceful; I believe quite the opposite. I believe religion, or more accurately the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion, to be inherently violent by design and purpose.
We need a new word to denote one who believes that for which there is overwhelming evidence and gives credence to that for which there is some evidence and gives no credence to that for which there is no evidence. Scientist might be used as a word to mean a believer in science. However, just as sexist has already been used for another purpose, so can’t be used to indicate one who believes in sex, scientist has already been used to indicate one who actually practices science for a living, so cannot be used to indicate a believer in the tremendous value of scientific evidence.
Atheist is actually a bad word for this because, as Dawkins points out in God Delusion, this defines one by their non-belief. I am an atheist. I am also an athorist and an azeusist and an aodinist and an abaalist, etc. For this reason, I prefer to call myself an antitheist. This works for me because I actually do believe religion is an evil institution and am opposed to all forms of theism. So, for me, this works.
However, we still do not have a good name for one who does not oppose theism, but simply does not believe in it. Skeptic is one word that could accurately describe such a philosophy, but is also overloaded with other meaning both connotations and denotations.
So, the question is, what should we call someone that believes that extraordinary claims, such as an invisible man in the sky, must be backed up by evidence in order to be given credence (other than unelectable for office at any level anywhere in this U.S.)?