Skip to main content

Home/ Atheist Thoughts/ Group items tagged just

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
ben wells

Why do people laugh at creationists? - 0 views

www.youtube.com/watch

creationism evolution id intelligentdesign stein

shared by ben wells on 17 Apr 08 - Cached
  • ben wells on 17 Apr 08
     
    This is a biting critique of Ben Stein and his movie called Expelled in which he decries the mistreatment of creationists and attempts to debunk evolution. The youtuber doing the critique articulates the rhetorical tactic of colluding free speech and the scientific method- the idea that anybody's OPINION is somehow just as valid and important as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY because we're all entitled to free speech. (Those who think that should go look up what it takes for a hypothesis to become a theory.) That's not how it works and anyone who's even slightly serious about figuring out fundamental truths about our existence should reject that notion outright. Only the trained professionals, please. I can certainly say whatever I want about anything- but I shouldn't be listened to as any serious beacon of knowledge if I can't back up my claims with evidence. (And "because the Bible says so" or "there must be an intelligent designer because it's just so complex and I don't understand it" is not evidence.)\n\nI still don't get why we need to have all this stuff figured out in order find fulfillment and to live our lives happily. We greatly underrate ourselves. The video is also really fascinating because it reminds us just how amazing and fascinating our world is - he lists off many discoveries of the past 150 years - amazing stuff. All Ben Stein accomplishes is making himself resemble a life-size douche (a South Park episode comes to mind).
Jaakko Wallenius

What makes a free thinker think freely? - Being Human - 6 views

beinghuman.blogs.fi/...e-thinker-think-freely-7096570

free thinkling deism revolutions

shared by Jaakko Wallenius on 04 Oct 09 - No Cached
  • Jaakko Wallenius on 04 Oct 09
     
    If things are going smoothly in your life and you are just running with the herd, one is very easily drawn into accepting the ideas appreciated by the herd without questioning them. Human beings just are extremely social animals and the acceptance of ones social group is of paramount importance for any person. So very often there must be a trigger incident that throws a person off balance or outside the herd for at least a moment before a person is drawn into questioning the ruling ideologies of the herd. But when the flood-gates are finally opened, there is very often no going back, when one realizes on how shallow base even the most established traditions so often really stand.
Bakari Chavanu

answeringinfidels.com - 4 views

www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php

god

shared by Bakari Chavanu on 30 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Here Richard argues that Metaphysical Naturalism is better than any religion, because if society were to adopt his view, there would be no religious conflict.
    • Bakari Chavanu
      Bakari Chavanu on 30 Oct 09
       
      I have to agree with this point. Richard in his presentation sounded very naive as to think enough people who accept "Metaphysical Naturalism" as a dominate worldview, when in actuality no particular worldview is dominate.
  • This seems pretty straightforward, but there is a gaping problem. Richard claims that the adoption of his view by society would bring an end to religious conflict. But what does he mean by “adoption”? He can’t be referring to a simple adoption of his view by a government, for this would not put an end to religious conflicts, whether internal or external.
  • For instance, if Congress suddenly voted in favor of a Metaphysical Naturalism Amendment to the Constitution, there would still be Christians, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, and others contending for their faiths. Thus, there would still be conflict. 
  • ...29 more annotations...
  • His argument, then, amounts to this: “If we all believed in Metaphysical Naturalism, then there would be no disagreements about the truth of Metaphysical Naturalism.” If my point isn’t clear yet, just compare Richard’s reasoning with the following arguments, which are based on similar logic: 
  • If Christianity were adopted by everyone, then no one would disagree about whether or not Christianity is true. We wouldn’t have to worry about Muslim extremists anymore, for Islam would be a thing of the past. The war in Iraq would be over! Thus, everyone should adopt Christianity.
  • But this logic could be used to justify any policy change: If we just made it a law that immigrants could come to the U.S. at will, then we wouldn’t have to worry about patrolling our borders or making immigration policies. We could then take those resources and use them elsewhere. Thus, U.S. borders should be open to everyone. If people would simply agree that abortion is wrong, the abortion controversy would be over. This would allow officials to spend their time debating other issues, such as health care. Thus, people should agree that abortion is wrong. 
  • Needless to say, the Song of Solomon isn’t about the joys of child-rearing. I’m sure Richard is familiar with this part of the Bible, so I still don’t understand why he would say that the Bible teaches that sex is only for procreation.
  • Richard is also wrong when he says that the Bible lacks a mature view of sexuality. According to the Bible, God created sex. He could just as easily have given us the ability to reproduce asexually, but he didn’t. He wanted man and woman to be together, and he made sex pleasurable. When he finished creating us this way, he called everything “very good.”[23] And contrary to what Richard says, sex has purposes other than procreation. 
    • Bakari Chavanu
      Bakari Chavanu on 30 Oct 09
       
      But how do you know this? Plus, sex like other behaviors in life is extremely problematic for human societies. It represents the best and the worst about our nature. What type of god would allow that to occur in humans?
  • “[A]s atheists know better than anyone else on the planet, if you say you don’t believe you often become a social outcast.”[24]  This is the epitome of egocentrism. Around the world, people have been shunned, oppressed, tortured, and killed for their beliefs, yet Richard thinks that he’s got it worse than all of them. He even shares with his readers the suffering that resulted from his stand against theism: “For the first time, rather than being merely constantly pestered, I was being called names, and having hellfire wished upon me.”[25] If
  • Even more interesting is that Richard inadvertently implicates a number of his atheist colleagues in his crimes against reason: The Internet Infidels were also instrumental in helping to complete the latest phase of my intellectual development, especially Jeff Lowder and many affiliated colleagues: Evan Fales, Victor Stenger, Keith Augustine, Dan Barker, just to name a few, who also gave advice about improving this work specifically.[31] Shame on all of them! Either they lacked the reasoning ability to see the flaws in Richard’s arguments from breasts and blue monkeys (in which case they should all stop writing), or they don’t care that atheism is based on ridiculous arguments (in which case they should stop trying to persuade the world that their beliefs are important). Either way, they are guilty along with Richard. Aristotle would not be pleased.
  • On the last page of his book, Richard says that atheists “gain a sense of community and conviction through fighting together against our common enemies—the foes of reason, truth, and liberty.”[32] He then pleads for his readers to join him in his battle against Christianity. Remarkably, half way down the page he adds, “Failing that, if you’d rather pass, then I would like to extend another plea: for tolerance, acceptance, and understanding.” Thus, Richard’s message at the conclusion of his book seems to be: “Let’s all join together and destroy Christianity, our greatest enemy, until it is gone from the earth! But for those of you who don’t agree with me, let’s all be tolerant and understanding toward one another.”
  • Indeed, Christianity has enslaved the minds of billions of people: The fact is that we believe in God and an immortal soul because of the missionary zeal and religious intolerance intrinsic to the Christian religion. We owe our superstitious ideas to sword and gun and flame. In this corner of the globe, the Christian church was the victor, and our minds were the spoil.[39] 
  • Richard calls for war, a battle “to defeat the nonsense and lies” that Christians have spread.[40] He even refers to his campaign against Christianity as a “crusade” and says that “it would be immoral not to fight it.”[41] 
  • In the first passage, Jesus is addressing the idea that he had come to usher in a golden age of peace. Contrary to Jewish expectations, the purpose of Jesus’ first coming was to die on the cross for the sins of the world and to tear down the barrier of separation between God and man.
  • That Jesus here uses the word “sword” figuratively to represent the division brought by the Gospel is obvious to anyone whose last name isn’t Carrier.
  • From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.”[47] 
  • All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
  • The story is meant to illustrate Jesus’ immanent departure. Jesus was leaving, but he would one day return. In the meantime, people can either serve Christ or they can rebel against him. We can do as we like, but we mustn’t forget that one day Jesus will return, and that we will all be judged. That’s the obvious meaning of the passage
  • In the other passage, Richard calls Paul an advocate of slavery. But notice what Paul says. He tells his readers that slaves shouldn’t rebel against their masters “so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.”
  • f Richard had been writing the letters, slaves would have rebelled, and Christianity wouldn’t have lasted very long.
  • Besides, in his letter to Philemon, Paul does ask a slave-owner to free his slave.[49] 
  • For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.[50] 
  • not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.[51] 
  • Paul says that we are all one. He tells slaves to render service with good will, then turns around and says that masters should do the same things for their slaves. He adds that our true Master is in heaven, and that there is no favoritism with God.
  • In other words, we are all equal in God’s sight. This idea ultimately resulted in the Founding Fathers’ declaration that “All men are created equal,” which in turn gave birth to democracy in America and to the eventual abolition of slavery.
  • As we investigate Richard’s claims, a pattern should be coming into view. Richard goes to the Bible searching for the most unfavorable interpretation he can find. It’s fine if that’s his method, but remember that he demands that the principle of interpretive charity be applied to his writings.
  • Are these really contradictions? I’m not so sure. Consider the following statements: 1. Yesterday morning, Aunt Ginger came to my house to visit me.2. Last night, Aunt Ginger and Uncle Tony came to Virginia to visit my father.3. Yesterday afternoon, my aunt came to town to go to the beach.4. Yesterday, my aunt and uncle came to my house to get a dog. Believe it or not, these four statements are all true. 
  • Atheists are free to accuse me (or the Bible) of gross contradiction, and in fact this is a very common approach in atheist apologetics. But for Richard to interpret obviously reconcilable statements (i.e. one passage mentions two women at the tomb, while another mentions three women, etc.) as horrible contradictions and then to demand that the principle of interpretive charity be applied to all of his writings would require a completely different type of charity. It would require us to say,
  • Since some Christians have done bad things, Christianity must be bad. For Richard, any bad deed that a Christian does is evidence against Christianity, even if the deed is contrary to Jesus’ teachings. 
  • Yet, strangely, nothing an atheist does counts against atheism. Stalin killed millions of people because he had no respect for the sanctity of life, but should this affect our opinion of atheism?  Hitler tried to apply atheistic evolution to society, concluded that the Jews needed to be removed from the gene pool because they were interfering with human evolution, and killed millions of people.
  • Second, Richard says that the Bible is useless, childish, and boring, for it contains “extensive genealogies of no relevance to the meaning of life . . ., long digressions on barbaric rituals . . ., lengthy diatribes against long-dead nations and constant harping on doom and gloom.”[56] 
  • Obviously, very few people lay awake at night tormented by the question “What do words mean?” Nor do they care about analyzing normative propositions or studying the differences between reducible and irreducible sensations. I’m sure Richard would respond by saying, “But these topics are important! If someone finds them unimportant, then something must be wrong with him!”
Bakari Chavanu

Dawkins vs. Collins: analysis of the debate. - 1 views

richarddawkins.net/,Gary-J-Whittenberger-eSkeptic

religion atheism dawkins science evolution

shared by Bakari Chavanu on 28 Sep 09 - Cached
  • In the first exchange, Dawkins and Collins apparently agreed that the proposition "God exists" is either true or false. Dawkins indicated that science is appropriate to the task of answering the question, but Collins disagreed: "From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in."
  • "God cannot be completely contained within nature," he implied that God can be partly contained within nature, which makes God open to scientific analysis.
  • By inventing a category called "supernatural" and relegating hypothetical things to it, they apparently hope to protect those things from the requirement of evidence.
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • What does this mean? Does it make any sense to say that something exists outside space and time? When we apply the word "exists" to something, don't we mean that we can observe it or its effects in space and time?
  • Have we ever observed anything outside space and time?
  • By insisting that God exists "outside of nature," Collins nearly makes his supernatural compartment so small that there isn't enough room for God.
  • He is certainly correct that the inefficiency of evolution, not to mention its "errors of design," is inconsistent with the traditional idea of God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being. This traditional kind of God would be more likely to operate through Creationism, but this hypothesized mode of operation is not supported by the evidence of biology, genetics, geology, and cosmology.
  • Dawkins proposed two possible explanations for the values of the physical constants we find in our universe. One is that these constants couldn't be any different from what they are; they simply are what they are.
  • Within this great mulitverse environment, there are bound to be some universes that have the physical constants at just the right values to support the development of life, and we find ourselves in one of them.
  • Although Dawkins seems to present the two best currently available alternatives to Collins' God hypothesis to explain the life-enabling values of the physical constants of our universe, he and Collins both seem to accept without any skepticism the proposition that our universe is improbable. But how can they just assume this? In my opinion, they do this through a misapplication of probability theory. In the debate they used the "gravitational constant" as an example. They correctly noted that if the gravitational constant (G) were different by one part in a hundred million million, then life, as we know it, would not be possible in our universe.
  • One must know how many items with the feature are in the population and how many items without the feature are in that same population (or alternatively, how many items altogether are in the population).
  • In fact, we do not know that any other universes exist at all! Without knowledge of other universes, Dawkins and Collins misuse probability theory to conclude that our universe is rare
  • More must be said about Collins' contention that the application of Occam's razor supports the God hypothesis over the multiverse hypothesis. It doesn't. The God hypothesis is less parsimonious than the multiverse hypothesis for two reasons: 1. it invents a totally new type of entity, a supernatural being "outside time and space," which is not necessary with the latter hypothesis, and 2. it leads to the classic problem of infinite regress. If there must be something outside our universe, i.e. God, to explain the existence of our universe, then there must be something outside of God, i.e. "Z," to explain God. Then something is needed to explain "Z," ad infinitum.
  • Alluding to St. Augustine and commenting on the book of Genesis, Collins said "It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God."
  • Collins responded that if one accepts God's existence, then it is not unreasonable to expect that God might occasionally intervene in the world in a miraculous way, and that if one accepts that Jesus was divine then the Resurrection is "not a great logical leap." But these are big "ifs," and although Collins tries to show that they are plausible, he offers no good evidence to show that they are probable.
  • Collins implied that this altruism is a sign of God's existence and a gift from him.
  • Dawkins responded that good and evil don't exist as independent entities but that good and bad things simply happen to people.
  • Collins' "moral law" argument is another variation on the "God of the Gaps" theme. If science doesn't yet have a complete description of a phenomenon, then there must be a super-being behind the scenes who is responsible for whatever is in the gaps.
  • Collins' idea of a "moral law" is premature and far too rigid when one considers the variability in moral rules across different geographic areas, cultures, ethnicities, and religions.
  • "Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation." Part of the difficulty here is that "faith" has several different meanings and unfortunately Collins isn't clear about which meaning he intends. "Faith" may refer to a religion or worldview, as in "My faith is Islam." It may refer to an attitude of trust or confidence, as in "I have faith in my physician."
  • In his concluding remarks Collins indicated that he is interested in many "why" questions for which he believes answers may not come from science but from the "spiritual realm." In his concluding remarks Dawkins indicated his doubt that the future discoveries of science would support any of the beliefs of the traditional religions, beliefs that he regards as parochial, but nevertheless worthy of some respect. And on that conciliatory note, the debate was concluded.
  • Who won the debate? From the perspective of style or mode of expression, perhaps Collins won. At times, Dawkins seemed to come across as a bit testy and abrasive.
  • Gary J. Whittenberger
  • Maybe the best approach in any such discussion forum is to try to flush out first exactly where the theist is positioned on the spectrum of belief by a series of clear questions. eg for Christians: - Do you accept the literal truth of the Bible (completely, or just the New Testament?) - Do you believe in Jesus's miracles, virgin birth, physical ascencion to Heaven? - Do you believe that God regularly intervenes in the natural universe eg by answering prayers, or in the design of organisms? etc
  • Bakari Chavanu on 29 Sep 09
     
    Excellent article and good for discussion. Would like to read others in this group think.
Jaakko Wallenius

Could there really be a third way? - Being Human - 1 views

beinghuman.blogs.fi/...-really-be-a-third-way-6099004

capitalism socialism third way

shared by Jaakko Wallenius on 12 May 09 - No Cached
  • Are there really just two choices before us: capitalism or socialism? I have come to think that the right answer should be a brand new combination of these two.
  • Jaakko Wallenius on 12 May 09
     
    Are there really just two choices before us: capitalism or socialism? I have come to think that the right answer should be a brand new combination of these two.
Kylyssa Shay

If You Can't Explain the Origin of Life and the Universe Then Why Don't You Just Believ... - 2 views

www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Issues

atheist atheism god belief

shared by Kylyssa Shay on 30 Jun 09 - Cached
  • Kylyssa Shay on 30 Jun 09
     
    An Atheist answers the strange question of if you can't explain the origin of life and the universe totally and completely then why don't you just believe in God because the Bible explains it all?
thinkahol *

'You just don't understand my religion' is not good enough | Julian Baggini | Comment i... - 0 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...understand-my-religion-faith

'You just don't understand my religion' is not good enough | Julian Baggini Comment free guardian.co.uk

shared by thinkahol * on 09 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 09 Nov 11
     
    Too often, faith is mysterious only selectively. When questions get tough, a god can disappear in a puff of ineffability
Jaakko Wallenius

Is there a connection between standard of living and birth control? - Being Human - 0 views

beinghuman.blogs.fi/...ving-and-birth-control-7084074

population control religions

shared by Jaakko Wallenius on 02 Oct 09 - No Cached
  • Jaakko Wallenius on 02 Oct 09
     
    It has been shown that a certain level of population control can be achieved with very little effort, if there just is will to tackle the problem. Religious leaders however already bear the main responsibility for the continuing population explosion in the developing world. I fear that the issue cannot be resolved before their power is diminished to an extent where sensible population control policies can be enforced in the poorest countries of the world also. The other option of course is that they change their odd religious dogmas so that these countries can be saved from hunger, poverty and desolation brought about by the uncontrolled rise of population.
Todd Suomela

Touchstone Archives: The Skeptical Inquirer - 0 views

www.touchstonemag.com/...article.php

atheism faith reasoning religion science skepticism

shared by Todd Suomela on 04 Jun 08 - Cached
  • Todd Suomela on 04 Jun 08
     
    A challenge to atheism.
  • Todd Suomela on 04 Jun 08
     
    Unbelievers think that skepticism is their special virtue, the key virtue believers lack. Bolstered by bestselling authors, they see the skeptical and scientific mind as muscular thinking, which the believer has failed to develop. He could bulk up if he wished to, by thinking like a scientist, and wind up at the "agnosticism" of a Dawkins or the atheism of a Dennett-but that is just what he doesn't want, so at every threat to his commitments he shuns science. That story is almost exactly the opposite of the truth.
Jaakko Wallenius

What are the ugliest stains in the history of the Christian faith? - Being Human - 1 views

beinghuman.blogs.fi/...of-the-christian-faith-6507843

crusades

shared by Jaakko Wallenius on 13 Jul 09 - No Cached
  • Jaakko Wallenius on 13 Jul 09
     
    is all too easy to forget that the first successful Crusade was a surprise-attack quite like Pearl Harbor and that was the real reason behind its success; the inhabitants of the Middle East just could not see it coming. It is only fitting that ultimately it ended in the wholesale and cruel massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem
anonymous

On my previous bookmarks you can find various type of solution by spiritual way but now... - 0 views

rudrakshapower.co.in/?pgtyp=viewallprod&cids=6&scids=10

Rudraksha Religion horoscope Spirit Spiritual

shared by anonymous on 03 Apr 09 - Cached
  • anonymous on 03 Apr 09
     
    On my previous bookmarks you can find various type of solution by spiritual way but now I am going to give you details of products those are made by Rudraksha. And these products will help you in your life. The first category of the product is General size Rudrakshas. In this category we have several types of beads like One Face, Two Face, Three Face, Four Face, Five Face, Six Face, Seven Face, Eight Face, Nine Face, Ten Face and many more. One Face bestows happiness and revival from the miseries arising from loss of wealth. Prosperity or richness, luck, fortunes grow wherever it is venerated in House or put on it the body in the form of necklace. Like that Two Face gives source of fertility in all living beings and the blessings of marital felicity. Like that various good things are available. For finding all about that follow the title and you can find many things which will help you in your life. Just a click away……….
Jack Frost

Atheism and politics: Mexico has Catholic pedophilia problems too?! - 0 views

atheismandpolitics.blogspot.com/...holic-pedophilia-problems.html

Religion Catholic Catholic molestation Catholic Child Rape God Christianity

shared by Jack Frost on 15 Apr 10 - Cached
  • Jack Frost on 15 Apr 10
     
    A Mexican Catholic leader has come forward and admitted to molesting 200 more children, and just wait until you hear who the victims included!
Omnipotent Poobah

Pass the Candy and Welcome to the Middle Ages - 0 views

omnipotentpoobah.com/...and-welcome-to-the-middle-ages

halloween satanic candy pat robertson christians religion candy

shared by Omnipotent Poobah on 30 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Omnipotent Poobah on 30 Oct 09
     
    As close as I can figure, it's actually 1009. I know this because people are acting like it's the Middle Ages, Geoffrey Chaucer just joined the NYT as a new columnist, and Pat Robertson is four-square against Halloween candy.
bert999

LOVE: What Is True Love? - 0 views

psi-40.blogspot.com/...a.html

loe what is love b.l. peterson

shared by bert999 on 10 Sep 19 - No Cached
  • bert999 on 10 Sep 19
     
    Love is everywhere, you just have to 'connect' to it.
funeral adelaide

The Most Reliable Funeral Service - 1 views

It is not really easy to experience death in the family. And as I try to recall my mom's death last year, I could truly say that if it was not because of the help of Sensible Funerals things could ...

started by funeral adelaide on 12 Oct 12 no follow-up yet
Dripa B

Greta Christina's Blog: Atheists and Anger - 0 views

gretachristina.typepad.com/...atheists-and-an.html

atheism religion

shared by Dripa B on 22 Oct 07 - Cached
  • atheist soldiers -- in the U.S. armed forces -- have had prayer ceremonies pressured on them and atheist meetings broken up by Christian superior officers, in direct violation of the First Amendment. I'm angry that evangelical Christian groups are being given exclusive access to proselytize on military bases -- again in the U.S. armed forces, again in direct violation of the First Amendment. I'm angry that atheist soldiers who are complaining about this are being harassed and are even getting death threats from Christian soldiers and superior officers -- yet again, in the U.S. armed forces.
  • the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, said of atheists, in my lifetime, "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."
  • I'm angry that it took until 1961 for atheists to be guaranteed the right to serve on juries, testify in court, or hold public office in every state in the country.
  • ...14 more annotations...
  • I'm angry that women are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America because the Catholic Church has convinced them that using condoms makes baby Jesus cry.
  • I'm angry that women are having septic abortions -- or are being forced to have unwanted children who they resent and mistreat -- because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible.
  • I'm angry about what happened to Galileo.
  • preachers who tell women in their flock to submit to their husbands because it's the will of God, even when their husbands are beating them
  • believers treat prayer as a sort of cosmic shopping list for God. I'm angry that believers pray to win sporting events, poker hands, beauty pageants, and more. As if they were the center of the universe
  • they foist this belief on sick and dying children -- in essence teaching them that, if they don't get better, it's their fault. That they didn't pray hard enough, or they didn't pray right, or God just doesn't love them enough.
  • Mother Teresa took her personal suffering and despair at her lost faith in God, and turned it into an obsession that led her to treat suffering as a beautiful gift from Christ to humanity, a beautiful offering from humanity to God, and a necessary part of spiritual salvation. And I'm angry that this obsession apparently led her to offer grotesquely inadequate medical care and pain relief at her hospitals and hospices
  • trustee of the local Presbyterian church who told his teenage daughter that he didn't actually believe in God or religion, but that it was important to keep up his work because without religion there would be no morality in the world.
  • parents and religious leaders terrorize children -- who (a) have brains that are hard-wired to trust adults and believe what they're told, and (b) are very literal-minded -- with vivid, traumatizing stories of eternal burning and torture to ensure that they'll be too frightened to even question religion
  • priests who molest children and tell them it's God's will. I'm enraged at the Catholic Church that consciously, deliberately, repeatedly, for years, acted to protect priests who molested children, and consciously and deliberately acted to keep it a secret, placing the Church's reputation as a higher priority than, for fuck's sake, children not being molested. And I'm enraged that the Church is now trying to argue, in court, that protecting child-molesting priests from prosecution, and shuffling those priests from diocese to diocese so they can molest kids in a whole new community that doesn't yet suspect them, is a Constitutionally protected form of free religious expression.
  • religious leaders opportunistically use religion, and people's trust and faith in religion, to steal, cheat, lie, manipulate the political process, take sexual advantage of their followers, and generally behave like the scum of the earth. I get angry when it happens over and over and over again
  • I get angry when believers insist that the parts about Jesus's prompt return and all prayers being answered are obviously not meant literally... but the parts about hell and damnation and gay sex being an abomination, that's real. And I get angry when believers insist that the parts about hell and damnation and gay sex being an abomination aren't meant literally, but the parts about caring for the poor are really what God meant. How the hell do they know which parts of the Bible/ Torah/ Koran/ Bhagavad-Gita/ whatever God really meant, and which parts he didn't?
  • believers chide atheists for being so angry. "Why do you have to be so angry all the time?" "All that anger is so off-putting." "If atheism is so great, then why are so many of you so angry?"
  • Because anger has driven every major movement for social change in this country, and probably in the world. The labor movement, the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, the modern feminist movement, the gay rights movement, the anti-war movement in the Sixties, the anti-war movement today, you name it... all of them have had, as a major driving force, a tremendous amount of anger. Anger over injustice, anger over mistreatment and brutality, anger over helplessness.
nick gibson

Your Race Affects Whether People Write You Back « OkTrends - 0 views

blog.okcupid.com/...-whether-people-write-you-back

skepticism

shared by nick gibson on 21 Nov 09 - Cached
  • People of the various Zodiac signs match each other all at roughly the average rate, and, as we would expect, they reply to messages similarly.
  • racism is alive and well. It would be awesome if the other major online dating players would go out on a limb and release their own race data, too. I can’t imagine they will: multi-million dollar enterprises rarely like to admit that the people paying them those millions act like turds.
  • nick gibson on 21 Nov 09
     
    Just more proof that zodiac is bullshit
Bakari Chavanu

Uncertain Humanism and the Water of Whiteness - TheHumanist.com - 4 views

thehumanist.com/...ism-and-the-water-of-whiteness

humanism racism

shared by Bakari Chavanu on 04 Jul 15 - No Cached
  • Uncertain humanism is not just about how we approach “facts.” It involves how we approach our very identities and who we think we are.
  • It’s about asking: Who are we, as humanists, and will we let ourselves become more uncertain so that we might more fully realize that black lives matter?
  • My major point is this: race (and especially racism) has developed largely as a response to feelings of uncertainty that get rationalized away.
    • Bakari Chavanu
      Bakari Chavanu on 04 Jul 15
       
      Racism has developed to justify oppression and protect privilege. 
  • ...13 more annotations...
  • In what follows, I intersperse several quotes and paraphrased wisdom from Wallace with commentary directed at white humanists
  • Therefore, determining if black lives matter to (white) humanists might require determining the direction our humanism is oriented: towards certainty, security, and facts; or, uncertainty, compassion, and attention to the limits of what is possible as humanists, and as humans.
    • Bakari Chavanu
      Bakari Chavanu on 04 Jul 15
       
      This part is not clear to me.
  • But we tend to toe a fine line between experiences of our own ideological alienation, and expressing tolerance (of other beliefs) precisely because of our own feelings of having been alienated.
  • Rationality is this process of faking it, and it is always secured through violence. Rene Descartes, one of the fathers of rationalism, even defines it as transforming intellectual uncertainty into certainty. But this certainty is only ever an idea; the social world is never certain. So when people like Michael Brown, Eric Garner, or Trayvon Martin­—or places like Ferguson, Missouri; Baltimore, Maryland; or Cleveland, Ohio—cause a person to feel uncertain, when black bodies trouble the “rational” order of things, they get killed.
  • If humanism is used to procure a sense of certainty—that God doesn’t exist, that humans can achieve whatever we set out to accomplish, or to procure certainty of self—then it will at best capitulate to a mentality that allows racism to flourish. And at worst, it will directly reinforce racist ways of thinking and acting.
  • Do black Christian lives matter to humanists? Do black Muslim lives matter to humanists? Or are we so hung up on not believing that our concern for all humans grows cloudy?
  • For instance, couldn’t the American Humanist Association (AHA) organize a group of humanists to march alongside community folks who are declaring that black lives matter?
  • When will black lives matter as much as humanist lives? All of us, and I’m including myself, could do more to put our ideological freedom to work in the service of those who face the brunt of a social world where God has really only ever been a proxy for power, anyway. In this respect black lives are atheist lives. They are humanist lives.
  • At what are our efforts directed? Are we trying to change the world through some sort of self-righteous (and ironic) messiah complex? Do we think we have all the answers and lament that others will not follow us? Or are we holding conversations about how we might change so that the world might be changed—becoming fish that finally feel the full weight of water?
  • Many white humanists still fight the notion that black lives matter to humanists, and that such mattering requires intense self-reflection. If you think I’m simply constructing a
  • But the highest rated comment is this: “I am fully a humanist, and will always fight for equal rights and justice, but putting Michael Brown’s name on this meme is divisive and reactionary. As the evidence comes out, we are seeing that he committed several serious crimes. It cheapens our movement to look at this as a non-gray issue.”
  • Are there still so many of us who are more concerned with securing our own (humanist) identity and increasing our numbers that we’re willing to be complicit with a social arrangement where certain identities are not simply facing various modes of marginalization, but literal death? As a humanist, these perspectives are embarrassing. And as a white person, I am ashamed of them.
  • Or will we worship at the altar of full humanity where #AllLivesMatter only once #BlackLivesMatter? Let us be uncertain, using our relative freedom to choose not to wallow in selfish indifference or guilt-ridden stagnation, but for the sake of imagining new, uncertain possibilities of social life where black lives matter more than a god that doesn’t exist anyway.
1 - 19 of 19
Showing 20▼ items per page