Skip to main content

Home/ Atheist Thoughts/ Group items tagged rights

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
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.
thinkahol *

Sam Harris - The Great Debate: Can Science Tell us Right From Wrong? (1) - YouTube - 0 views

www.youtube.com/watch

Sam Harris - The Great Debate: Can Science Tell us Right From Wrong? (1) YouTube

shared by thinkahol * on 19 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 19 Oct 11
     
    The Great Debate On November 6th, 2010 a panel of renowned scientists, philosophers, and public intellectuals gathered to discuss what impact evolutionary theory and advances in neuroscience might have on traditional concepts of morality. If human morality is an evolutionary adaptation and if neuroscientists can identify specific brain circuitry governing moral judgment, can scientists determine what is, in fact, right and wrong? The panelists were psychologist Steven Pinker, author Sam Harris, philosopher Patricia Churchland, physicist Lawrence Krauss, philosopher Simon Blackburn, bioethicist Peter Singer and The Science Network's Roger Bingham.  Recorded live at the Arizona State University Gammage auditorium.  "The Great Debate" was sponsored by the ASU Origins Project in collaboration with the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law Center for Law, Science and Innovation; the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge; and The Science Network. ------ Sam Harris is the author of the New York Times bestsellers "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values," "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation." "The End of Faith" won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction. Harris has a doctorate in neuroscience from UCLA and a degree in philosophy from Stanford University. He is a co-founder and CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society.
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.
Jack Frost

Atheism and politics: Rightists and double standards about religion. - 0 views

atheismandpolitics.blogspot.com/...nd-double-standards-about.html

Politics conservatives republicans christianity christian Religious Right Christian Conservatives

shared by Jack Frost on 20 Apr 10 - Cached
  • Jack Frost on 20 Apr 10
     
    Some comments about the silliness of the religious right, and their double standards on the topic of government involvement in your personal lives.
Dripa B

Afghan student sentenced to death for blasphemy had no lawyer during trial | JURIST (25... - 0 views

jurist.law.pitt.edu/...-sentenced-to-death-for_25.php

afghanistan blasphemy death_penalty due_process islam religion rule_of_law sayad_parwez_kambaksh §

shared by Dripa B on 26 Feb 08 - Cached
  • Dripa B on 26 Feb 08
     
    4 minute trial; right to argue denied; not afforded a lawyer; convicted of blasphemy for distributing papers questioning why Islam permits men to have up to four wives while women cannot have multiple husbands
Cody Lorance

What is Art? - 0 views

www.tibm.org/mplating-the-pursuit-of-beauty

art beauty

shared by Cody Lorance on 07 Feb 09 - Cached
  • Cody Lorance on 07 Feb 09
     
    Let's wander off the beaten path a little bit today, shall we? I want to talk about art. Everyone likes art, right? But what is art? I think that's a really great question that can lead us to some wonderful places of discovery.
Bakari Chavanu

God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs - 4 views

www.godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

atheism

shared by Bakari Chavanu on 25 Sep 09 - Cached
    • Bakari Chavanu
      Bakari Chavanu on 25 Sep 09
       
      This is so true.
  • If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens.
Susan Thur

Stellar House Publishing | Man Made God - 0 views

stellarhousepublishing.com/manmadegod.html

publishing house god manmade

shared by Susan Thur on 21 Apr 10 - Cached
  • Susan Thur on 21 Apr 10
     
    Man Made God comprises a series of fascinating articles from the author of the classic best-seller The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. Extraordinary independent scholar of comparative religion and mythology Barbara G. Walker takes us through a riveting journey back in time to when the Goddess and her consort/son ruled supreme, into the era when the patriarchy usurped Her worship, right up to Barbara's own personal experience being raised a Christian.
Susan Thur

Why Not Believe? Reasons Why Atheists Don't Believe in Gods - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...whynotbelieve.htm

believe why

shared by Susan Thur on 21 Apr 10 - Cached
  • Susan Thur on 21 Apr 10
     
    It is difficult to credit any one religion as being True or any one god as being True when there have been so many throughout human history. None appears to have any greater claim to being more credible or reliable than any other. Why Christianity and not Judaism? Why Islam and not Hinduism? Why monotheism and not polytheism? Every position has had its defenders, all as ardent as those in other traditions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Too Many Gods...
Jack Frost

Atheism and politics: National Prayer Day - 0 views

atheismandpolitics.blogspot.com/...national-prayer-day.html

Religion Christianity God Government

shared by Jack Frost on 16 Apr 10 - Cached
  • Jack Frost on 16 Apr 10
     
    Obama backs the national day of prayer despite a judge ruling it unconstitutional. Thoughts and purposed solution to raise consciousness about the trespass on our rights.
thinkahol *

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist - Speakeasy - WSJ - 0 views

blogs.wsj.com/...icky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist - Speakeasy WSJ

shared by thinkahol * on 23 Dec 10 - No Cached
  • thinkahol * on 23 Dec 10
     
    Comedian Ricky Gervais explains why he doesn't believe in God and fires the question right back: Why does anyone believe in God?
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.
JW Summers

The History of Satan - 0 views

www.markbeast.com/...history-of-satan.htm

shared by JW Summers on 11 Jul 11 - No Cached
    • JW Summers
      JW Summers on 11 Jul 11
       
      The Christian Right Wing Conservatives are Satan's Beastly army..
  • JW Summers on 11 Jul 11
     
    History of Satan - future Very soon Satan will be released from the spirit world. He will appear on earth in a glorious, physical body. Then Satan will be called the beast. He will pretend to be God and he will have the appearance of God. The beast is the name for Satan when he comes visibly to the earth claiming that he is God. His demons will come with him and they will appear to be angels from heaven. How long will be beast be on earth? Satan will be given 3 ½ years as the visible god of this world. During this time he will try to convince every person on earth to worship him. Do not be deceived. He is not God and you should not worship him. Who will worship the beast?
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 - 15 of 15
Showing 20▼ items per page