Posted by  thepete
on Sunday, October 16th at
11:48 AM. [link]
 friendlyatheist:
GODzilla. What a great name for a fictional character.
-FA
SIGH.
WHY would the Japanese be angry at a fictional character? In other news: the correct pronunciation of the giant monster’s name is “go-ji-ra”. So, “God” has nothing to do with it.
Meta-post information follows:
Posted by thepete
on Monday, October 10th at
7:39 PM. [link]
This post is a reply to a reply from umbrellaface (check out the thread here):
So no. No atheists can say whether there is a god or not. Instead they can repeat the same stupid answers, and assume a person asking this question is religious. There may be proof of evolution, there is no proof of where we came from, who caused this big bang, why there is water and sun and sex and science. Where is the proof of where all of these things came from.
Ignorant atheists, denying the existence of something else in the world is so narrow minded and boring. Isn’t it nice to sometimes wonder why you are at home sitting on a computer looking at people doing better shit than you, and how you got there?
I apologize for not being able to reply to your entire post, but I wanted to point out, this far into your reply that you’re describing a need for science, not for a god. And science has provided answers to most of the questions you bring up. Science explains why sex exists and how the sun came to be and even why we use religion to explain things we can’t explain with science.
Don’t call atheists ignorant because they don’t believe in a 2000 year-old book. Hell, don’t call anyone ignorant because that’s just rude. The point is, atheists need evidence to know that something exists. Religious types don’t. Religious types don’t need to do research or experiments to prove to themselves that there is a God. They’ve already made up their minds and many of them close those minds to the things science discovers.
Good scientists can’t have closed minds because science is discovering something new all the time. Science changing is proof that science has an open mind.
And if, one day, science can prove the existence of God, I’ll change my position.
I’ll try to reply more to your reply if I can cut a hole in my schedule. I apologize for not being able to do so now. Regardless, thanks for the reply.
Meta-post information follows:
Posted by thepete
on Sunday, October 9th at
4:11 PM. [link]
Without Oil We Wouldn’t have had 911?
Posted this to my main blog by accident:
Recently wrenthekwack on Tumblr posted the below graphic:
The caption he added to it was “Because how would a plane fly without oil? :)”
Very cute. :) Of course, without oil we wouldn’t have most of our world without oil, including planes and skyscrapers to fly them into (or the computers to create and view this graphic).
Obviously, this is a very complex issue and the doctoring seen above was done on a graphic that originally suggested religion was the key to 911. But which is it? Oil or religion that, if removed, would scatter the terrorism equation into the wind?
Well, FriendlyAtheist, one of my favorite atheists on Tumblr, took great issue with the idea that it was oil and not religion. In short, he made some wild stabs at wrenthekwack graphic, 1) sarcastically suggesting that perhaps the hijackers were yelling “Oil Akbar” instead of “Allah Akbar,” 2) that somehow the graphic puts forward the idea that the USG was behind 911 (like I said, wild stabs), 3) the weirdest statement of all:
Last option would be to say that somehow the need for oil by the US made it worthy of attacking by these “atheistic” terrorists (since religion has nothing to do with it per the cartoon). Sure, whatever. Like the US is the only country that uses middle east oil.
Crossing religion out of that graphic doesn’t mean religion has nothing to do with 911. So, that’s a very odd, extreme assumption to make. And then the claim about the US not being the only consumer of Middle East oil?? As if America wasn’t the big kid on the block?? Who else would terrorists go after? Seriously, FA, I’m thinking you banged this reply out in 30 seconds rather than thinking it through. Seems like such behavior is going around.
FA also added that it’s not about the money, either. He quotes a study that says “The evidence we have assembled and reviewed suggests there is little direct connection between poverty, education and participation in terrorism.”
The suggestion of poverty being a part of it reminded me of something, so I left a waaaay too long comment on his post suggesting that, in fact, it is not about money per se, but is also not really about religion. Here’s the comment I left:
Have you seen Thomas PM Barnett’s seminar “The Pentagon’s New Map”? (It’s on Google Video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4689061169761152025 ) I HIGHLY recommend you watch it. In it he says a LOT about how the world functions, but he puts forward the idea that the world can be divided into two sections. One section is the core and the other is the gap. The core is what we’d recognize as the “rich” section—the First World. The gap is largely the Third World. The gap is also where most of the terrorism in the world comes from. However, Barnett suggests that it’s not money that is the determining factor here, but connectivity. As in, communications. I distill this down to a simple concept: if you have a voice, you’re less likely to turn to terror. If you’re being ignored, you need to do something to get people to pay attention to you. Timothy McVeigh said as much before he was executed. Violence, he felt, was the only language the USG would respond to.
Now, most of US foreign policy tends to be determined by oil. Our involvement in the Middle East is largely about oil. So, in a sense, oil *is* a reason extremists in the Middle East are so pissed at us. If we would only find a way to replace the oil we buy in the Middle East with something we could make here in the West, we’d remove US troops from oil-rich countries (aka Muslim countries) as well as one of their main excuses. See, that’s what religion is—an excuse. A tool. ObL didn’t give a shit about Allah or 72 virgins. He was so rich while he was alive, he could have had 72 virgins any time he wanted. No, this was about power and influence. Sure, “Allah” might have been the excuse the actual hijackers had, but the guys who put the hijackers up to it are only interested power and influence. If religion didn’t exist, they’d use some other lie to convince those poor idiots to do what they did.
I’m all for atheism and spreading the idea that truth and proof are what should determine our actions and not some fictional god, but the reality is that religion is just a tool—an excuse—to do horrible things. It is not the true corruption that greed and power are. Religion is the lubricant.
Sorry for such a long comment…
I’m truly happy to see all of the new voices speaking up and against the louder voice of religion. However, there’s been a lot of stupid-thinking on the part of my fellow atheists. They think contradicting Believers is enough to “win.” What good is it to make an argument against religion if it is faulty? Remove religion from the planet and all of the religion-based strife goes away? I don’t think so. It won’t be religion-based anymore, but there will be other strife in its place. We humans loooove conflict. We’ll use nationality, race, sexual preference, gender, hair color, TV shows-preference, or some other bullshit excuse to divide ourselves up.
I’m against religion in its most common form, but to say it’s the sole thing that motivates terrorists is to adopt a rather shallow view. If terrorists didn’t feel under attack, if they felt as though their way of life wasn’t being threatened they wouldn’t need to look for an excuse to “kill infidels.”
Religion is an excuse for everything. Like I said, religion is the lubricant. But fear and hate work, too.
Meta-post information follows:
Posted by thepete
on Saturday, October 8th at
3:52 PM. [link]
thereisnogod:
happyheathen113:
intheshadowofyggdrasil:
umbrellaface:
Could any Atheists out there give me a reasonable answer to why there is absolutely no god, or any other power/forces in the world? Or are those upside crosses just like a ramones shirt?
Most atheists do not say, “There is no deity.” What they say is, “There is no evidence…
Wham, Bam, Turkey and Ham.
There is a force that you consider GOD(a magical humanized being). I consider science and nature more accurate.
There is absolutely no proof of a god. There isn’t even evidence of a god. There’s plenty of evidence for the big bang and evolution, however.
Meta-post information follows:
Posted by thepete
on Saturday, October 8th at
3:37 PM. [link]
 I agree with the sentiment of this “Words that Christians Misuse” but I think this graphic utterly full of crap.
“Study” saying what they really do at “Bible Study” is really “Bible Worship” is semantics. Most people who study something usually revere that thing or else they wouldn’t be studying it. You might as well call Neil deGrasse Tyson a “Science Worshipper” (and you’d be accurate).
“Truth” this is NOT the “conformity with fact or reality.” I’m not sure where this definition even comes from. Merriam-Webster defines truth as the following (important part emboldened/italicized by me):
a archaic : fidelity, constancyb : sincerity in action, character, and utterance 2a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized: a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics >c : the body of true statements and propositions3a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : true 2c : fidelity to an original or to a standard 4capitalized Christian Science : god— in truth: in accordance with fact : actually
So, in other words, one of the official definitions of the truth fits pretty much with the way Christians use it. Sad that language, itself, seems to be biased toward religion. But again, Christians aren’t really misusing the word “truth.”
“Morality” is NOT what causes the least amount of harm to others. That’s the most absurd definition of “morality” I’ve ever read. Morality is doing what is right (though it’s definition is more involved than just that). Sometimes we define “right” as doing more harm for the greater good. Like going to war, or killing in self-defense, or euthanasia. Morality is a big fat gray zone of debate since so often the very definition of what is “right” changes based on one’s mood. So, if you believe what God says is right and someone tells you God said that it’s OK to slaughter the Canaanites, then wiping out all of the people of Canaan is a moral thing to do.
“Freewill” is not a word. Well, not a noun, anyway. It’s an adjective. It means “voluntary” or, oddly, “spontaneous”. What Christians say God gave us is “Free Will”. In other words, the ability to be free with our will. Of all the problems I have with religion, I think this is the part I have the least trouble with. But the above graphic says “In the Bible God only gave us the ability to choose what we want to do (will), but not the freedom to act upon those choices.” This makes no sense. The Bible says we are free to exercise our will. Which part of “free will” stops you from “acting upon those choices”? The reality, for both Believers and non-believers, is that there are consequences to your actions. Christianity dreams up all sorts of scary shit to keep Believers in line, but there’s nothing in Christianity that forces Believers to be a certain way—they just scare you into it. That’s still free will since it is your choice to do something that will result in punishment.
“Adultery” does not mean “having sex with a person who is married to another.” I’ll paraphrase the correct definition and say that adultery is having sex with someone other than one’s spouse. As for the part where Jesus says adultery and lust are the same thing, I think, from a certain point of view, that’s an accurate statement. The idea is to keep all of your love for your spouse and when you feel amorous toward someone who isn’t your spouse without acting on those feelings, in a way, you’re cheating. Of course, you’re also giving into your genetics, which aren’t really programmed for monogamy, so whatever.
“Love” is the second of two words that is properly defined by this graphic. Though it is incomplete. The complete definition is “strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties.” It is standard Christian propaganda to say that God has a personal relationship with all of us and that “He” “loves” us. This is obviously not true since there is no God. However, this is not an example of Christians misusing words. They say that “God is love” because they are good at marketing.
Wow, I’m really starting to wonder about my fellow atheists. When you make up a whole graphic that claims to describe how Christians misuse certain words, you might want to consult a dictionary, first.
Seriously, this stupid graphic is one of the most moronic things I’ve read in weeks—and I’ve been reading a lot about Rick Perry, so that’s saying something!
Meta-post information follows:
Posted by thepete
on Friday, October 7th at
1:41 PM. [link]
simplyopinions:
nonplussedbyreligion:
‘Coming Out in America’ is a new film about atheists coming out
Rose Schwartz, Las Vegas Atheism Examiner
October 6, 2011 - A Tiroir A Films documentary focuses on atheists coming out in America. Coming Out in America(working title) illustrates diverse people in different parts of the country who are taking the first step; they are “coming out” as nonbelievers.
The film portrays how their lives are changed just by coming out. It is not a huge leap to assume that some friends and peers may have a problem with the coming out process but it doesn’t end there. Some of those who come out are shamed by their local communities and even their own families. When the principal of the school has a problem with a student’s atheism, were can that student go for help against a bully?
This documentary seeks to shed light on the bullying, discrimination and overall ill-regard many atheists face in modern society.
The general goal of this film is to showcase the goodness that can exist within anyone, no matter what his or her religious or philosophical worldview may be. Additionally, it shows the necessity for finding a common ground between the religious and nonreligious in an ever-polarizing America.
In April 2011, while researching the topic of humanism, Tiroir A Films attended the American Humanist Association’s 70th Anniversary Conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This film documents that event as well as others. Tiroir A Films is the exploratory stage and still looking for personal stories to feature in this documentary. If interested in sharing a story for this project, don’t hesitate to contact Tiroir A Films here.
This documentary project is still a work in progress. Tiroir A Films is also seeking financial sponsors to support this project. The American Humanist Association (AHA) is the fiscal sponsor for this film so all donations to AHA with a memo “Tiroir A Films: Coming Out Project” will go to funding this documentary.
No one should have to “come out” as non-religious. We are non-religious by default. But this is a sad truth.
Indeed.
This is why I resist joining atheist groups—it feels weird joining a group of people whose purpose is to champion reality, truth and facts. I’m not sure I like the idea of “humanism” either. I don’t want to replace one “belief” system with another. I’d rather just wash my hands of magical thinking entirely and just focus on making the world a better place.
Still, this docu looks like a worthy cause. We live in a pretty messed up time, where simply stating your need for proof of a god can get you in trouble with friends and family. I’m still stunned when gays are upset about their church/temple/mosque not accepting their sexual preference. My attitude is: why do you need their approval? They believe in imaginary beings!
Meta-post information follows:
Posted by thepete
on Friday, September 30th at
3:12 PM. [link]
 WTF! This guy lived 101 years ago and is widely regarded as one of the greatest writers America has ever produced!
Why are there so many Believers still!?!?
Meta-post information follows:
Posted by thepete
on Thursday, September 29th at
3:22 PM. [link]
 friendlyatheist:
Classic.
You know, after seeing this montage, I feel like all of us atheist bloggers can probably just post this and then stop. Hell, we can’t logically argue against an irrational belief anyway, so I wonder what the point is.
Meta-post information follows:
Posted by thepete
on Friday, September 23rd at
1:06 PM. [link]
I usually don’t do this, but…
thereisnogod:
abaldwin360:
If you agree with the petition to remove tax exemption from churches and allow them to apply like a non-profit organization, please re-blog it.
This is something I am very passionate about and even if it can’t get passed, I’d love it to come to the public eye more so than it is presently.
I also have a thread on reddit about it, it you’re a redditor, please give it an upvote.
Thanks in advance for your time!
Just did this also. This is more important than “Under God”. Churches need not have a free ride any longer.
Seems only fair that religious orgs pay their fair share. I mean, I have to pay my taxes and I spend most of my day drawing life lessons from fiction. Captain Kirk is my version Jesus.
Meta-post information follows:
Posted by thepete
on Sunday, April 24th at
1:35 PM. [link]
 Anybody else think this picture is pretty creepy? ;) Hey look! It’s the Pope’s Nose! :)
Got this from coalspeaker (whom I respect a lot, despite my disagreement with him on this issue):
Interesting concept worthy of an Easter debate..
The Pope says that humanity is not an accident and not a product of evolution..
Really? This old debate? :) I see one type of living being on the planet that recognizes any meaning at all—humans. We conclude a meaning to things. Therefore, meaning doesn’t exist before us. We create our own meaning. Not God. (My take, I’m not the king of you, make up your own mind!)
A cat doesn’t look at his poo and develop a language to express meaning. Even the bonobo or dolphins don’t seem to express a meaning to why things are one way or the other. A rock, a mountain, a planet, does not understand a meaning to something. We conclude meaning. So, in my opinion, there is no meaning inherent to the universe. It simply is.
Here are the Pope’s concerns regarding my belief/understanding of the universe (taken from the article CoalSpeaker links to above):
“If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature,” he said.
Why is this a bad thing? Doesn’t it make humanity, and life itself, much more valuable if we are an accident? If we fail, and every form of life on Earth is wiped out, can’t God just start over?
Why are we valuable with meaning?
Isn’t our existence more precious if we accept that we could easily be wiped out by a meteor or a virus or famine or plague?
Besides that, there is no proof that there is meaning to us anymore than there is proof of a god. Once again, we bring meaning. We see patterns that we attach meaning to.
Because I build a chair, it does not mean that all things “constructed” were built by someone (like a cave, or a mountain, or compounds, or elements, or atoms). We see things we don’t understand and try to explain them in terms we do understand.
Why does it rain?
Well, someone is waaaay up high and he dumps water on us.
Does he make the thunder, too?
No, that’s someone else with a big hammer!
Ohhhhh!
Like that.
There was a time when that’s all we could do. But now we know more, understand more about the universe, and, with terms we do understand, can try to explain things we don’t understand (we hope) more effectively than we could centuries ago.
So, while I said earlier that there is no inherent meaning to the universe, I’m not saying there is no meaning at all. We create meaning.
This is why we are so important, in my opinion, because without us, without humanity, there would be no meaning.
Meta-post information follows:
|
Leave a message at 740 297 6661 and get on the 666cast
About:
The idea is that all of human society is based on a power structure that enslaves the trusting/ignorant and rewards the greedy and the dishonest. From government, to business to our individual lives, all of our actions are tailored to further support a system that exploits all of us and wastes our lives in the process. Website666.com endeavors to explain how. Shape-shifting lizards aren't running the world, but they might as well be. Only a sociopath would think they deserve to run things.
-ThePete,
webmaster website666.com,
effyou.org, dntlk.com, and thepete.com
|
