Atheist and Proud
491 
- Wyświetlenia: 16 485
- Utworzona grupa: December 2007
- bebo.gazeta.pl/Atheists-and-Proud
- Motto
- Atheism Is The Solution To The Delusion
- Ja, o mnie i jeszcze raz ja
- This page is for any one who is an Atheist or Agnostic.
By joining this page you show that Atheists do not stand alone, to support other Atheists.
Definition Of Proud - Feeling self-respect or pleasure in something by which you measure your self-worth; or being a reason for pride.
Atheism Is
•The state either of being without theistic beliefs.
•Actively disbelieving in the existence of deities.
•A lack of belief in the existence of God
Quote
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
Comments on philosophy are also welcome here.
A Link To Another Atheist Page:
http://www.bebo.com/atheistsagnostics
Hoorah!!
zamknij Moderator
zamknij Ankiety
-
Should the Police recognise their employee's religious holidays?
- Yes
- No
- It's not as simple as that...
-
- No, nobody cares. STFU <i>and</i> GTFO.
- I care. Stop laughing at me, you guys.
- It depends, some will care, some won't.
- Most people seem to care, but they are WTF also.
- <i>Everybody</i> cares! :D
-
Are we on the Brink of a New Enlightenment?
- Yes
- No, but we need one!
- There is nothing to reform, so an Enlightenment is pointless...
- No, we are a Religious people...
zamknij Blog
-
The Five Pillars of Atheism
I have come up with a five-point system of effectively debunking any religion. The system I have devised looks at the Religion and then analyses it in five different categories. The point of this is not to try and convert set-in-stone piots from their religions. The point is to reveal the fallacy of any given religion and in so doing convert, say, borderline agnostics to Anti-theism. The plan is designed as a counter to the idea of institutional religion, and this should influence the way you look at each religion and each of the Five pillars:
1 - The Relevance of the Deity or God
This Pillar deals with the teachings of any given God and shows how they are contrapuntal to the zeitgeist. This pillar raises such questions as How compatible is that God with the modern world? What does that god preach? Who does that God like and dislike? The relevance of a God is vital to any religion, as parishioners or attendees of any Church or religion will look to that god for guidance and one form of Salvation or another, therefore by showing God A to be irrelevant with our society, we take away the allure of that God. Link this in to how that God has influenced society, or link this in with how that God has been exploited.
2 - The Accuracy/Existence/Fallibility of the Prophets
This pillar deals with people like Jesus, Mohammed, Joesph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. By looking at how Historically accurate the concept of that Prophet is, we can then go on to make a comment on the accuracy of their supposed teachings. One must consider the following questions: Did that Prophet exist? What was their purpose in life, if they did exist? Were they of a high moral character? By answering these questions, we can shed new light on various scriptures such as the Hadith, The Bible, The Torah, the Book of Mormon etc. and the purpose of those books as well as showing the ficticiousness of those texts.
3 - The reliability of the Scriptures
This pillar follows on nicely from the last pillar in that it deals with the physical embodiment of the teachings of a prophet. The physical aspect is important here, but also we have to take into account various aspects which are encompassed by Textual criticism. Basically, can we say that the Scriptures are historically accurate? Are they based in fact or fiction? Who wrote the accounts down, and what did they stand to gain? How long after the supposed events did the Scriptures appear? And also, think of the actual content of the Scriptures. E.g. a large percentage of the Book of Mormon is plagarised from the Old and New testaments. And also, consider what was left out of the Scriptures i.e. do the Scriptures have any texts that are Apocryphal in nature that were not included in the final text? By tackling the text upon which a Religion is built, we show people that the Religion is not only irrelevant, but also man-made and fictitious.
4 - The Divisions within Religions and the results
This pillar tackles the current divisions within a religion, and the differences between them. Here, one should attempt to show how Schism has led to death and immorality, and that differences in opinion often lead to wars and revolutions. Portray the varying sides in the religion, and show how they preach different things entirely, and link those teaching back to the fictitious Scriptures. Use the fundamentists in the religions, and show how they use Scripture to back hate campaigns. Also portray the liberals within that religion and show how their approach, while Diplomatic, still supports an irrelevant and inaccurate Faith-based institution.
5 - The Moral Acceptability of a Religion
This pillar is a nice pillar to end with, as this shows how a fictitious, out-dated text has led to immorality - Immorality that the Texts most likely condemn. here, one should attempt to portray the Immorality of a religion. Show how that religion has been detrimental to the world, and how it continues to be a crutch upon Modern0 komentarzy 257 dni
-
Paradox Of Unlikelihood (Written By Mattsterpiece)
Since Atheists are, on a regular basis, condemned and treated as if we have a “problem”, I’ll start by introducing myself as if I were an alcoholic trying to change, accept I’m not trying to change and have no intention of changing. Hi, my name is Matt and I’m an Atheist. All right then, with that brief display of humor out of the way, lets get on with a sense of seriousness.
Too many times has some religious nut case linked morals with belief in unproven existence together by condemning an Atheist that they don’t even know personally, which in turn is condemning millions of other people that they don’t even know. In what other instance would we consider that to be fair? To be punished for not believing in unproven existence? What if you're wrong? Perhaps you should believe in Allah. If Islam is the correct assumption, if there is a correct assumption, then you will be burning in hell as well. Might I add that Muslims are willing to die for their supposed feeling, their faith that Allah is the one and only true God. They are obviously convinced to an equal, if not higher, extent than the Christians that I have come across, that they are right.
Not only do the monotheistic dogmas have eternal death threats attached to their forced by ways of child indoctrination ideologies, but anyone who would still not accept any of them were, and still today are to be, ridiculed. I say this openly, without hesitation, that there is no one who hasn't been introduced to the eternal death threat, which really does operate as a judgment-clouder, and even if there were such a person they have either spent their life in total isolation or they are an adolescent who will be introduced to the sinister concept soon enough. People, in today's modern world, don't need evidence to accept the stories of the Bible, or the Qu’ran, and they don't need evidence to accept that their God, whether that is Yahweh or Allah, exists. So, why is it so hard to believe that the people, who I will assume were generally more gullible or just as, which is all that is required quite frankly, who lived back then would accept the Christian mythology without any evidence? Hell, it was introduced to certain regions for political reasons, and as previously expressed if you didn't accept this supposed celestial entity's existence, then you would be ridiculed.
Everyone has heard the ridiculous stories of the Bible. Let me start with the supposed Genesis flood. Such a flood would have been mentioned in civilizations in China, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and/or Egypt's records, with the records existing before, during, and after the flood era, which also brings me to ask how their records would exist during the flood era when the inhabitants of those regions would have been eradicated. Well, the flood wasn’t mentioned in any of their records. Also, take into consideration that the likelihood of the world’s population going from a small family to billions of people in just a few thousand years is extremely low. You have to consider the many deaths caused by the beholder of fairy tales such as this one.
The Tower of Babel is yet another ridiculous tale of the Bible that doesn’t go in congruity with the beholder of the story, the Bible. The supposed construction of the Tower of Babel is told to have taken place no more than a century after the supposed Genesis flood. I doubt that Noah's family could have produced enough people (through incest of course) to even think about the construction of such a tower, and lets not forget to mention that if there is a God, then he certainly isn’t in the sky. Trust me, I double check ever day.
Another problem I have with the bureaucracy we call religion is that it’s followers tend to view all people as evil, which serves as their rationalization for God demanding the killing of so many people, as well as infants, in the Bible. Here’s a portion of Deuteronomy:
13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have6 komentarzy 522 dni
-
NEW ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE!!!
This is a survey being conducted about the thought processes of religious and non-religious people and the differences between them:
http://recornwelllab.com/consent_for...
Please answer it, whether you are atheist or theist. it's directed at both and may prove something when the results are published.1 komentarz 532 dni
zamknij Forum
-
Challenge Your Beliefs
przez
Imtiaz Latif
Athiests challange your beliefs, read this book!!0 odpowiedzi 7 tygodni
Prophesy book regarding the coming of the antichrist worth £12 from Amazon.com yours FREE to download in e-book format as kindly provided by the author, Michael Mullen, a true story.
Download page is below
http://www.waroftheangels.org/orderp...
Save it to ur desktop, and read! -
Factology
przez
The Factologist
One day good will conquer over God.0 odpowiedzi 12 tygodni -
Those Old Pearly Gates
przez
Miss Conception
Some of you may have read this before, but I only just stumbled across it. You may want to set some time aside to read this, and I urge those who want to start arguing against it right away to first read it with an open mind, and THEN go back to the parts they had a problem with and read it again.19 odpowiedzi 27 tygodni
Anyway, what do you all think?
Taken from: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/p...
Although the Christian Bible has many verses describing the horrors and torments of Hell, it has surprisingly little to say about what Heaven is like. The assumption, it seems, is that everyone knows Heaven is a great place and everyone will want to go there, so advertising is not necessary.
However, this assumption, at least in my case, may not be correct. I do not mean to denigrate the civil, intelligent and rational believers whose acquaintance I have made, but in the course of researching atheism and theism, it is unfortunately true that I have come across religious bigots and racists, brazen hypocrites, hateful zealots, those who are ignorant and determined to remain that way, and many others who represent some of the worst qualities of humanity. Ironically, it is these types of individuals who most frequently insist that salvation can be assured, and who further claim that they are among the beneficiaries of that salvation. I say, if Heaven is full of these people, then I want no part of it.
In all seriousness, there remain some fundamental problems with the doctrine of Heaven. Consider the following:
Most major religious traditions with a concept of Heaven - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Baha'i - hold that God is good. Yet it is undeniable that evil and suffering exist in this world, even though a truly good God would not allow such things. In a partial attempt to resolve this dilemma, apologists for these traditions often rely on the so-called "free will defense" - that God gave human beings the ability to choose, either to obey him or to defy him, and those who choose to defy him and break his laws are the cause of moral evil in this world. Many fundamentalist Christians would state this in even stronger form: they believe that all human beings are inherently sinful, and that it is impossible for anyone to avoid breaking God's laws, no matter how good they try to be. As a result, these Christians conclude, humans are incapable of reaching Heaven by their own efforts, and only those who seek forgiveness of their sins from Jesus Christ will be granted salvation and eternal life.
However, "eternal life" is typically held in theist circles to mean an eternal continuation of mortal life - i.e., the souls in Heaven will retain the same memories, the same personality, the same character traits as they had on Earth. But if this is the case, do they also retain the same sinful human nature? Most religions would agree that even the best among us put a foot wrong occasionally, and some Christians would further state that everyone sins all the time. Do people commit sins in Heaven, just as the fundamentalists would have us believe they do on Earth?
There are two possibilities: either there is sin in Heaven or there isn't. The teachings of virtually all religions mitigate against the first option, and with good reason. If there is sin in Heaven, it can't be that much better than Earth. There may not be tornadoes, earthquakes or infectious diseases there, but human beings are capable of harming each other in a virtually limitless number of more subtle ways. Is there anger or frustration in Heaven? What about envy, pride, lust, greed, loneliness, hatred? Could there be harassment there, or infidelity, or treachery, or outright war? If all these things do exist in Heaven, then why would anyone want to go there? If they don't, how can that be reconciled with the fact that Heaven is populated by fallible, sinful humans?
At this point, a simple solution suggests itself. According to the t
zamknij Mur
 |
 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
||||
zamknij Zdjęcia
-
Charles Darwin
(5)
-
Evolution
(7)
-
My Album
(2)
-
Richard Dawkins
(8)
-
more pictures
(2)
-
new
(9)
-
pics
(7)
-
religion (a.k.a irrationalism)
(4)
-
untitled
(10)
"Hey" Leave Jimmy alone.
I said that thing about comic to play into your little follies, and I succeeded! HA!! You are so easily triggered, boy...
Of course there is evidence that can lead to a person believing or disbelieving in a God. The facts of science, the unreliability of Holy Scripture, the moral paradox of religion AND Deity. You are right, there is no evidence which can disprove a God, but, as Dawkins puts it, there is evidence which shows how there is almost certainly not a God.
Jimmy can suck ma doddie.
'I believe he does not based upon the evidence."
There is no evidence that can lead to a person
believing or not believing in a God. If you have evidence
that can do otherwise please state it. Thank you for your unbiased opinion of my sense of "humour". I thought I was just being crass.
As for Jimmy, the details are quite vague at the moment but I do think that he buys into master morality.
'a desperate attempt to be funny (a failed attempt, I know, I'm a comic myself [stand up, not comic book]). '
Ha. Ha. We can tell.
'What an asshole'
Sounds like Jimmy has been visiting
I just said that you couldn't disprove God, hence my previous phrasing. Thank you for repeating me in a desperate attempt to be funny (a failed attempt, I know, I'm a comic myself [stand up, not comic book]).
Aentagonist, if your hypothetical came to be, I would agree that your person would be justified. In checking themselves into the Betty Ford Clinic. And even IF God DID prove himself to one person [as defined by your hypothetical], I would still feel right in saying that God's existence is morally abhorrent, as not only would he be willing to allow us, the faithless, to cruise to our eternal damnation, but he is also willing to play dice with the faith of others and with the lives of those he created.
What an asshole.
"I guess you will never know unless you ask"
"it is only someone with the ignorance and zealousy of the ingrained theist who claims to know anything they cannot prove."
what if, hypothetically, God prooved his existence to someone. would you think it ok for that person to say that they know God exists even though it's not possible for them to reproduce such proof to back up there claim?
You can't really find evidence that proves or disproves the existence of a god. God can be any type of god including the spaghetti monster and Jimmy who says he will always love you though he would like his anal beads back. Oh, and fairies are actually aliens.
I would also prefer to say "know", however, I cannot. As Dawkins points out, it is only someone with the ignorance and zealousy of the ingrained theist who claims to know anything they cannot prove. I cannot prove God does not exist, however, I believe he does not based upon the evidence. Thus my phrasing.
I am glad you have a hot line to this 'Jimmy'. How pleasant for you. I refuse to return his regards.
"Hi Jimmy"
"However, I believe he doesn't"
I would prefer if you would use the
word "know" instead of "believe" here.
Jimmy says "Hi".
Incest and Jimmy will get on like a house on fire
Incest will be the house, and Jimmy the fire
All your god are belong to us
As for Mr. Web Stalker, I think you will find I said I (capitalised) find the idea of God morally abhorrent. I did not say that he was morally abhorrent at an empyrical level because I do not believe empyrical morality exists (being a nihilist). Of course, if God DOES exist, then His morality would override mine. However, I believe he doesn't, and I am the happier for this being the case, as I (capitalised) find the idea of God's existence morally abhorrent and intrinsically cruel with regards to Life and to all species.
And as for Jesus loving me, I would be interested to hear how someone who is dead (even if he existed) loves me. Also, if I am honest, your little Christian "love them, Lord!" bit gave me a chuckle. I am sure that Jesus wouldn't have bothered if you hadn't asked (this is sarcastic.)
"Man cant understand pure love...pure morals..."
Of course Mankind can, we invented them!
I would just like to take the liberty to point out the absolute ridiculousness of what you just said Jonathan. You talked about not making god in your own image. However, if we are made in god's image, then the system works both ways. That is like saying "He looks just like his father, but we don't know what his father looked like." Use your brain, lad! I have read about God, indeed Gods plural - the Judeo-Christian God, Allah, the Triple Goddess, Zeus - and I do not think your understanding of those concepts outstands my own.
I find you annoying, Jonathan, indeed, anyone who makes gloriously stupid statements with no backing like "Man is incapable of true righteousness". Mattserpiece commited a similar crime by saying man is naturally prejudiced without any evidence for this. I am still waiting for his evidence, so you may provide yours if you wish, Jonathan, to back up your brashness.
stop making god in your own image of who u think he is.
If you can make up a god in whatever image you want so can we.
My hypothetical called is Jimmy. He may or may not exist. He may or may not demand anal sex without lube as a form of worship. If you can't handle that then he me may or may not demand that you chop your testicles off with a blunt axe.
All hail Jimmy!!
stop making god in your own image of who u think he is.
actualy read about him.
i sometimes feel as though some people judge god out of there own hurts and so on.
that u wudnt command the killing of entire nations...
but u cant command, it, man is incapable of true righteousness. any killing that happens by mans own ideas is always evil....
so we sumtymes dont understand how god could order such a thing...his thinking isnt warped in anyway like yours or mine...
and musical u dont understand the concept...because u dont understand god.... i cant ..no one can.
man cant understand pure love...pure morals...we just cant and never ever will..
jesus loves you and god does. very much...ask him to show you such things.
in jesus name i ask that u shower them in your love jesus...like you have to me....all are underserving...draw them in...so be it.
"I consider the idea of an existing God morally abhorrent"
God say's "I disagree".
Then he pauses and adds"Oh by the
way, I'm God therefore it's pointless
saying that my sense of morality is wrong".
Just because you or I find something wrong
doesn't make it wrong. In 1000 years people
will think us to be ignorant and narrow minded
as morality is constantly evolving.
Sorry for my poor English. I am a geneticist,
not an english or philosophy student.
Which reduces Life, the struggles and the Torment of species and the extinction of over 99% of all species and the chaos of this Universe to nothing more than a parlour game played on a wet day by a bored child. Except even more pathetic.
Joyous, yes?
I have come to the conclusion that God depends upon all existent things for his existence. Now, while this may sound a wee bit redundant, I think it is quite important, as it establishes why, among other reasons, I consider the idea of an existing God morally abhorrent (that is to say, I do not just disbelieve in the existence of God, I am actively against the concept).
Let us postulate God exists. He had to sit there for God knows how long in the darkness without any reason for existing. For, if there is nothing other than you, what can you do? If you have the ability, you create amusement and purpose. So, God created all that exists not for his Glory as the Bible would have us believe, but because creating is all He could do. He has no purpose other than the continuation of existence. So, while we depend upon God for existence (if He exists), he depends upon us even more so.
As for how I feel when I think of Jesus, I feel elated with humour, simply because I do not even believe he existed, never mind that he was the son of God or a Saviour. However, take my emotion as you will. As for how I would feel if I knew Jesus was our Saviour today, I would blow up in a spec of dust and wake up chewing my pillow, because (I am reliably informed) the reason we cannot know for sure Jesus is the Saviour or not is so that we can make a leap of faith, a desireable thing, so I would in fact be in a world of non-existence if I KNEW that Jesus was our saviour.
Now I put it to you, Jonathan, O wise fellow. How would you feel if Jesus did not exist? How would you feel if God did not exist (and you knew it)? Would you feel heartbroken? Or relieved? Or...?