Feel Free. If you have a negative criticism or disagreement with what I post , please comment with your name. Anonymous comments may see the light of day. They might not even be read, although I may take portions of them and use them to point out the errors of your ways. If you wish to write a manifesto, get your own blog. SOB
Is that a trampoline down there? The Resurrection of Christ (Kinnaird Resurrection) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
There is a heroic legend in the technology community about the man who invented elevator safety brakes. He claimed that any elevator fitted with his brakes, even if all the cables broke, would be safely and swiftly stopped by his new invention. No one trusted it. Did he get angry or indignant? No. He simply put himself in an elevator, ordered the cables cut, and proved to the world, by risking his own life, that his brakes worked. This is the very principle that has delivered us from superstition to science. Any claim can be made about a drug, but people are rightly wary of swallowing anything that hasn’t been thoroughly tested and re-tested and tested again. Since I have no such proofs regarding the resurrection story, I’m not going to swallow it, and it would be cruel, even for a god, to expect otherwise of me. So I can reason rightly that a god of all humankind would not appear in one tiny backwater of the Earth, in a backward time, revealing himself to a tiny unknown few, and then expect the billions of the rest of us to take their word for it, and not even their word, but the word of some unknown person many times removed.
Yet, if one returns to what was probably Paul’s conception of a Christ risen into a new, spiritual body, then the resurrection becomes no longer a historical proof of the truth of Christianity, but an article of faith, an affirmation that is supposed to follow nothing other than a personal revelation of Christ—not to be believed on hearsay, but experienced for oneself. Though I do not believe this is a reliable way to come to a true understanding of the world, as internal experience only tells us about ourselves and not the truth of the world outside of us, I leave it to the Christians here to consider a spiritual resurrection as a different way to understand their faith. But I don’t see any reason to buy the resurrection story found in the Gospels.
Excellent article. Obama Dems are now using this argument to prevent the progressive left from voting Green. They are more interested in maintaining the status quo than they are in real change. I will be voting for Jill Stein for president. I will vote for Dems on a state and local level unless a green or other left alternative is available.
Jack had a ready answer, “God the father does not have a belly button. God the son had a belly button. God the Holy Spirit does not have a belly button. That’s one out of three for belly buttons.”
“Jack, who are you to claim you know about such things. What does your church say about it?”
“Hmmm, You know, I really don’t have any idea.”
I thought not. “What about DNA? Was Jesus haploid or diploid. Did he have half the number of Chromosomes or the same number as other humans?”
“Hmmm, I don’t know, but I do know he probably had genes from his mother.”
“Wait a minute Jack. It says in the bible that Jesus was descended from the house of David, so he also must have had genes from David’s line. Right?”
The efforts of GOP legislators and various religious entities to insert themselves into women’s personal heath decisions and to do everything they can to keep women down and to roll back the clock on all strides previously taken towards women’s equality in our society are well known to us all. The following data graph illustrates what may be the most serious and dangerous front in the “War On Women. SOB
History of The French Revolution in three entertaining, easy to understand videos. If All History teachers were like this, more people would pay attention and the rich would probably have them shot. Too much critical thinking being encouraged.SOB
John Green is a New York Times bestselling author who has received numerous awards, including both the Printz Medal and a Printz Honor. John is also the cocreator (with his brother, Hank) of the popular video blog Brotherhood 2.0, which has been watched more than 30 million times by Nerdfighter fans all over the globe. John Green lives in Indianapolis, Indiana.
English: John Green speaking at the Loft Literary Center in Minneapolis (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Subscribe to Vlogbrothers Raising nerdy to the power of Awesome!
No one adequately running things, everyone has guns, couple of wars going on, large disparity between rich and poor, powerful religious element that pays no taxes but interferes in everything? Remind you of any other country? The past is present. SOB
What is this New Atheism? New atheism is a type of Atheism — if we can even call it that — that is criticized for being outspoken. Furthermore, it is shunned upon by so called old Atheists for scientifically testing religion and for its anti-theistic undertone. However, new Atheism is a concoction of haughty-minded Atheists who pride themselves in near total silence and read the philosophy of Baron d’Holbach, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain and Karl Marx; just to name a few.
Didn’t these men write publications? Weren’t they as outspoken as possible when considering that some of them were at risk of persecution, censorship, or even execution? Please, do tell, were they able to rely on science? Definitely not in the manner in which we are able to rely on it. The major scientific findings that undermine what was previously regarded as religious truths came after most of these men. For instance, even after the publication of The Origin of Species, the evidence for Evolution wasn’t nearly as strong as it is today. Therefore, the only real difference between some of today’s Atheists and Atheists in the past is a reliance on science. However, one can argue that there’s no difference there either:
Science is the true theology.
Portrait of Thomas Paine by Matthew Pratt, 1785–1795 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Thomas Paine, quoted in Emerson, The Mind on Fire pg 153
There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.
Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
David Hume
How about anti-theism as defined by Oxford: opposition to the belief in the existence of a God or as some interpret it, opposition to religion?
The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.
Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.
Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.
Mark Twain
All religious notions are uniformly founded on authority; all the religions the world forbid examination, and are not disposed that men should reason upon them.
Baron d’Holbach
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
David Hume, A Treatise Of Human Nature
Note: none of these quotes specifically mention a particular religion; thus, demonstrating anti-religious views.
A reliance on science existed prior to new Atheism. Anti-theism also existed prior to new Atheism; let us ignore the fact that most old Atheists conveniently disregard the alternative definition of anti-theism: disbelief in gods. Thus, that implies that some old Atheists rely on science to some degree. Moreover, some of them also subscribe to anti-theism.
I ask again, what exactly is the difference? Let us forget the negative connotations of the label. Let us forget the air of condescension implied by individuals who call fellow Atheists ‘new’ Atheists. Thankfully, I live in a country that grants freedom of speech; therefore, I am outspoken. However, let us not forget the many around the world who hide in anonymity. Let us not forget them who are at risk of penalty and death. They harbor many of our sentiments; some are fortunate enough to express their ideas, albeit anonymously. All Atheists share a disbelief in gods. Some choose to reserve their views either because of imagined pride or the risk of penalty and death. The former has no reason to criticize the approach of another Atheist. The latter has no choice but to hide in darkness. Ultimately, there is no new Atheism. Whoever thinks there’s a such term is severely misinformed, especially when considering that the ideas they subscribe to came about via the writings of authors who held similar views to today’s ‘new’ Atheists.
Freedom From Religion Foundation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
