Archive for April, 2012

April 26, 2012

God on Trial « imbrocata

God on Trial « imbrocata.

April 19, 2012

Someone Left The Cake Out In The Rain

We’ve all got them, those foods that we wake up craving, those foods we daydream about, those foods that make us salivate at the thought of them.  Most people’s lists include chocolate, chips, pasta, cheese, bread and the like.  My recent food lusting has taken a strange twist.  I. Crave. Tofu!  All day, everyday, I want it.  Don’t know where it came from, don’t know what it will take to tame the hungry tofu beast, but she’s there.

View original post 812 more words

April 18, 2012

This Ruthless World

There is a pretty awful, but amusing piece of writing being sent around in chain e-mails and praised to high heaven on various conservative boards and blogs. Appearing with minor variations, it purports to be a “Divorce Agreement” for dividing the United States between conservatives and liberals. It is supposedly written by one “John J. Wall”, who may or may not be a real person and may or may not be studying law in what may or may not be an accredited U.S. law school. I’ve heard of it before, but having received it in an e-mail this weekend past, I thought I’d write a response.

View original post 3,731 more words

April 18, 2012

The Reagan GOP Lie That Continues To Destroy America

It’s called Trickle Down Economics.

April 17, 2012

Thank God?

 

April 17, 2012

We all know that too much salt is not good for you.

Dropping all Pretense

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour , wherewith shall it be salted ? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.  Matt 5:13

Coming from a religious background, many of us.. no, most of us have heard the proverbial ‘salt-sermon’.   It runs along the self-congratulating idea that Christians are a preservative on Earth.   Preserving the earth from wickedness, evil, unrighteousness, and all manner of ungodliness.   This is the keystone verse to justify meddling in just about anything that puts a ‘burr under the saddle’.   And as an aside, this is really strange in light of the deep desire of most if not all fundamentalists to usher in the end-times; an epoch known for it’s ‘strong delusions’ and wars, rumors of war, earthquakes and a good ol’ general ‘time of great troubles’ – one would think they would just let it fly and instead wait with arms upstretched for the rapture.   But no, no no.  …

View original post 1,162 more words

April 16, 2012

rowanwphillips

This week I have been trying to defend my lack of religious belief against an onslaught from various believers who seem to think it impossible to be without religion. I admit it, I usually start the discussions but it seems that the very concept of religious belief and all it entails are so ingrained in the psyche of some people that they cannot comprehend that non-belief in any divine power means anything other than just that. First you get all the one-liners (if atheism is a religion, abstinence is a sexual position etc) but they don’t really get to the heart of the matter or indeed explain the fundamental differences between belief and non-belief.

I think I need to define what is meant by religion, the dictionary I have to hand describes it as:

  1.  belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine…

View original post 1,067 more words

April 15, 2012

The Myth of New Atheism

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, 178...

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

Freedom From Religion Foundation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

April 13, 2012

Gotta love Vermont.

April 13, 2012

Fun Facts about Bank of America