Atheists Say

skepticalavenger:

testedspirit:

Atheists say creationism is not even a theory.

You obviously don’t understand what “theory” means. A theological theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the spiritual world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and prayer. Amen.

So, you take the scientific definition of the word theory, adds some religious stuff to it, and pretends that this new “definition” has significance.  Sorry, reality doesn’t work that way.

Repeatedly “confirmed” through observation and prayer?  Sorry, “confirmation” is a term you can’t twist to fit here.  If prayer worked, it would be confirmed through the traditional methods of science.  Observation is only a part of that process.  Also included in confirmation is measurement, experimentation, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses, not to mention peer review.

Without the other steps, what you get is a bunch of people saying that they observed something miraculous (hallelujah, the Virgin Mary statue is crying) and not doing further checking to find out that either condensation has taken place or that someone has deliberately perpetrated a hoax.

Source: testedspirit

The fun parts of being an atheist in a Catholic school and the Bible belt:

lackofbelief:

on an awesomeness scale of 1-10! (much sarcasm intended)

6-when people say that atheists are the reason the crime rate is so high

8-when people tell me that I’m just “rebelling against God”

7-when I get in trouble for referring to the Bible as a story

8-when Catholicism pops up in science class as “truth”

10-when adults tell me that I will for sure “come back to the faith” after I’m done rebelling, just because they did (“you’ll understand when you’re older”)

10-When I’m asked to “defend my beliefs” with a room full of Christians glaring at me, but am expected to do so without offending anyone

5-mandatory mass at my school

9-when people say that pro-choicers are baby killers

10-“The only explanations for being pro-choice are either being misinformed and ignorant or just evil”

9-when people ask me to pray for them, and I feel like a terrible person because I can’t tell them no

7-when people assume all Catholic school kids are “better” and “nicer” than public school kids

8-when people assume I am Catholic because I go to a Catholic school

10-“Oh, you’re not Catholic? Are you just Christian then?”

10-“If you have a problem with religion, then you should just leave the school, duh!”

9-“Religion doesn’t hurt people, people hurt people” (when in fact Catholicism has traumatized me, probably for life)

7-When we start every class every day with a prayer

“10-We don’t believe that non-Catholics are going to hell. Only people who deny God go to hell! And Muslims terrorists!” (MUSLIMS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY TERRORISTS, PRICK)

6-when the largest club in school is the Pro-Life Club

It’s almost worth it whenever I find other undercover atheists in the school.

(via skepticalavenger)

Source: lackofbelief

Talking, Legged Serpents: The Downfall of Man

dirtyatheist:

People seem to like pictures instead of text, even when the picture is mostly text, so…

If you believe the ancient Hebrew mythology, it was Samael, the angel of death, that disguised himself as the serpent and seduced Eve, impregnating her with Cain.

Bogleech Blog: mariaishismiddlename: Pornography is wrong not because it involves sex...

sharkchunks:

mariaishismiddlename:

Pornography is wrong not because it involves sex and human bodies, but because it is the exposure and commercialization of something that is meant to be intimate (between two people only) and holy (thus, cannot be bought,sold, or valued). 

Pornography is a bit like taking the Host out of the tabernacle, putting it on a paper plate with some cream cheese, and selling it at a snack bar.

If you regard sex as intimate and holy, then by all means, don’t look at pornography. These, however, are your personal preferences and feelings. You have no business asserting that it’s objectively “wrong” in itself or amoral for everyone else just because you personally don’t like it.

There are things you do every day that other people would consider obscene, wrong, and offensive to their spiritual beliefs. Yes, you. If you’ve ever even eaten beef in your entire life you’ve committed a grave sin in the eyes of several million people. Get over yourself.

1- Commercialization is not bad.

2- Sex is not always intimate, some people prefer it that way and others don’t.

3- Nothing is holy.

4- “Holy” things are commercialized by the very people who invented them.

5- Pornography need not be cheap exposure, it can for some people be more intimate than the real thing.

6- Most people who think this way have never had sex, and have no right to comment on it.  Others have outside of marriage which makes them, if Catholic as your tags would suggest, hypocrites and sinners in their own minds and even more unworthy of casting the first stone.  Married Catholics have every right to speak about sex, having been wed by pedophiliac rapists before a god who demands the stoning death of rape victims, or at least their marriage to the rapists.  But I have no respect whatsoever for the views of anyone so perverse as to make that bullshit their moral compass.

7- The body of Christ goes better with cream cheese, and that is speaking from experience.

—-

As for you Bogleech, you’re way too forgiving.

(via mishamansoor)

Source: mariaishismiddlename

A cross to bear: The results of a Christian worker’s employment tribunal have been published: BA may not have been quite as prejudiced as they seemed

this-whole-worlds-a-lie:

atheismfuckyeah:

She was portrayed in the press as a victim of cruel religious discrimination - a poor persecuted Christian who had been “banned” by British Airways from wearing a simple cross at work. And all this while her Muslim and Sikh colleagues were parading about in hijabs and turbans.

The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Tony Blair came out in her defence. The Daily Mail took up the cudgels on her behalf. One hundred MPs spoke out in her favour. Bishops demanded a boycott of BA. Evangelical Christians went into paroxysms of righteous fury. At last - here was proof that they were innocent victims of Christianophobia - as practised by our very own national airline.

An open and shut case, you might think.Nadia Eweidawas a Christian martyr, pure and simple.

But hang on a moment. The employment tribunal, to which she complained, has justpublished its judgment, and it tells a rather different story. Not only did it kick out all her claims of religious discrimination and harassment, it also criticised her for her intransigence, saying that she:

“… generally lacked empathy for the perspective of others … her own overwhelming commitment to her faith led her at times to be both naive and uncompromising in her dealings with those who did not share her faith.”

One example of this was her insistence that she must never be required to work on Christmas Day, even though she had signed a contract that made it clear that she, like her colleagues, would be working in an operation that functions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and therefore required shift working and bank holiday working, too.

In order to be fair to everybody, BA used a union-approved ballot system to ensure that those who worked on Christmas Day were fairly and objectively chosen. If their name came up, they were at liberty to negotiate with their colleagues to change shifts and days on a like-for-like basis. But not Nadia. She insisted that, because she was a Christian, she must not be required to work on Christmas Day - or Sunday, come to that.

The tribunal commented:

“[Eweida’s] insistence on privilege for Christmas Day is perhaps the most striking example in the case of her insensitivity towards colleagues, her lack of empathy for those without religious focus in their lives, and her incomprehension of the conflicting demands which professional management seeks to address and resolve on a near-daily basis.”

Eweida was originally suspended from work as a BA check-in clerk when she refused to wear a cross on a necklace underneath her uniform rather than on top of it. This breached stated uniform policy, which stated that no one was allowed to wear visible adornments around their neck.

But Eweida and her Christian activist backers managed to foment such a backlash that BA was forced into changing the policy. Now she can wear her cross visibly, and the airline offered her £8,500 compensation and a return to her job, with her point successfully made.

But no - she decided to continue pursuing the airline at the industrial tribunal. She was funded in her action by a rightwing religious law firm in Arizona called theAlliance Defence Fund, whose affiliated lawyer wasPaul Diamond, a familiar figure in court cases demanding religious privilege.

The tribunal - unlike the Daily Mail - was required to look at all the evidence, and not consider only Eweida’s account of events. And having done so, it kicked the case out on all counts, saying that Eweida did not suffer any discrimination.

The tribunal concluded:

“The complaint of direct discrimination fails because we find that the claimant did not, on grounds of religion or belief, suffer less favourable treatment than a comparator in identical circumstances.”

The tribunal also heard how Eweida’s attitude and behaviour towards colleagues had prompted a number of complaints objecting to her: “Either giving them religious materials unsolicited, or speaking to colleagues in a judgmental or censorious manner which reflected her beliefs; one striking example,” said the judgment, “was a report from a gay man that the claimant had told him that it was not too late to be redeemed.”

Indeed, the proselytising motivation of her desire to wear the cross over her uniform instead of underneath it was underlined when she said: “It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them.”

The details of this case make it clear that this is a woman who is wearing religious blinkers. In several instances she brought grievances and complaints against BA that had no basis in fact. She was convinced that BA was anti-Christian, and nothing would dissuade her from that opinion, despite the company jumping through hoops trying to accommodate the many and varied religious demands being placed on it. Indeed, there is a BA Christian Fellowship group that did not support Eweida’s fight, and confirmed that BA was already “making available facilities, time, work spaces, intranet use and supporting Christian charitable activities throughout the world” - but strangely we haven’t heard about them in the newspaper reports.

The tribunal notes that on the original claim form, Eweida states “I have not been permitted to wear my Christian cross; whilst other faiths (Sikhs, Hindu, Muslims) are permitted to manifest their faith in very obvious fashion. Secular individuals can show private affiliations.” The tribunal found the first and last assertions to be untrue. But Eweida would not be persuaded.

Her numerous demands for special treatment because of her religion showed a complete indifference to the effect it would have on the lives of others. Indeed, in one instance she made an accusation against the Christian Fellowship group that turned out to be completely fallacious, and the tribunal felt compelled to say: “We find it demonstrates to a degree the extent to which the claimant [Eweida] misinterpreted events, as well as her readiness to make a serious accusation without thought of the implications.”

Now we read that there is another case in the pipeline for British Airways. An orthodox Jewish man is bringing a case of religious discrimination because he is required towork on Saturday, the Jewish Shabat.

And a demonstration by Sikhs has just taken place outside the Welsh assembly, demanding that a schoolgirl be permitted to breach the school’s uniform policy by wearing a ceremonial bangle, the kara.

As Jonathan Bartley, of the religious thinktankEkklesiasaid of the Eweida case:

“Like many of the other claims of discrimination being made by Christians, this has turned out to be false. People should be aware that behind many such cases there are groups whose interests are served by stirring up feelings of discrimination of marginalisation amongst Christians. What can appear to be a case of discrimination at first glance is often nothing of the sort. It is often more about Christians attempting to gain special privileges and exemptions.”

The National Secular Society has demanded that employers should be permitted to declare their workplaces secular spaces if they want to, without penalty. Attempts by employers to accommodate everyone have turned many workplaces into religious battlegrounds. It should now be OK to say: “Leave your religion at the door, please. And if you won’t and your religion doesn’t permit you to work in the way that this jobs demands you do, then please find another job that will.”

The Guardian

I remember this when she first got into the papers. It was laughable then and it is still laughable now - except now, with all the facts, I’m also kinda pissed at her. 

~Mooglets

Prime fucking example why I “unfriended” nearly everyone from the school I went to for 3 years. They’re all exactly like this.

Stories like this make me laugh, then weep for humanity.

(via mishamansoor)

Source: atheismfuckyeah

I’m sorry to be going on this Atheism rant, but…

goodreasonnews:

apology accepted.

karnman88:

I’ve stated this before and I’ll state it again, I dislike atheists. I have nothing wrong with Atheism, I have a problem with a lot of its followers.

Well, atheism isn’t a belief system that has tenets and there are no “followers” of atheism, so right off the bat the thing you’re saying is nonsense. Atheism is a position on one single issue, a response to the question: Are you convinced a god exists. If the answer is no, you’re called an atheist. That’s all there is to it, brah.

Why is it that most Atheists have to come off as smug, intolerant assholes?

You must think everyone who’s thought an issue through and can clearly explain their position is a smug, intolerant asshole.

Not everyone is like this, but there is definitely a vocal minority/majority that get a lot of attention.

You expose how little you know what you’re talking about when you don’t even have an idea as to whether you’re talking about the majority or the minority. Is there any chance you’re making this up in your imagination? Sounds a lot like prejudice to me.

Why can’t they sell their beliefs without insulting everyone?

There are no beliefs in atheism, atheism is not a system of beliefs, it’s a stance on one issue. I know I said it already, but you seem like the type that needs things explained again and again.

Why do they have to mock people of faith and view them as intellectually inferior for believing in a higher power?

Because it is intellectually inferior and it demonstrably leads to harm and social ills. Religion is a scam. Would you defend the conmen behind a pyramid scheme and say “why does consumer reports have to expose the fraud of scam artists? Why can’t we just let them live, maaaannn!?”

To me, mocking someone for their beliefs is akin to Antisemitism or Islamophobia. It does not lead down a good path…

Well, that’s bullshit because anti-Semitism and Islamophobia involves the systematic, institutionalized legal and social suppression of individuals based on their heritage and/or religious beliefs. That’s certainly not what I’m advocating and while there is no tenets to atheism (so I can’t speak for any other atheists) many of the atheists I know who have an interest in social justice issues make a clear distinction between targeting an oppressive system like Islam and bigotry against individuals. Individuals deserve the same treatment under the law, but religious organizations which take advantage of individuals (which is all of them) do not. While people always ought to be free to choose to join a religious organization, I’m here to present good reasons why they ought not do so.

But here is the thing, if atheists are so drawn to logic and reason, they should be agnostic.

You don’t know what ‘agnostic’ means. You’ve accepted this Vatican-sponsored doublespeak idea that atheists assert there is no god, theists assert there is and agnostics are in the middle or are saying “I don’t know.” I know it’s hard to accept, but you’ve been duped, my friend. There is no such thing as an ‘agnostic.’ Gnosticism is a word that describes knowledge. It literally translates to “knowledge.” To call yourself an agnostic or gnostic is to answer the question whether or not you think you have knowledge of a god existing. An agnostic theist would say she doesn’t KNOW that there’s a god, like she doesn’t have hard evidence, but she’s convinced nonetheless. An agnostic atheist Also doesn’t know, has no direct evidence and thereby has admitted they are unable to form a belief around the thing they have no knowledge of. Theism, by the way, is a term that refers to belief. If you have a specific belief in a god, if you believe that god is a real thing and has at least one trait you can explain, you’re a theist, you are with belief. I don’t have that belief. That’s not to assert there is no god, that’s just to say, I don’t believe any things about a god.   

I don’t know if “Schrödinger’s Cat” is an appropriate example or metaphor, but I think it is similar. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of something you cannot see.

Yeah, so like we were saying, there is no ‘disproving’ there is only accept of don’t accept. Look, do you believe in flavooglorps? You don’t know what a flavooglorp is, so you’re agnostic about it, you have no knowledge, but in addition, you don’t believe flavooglorps are real. You don’t say I made them up because a falvooglorp might be a new kind of moss growing in my yard I can show you and then you’ll say, ‘yes I believe it’s real.’ Until then, though, you’re an agnostic atheist in regards to flavooglorps.

Let me give you an example. There is a 100-square mile section of forest. Is there a bear in the woods? Finding a bear could prove to be difficult, and after a week of searching you find nothing. But does that mean there is no bear at all? Who knows? All you can say is that you could not find a bear, but you cannot say with 100% conviction that there is not a single bear in that entire forest. You will not know until you search every square inch of that forest.

Right, you don’t know, but do you believe it anyway?

You will not know if God exists until you die.

How do you know you’ll find out when you die? If there is no afterlife you wouldn’t find out and if there was how do you know that part of the afterlife is finding out if there’s a god. You’re operating under a whole host of false dichotomies. What if there is an afterlife, but you still don’t find out about god? What if there’s a god, but no afterlife? Why do you think you have some understanding of the nature of the afterlife?

To believe that strongly that God does not exist, you need to have the same faith and conviction a religious person needs to believe God exists. You are no better than any religious person.

That’s a real dick way to say it because it implies that atheists think “they’re better” than theists. Like as people. You understand that you’re the one being a dick here, right? You’re making presumptions and I don’t like to have presumptions made about me.

Furthermore, I don’t have faith there’s no god, I trust my ability to understand the world via the senses I have and if they’re not good enough than how would I even know?

Oh, you read books by Dawkins to get your world view? How is that different from reading the Tanakh, the Bible, the Koran, the Veda and Upanishads, the Zend Avesta, or the Tao-te Ching? Through self-reflection you came to this belief? How is that different from meditation or prayer?

uh, because all those books are fairly tales about make-believe characters from ancient mythology and only a child wouldn’t be able to see that’s obvious.

That is why I am agnostic. I have no idea if there is a God or an afterlife until I die, and I’m in no hurry to find out.

I’m confused about you because you think you’re so open to the idea of a god, but your descriptions of the god are very Christian-oriented. You say you have no idea, but you’ve presented tons of your ideas about the nature of god. I suggest you analyze where they come from, kid.

You have a right to believe there is no God. There is nothing wrong with that.

Oh, really, thanks for the fucking permission, I was waiting with baited breath for you to justify my worldview.

You are free to believe whatever you want. But you do not have a right to act smug and superior because of that belief.

Actually I do have the right to act that way. I have to specific right to be as much of a smug prick as I want to be and there’s nothing you can do about it. That right, by the way, is actually the very first right offered to Americans in the Bill of Rights. Are you an American? Do you live in a country with freedom of speech? That’s what a “right’ is, ya know, it refers to your relationship with the law. I have the right to act smug and superior because my beliefs understanding of reality IS superior. What you don’t have the right to do is to swindle, scam and cheat people, commit acts of violence and limit people’s access to public and private services which is all shit religion does all the time. And, by the way, unlike you, when I use the word “the right” I’m actually referring to what that word means and not to your imagined idea of what’s like, polite or some shit.

Source: karnman88

This goes out to all the Christians and Atheists and everyone else. . I’m sick and tired of this hate against gays.

kaijufenrir:

all-american-antichrist:

ashleyislegit:

Christians;  You guys need to realize that God forgives all, and in his eyes a person that hates and a gay person is the same sin. They are NO fucking different. God likes a “quiet soul” So don’t push your beliefs in ANYONES  face. God Does NOT HATE GAYS. And if he did he would hate them as much as he hates the people that say they hate gays. I swear    you guys depress me. 

Atheists;  Stop hating on the Christian god and realize that Hindus have 11 fucking gods for you to hate on. There are so many freaking religions and most of you choose to hate on 1? Stop that shit, Also I know it’s sad that gay couples can’t get married in every state but in defense Marriage and the entire ceremony is BIBLICAL thing. So, you should be able to see why the government defends in, because they have to defend religion. And atheist or not you should respect that. 

Everyone else;  If you hate what I have to say then I am sorry. I just had to get this out there.

P.s I am christian in case anyone was confused there 

Christianity is the predominant religion in America and the most intrusive. Your rights as a Christian are not being threatened, rather your faith threatens the rights of others when merged with government. This is not a Christian nation, and marriage is not a Christian tradition, marriage is an ancient human tradition. You have no authority to impose your religious values onto others.

Hunter pretty much covered all the necessary things.

(via kaijufenrir)

Source: ashleyislegit

Top