They say us Christians are stupid, delusional, and downright crazy for believing in what they call…’An invisible man that lives in the sky’. Because God knows that believing that all this just happened on its own isn’t crazy at all. Nope, That makes perfect sense…
Click The Pic and Come Laugh at Laughing at Life 2 with our sarcastic take on Atheism!
Click the pic, Come Laugh, NOW!!!
I’m not sure what your point is here. Could you please elaborate?
The fastest growing “religious” group in America is made up of people with no religion at all, according to a Pew survey showing that one in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion.
The number of these Americans has grown by 25% just in the past five years, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
The survey found that the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing even faster among younger Americans.
Thirty-three million Americans now have no religious affiliation, with 13 million in that group identifying as either atheist or agnostic, according to the new survey.
Pew found that those who are religiously unaffiliated are strikingly less religious than the public at large. They attend church infrequently, if at all, are largely not seeking out religion and say that the lack of it in their lives is of little importance.
And yet Pew found that 68% of the religiously unaffiliated say they believe in God, while 37% describe themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious.” One in five said that they even pray every day.
John Green, a senior research adviser at Pew, breaks the religiously unaffiliated into three groups. First, he says, are those who were raised totally outside organized religion.
Second are groups of people who were unhappy with their religions and left.
The third group, Green says, comprises Americans who were never really engaged with religion in the first place, even though they were raised in religious households.
According to the poll, 88% of religiously unaffiliated people are not looking for religion.
Poll respondents 18-29 were also more likely to identify as atheist or agnostic. Nearly 42% religious unaffiliated people from that age group identified as atheist or agnostic, a number far greater than the number who identified as Christian (18%) of Catholic (18%).
(via atheismfuckyeah)
Source: CNN
Rene and Anna Chouinard, who have three children, have been fighting with the board for more than two years to have an age-appropriate publication — Just Pretend: A Free Thought Book for Children and Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist — distributed to Grade 5 students.
The couple, who are humanists and follow a religion-free way of life, took their case to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on Aug. 20 and were granted a hearing on the issue. While no date has yet been set for the proceeding, the tribunal allowed the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Canadian Civil Liberties Association to act as interveners in two-days of hearings.
The fight began after the Chouinards’ refused to sign a consent form for their daughter to distribute Gideon International Bibles at her school.
They then unsuccessfully sought to obtain permission to distribute Just Pretend, citing other groups should be allowed to have their publications distributed in Niagara schools as well.
“This is a solid decision by the tribunal that is good for society,” Rene said after being granted a hearing. “We would like to see religion completely removed from the classroom.”
He said the Niagara school board should focus on education and not religion or other issues.
The Chouinards alleged they were discriminated against “due to creed” and that no material from non-Christian religions were solicited or distributed in the district.
“If they allow Gideon Bibles in the schools, then why can’t other groups distribute their material as well,” he said on Tuesday. “This is not fair for people who may believe in other religions.”
He said Jews should be able to leave Torahs and Muslims their Koran in area schools.
It’s funny how as soon as other materials, besides Christian materials, are to be distributed that the school districts clam up and no longer say that they are simply distributing material based on who wants to distribute.
Provenance: there is no sign that this object existed before the 14th century;Art history: the Shroud fits into art history as part of a genre of artistic depictions and recreations of burial cloths of Christ;
Style: the image upon the shroud looks like a manufactured illustration consistent with 14th century religious iconography, not like a real human being;
Circumstance: a 14th century Catholic bishop determined that the Shroud was a “cunningly painted” fraud—and discovered the artist who confessed to creating it;
Chemistry: the Shroud contains red ochre and other paint pigments;
Radiometric dating: carbon-14 dating tests showed in 1988 that the Shroud was likely created between 1260 and 1390 CE. In 2008, the hypothesis that this date was distorted by carbon monoxide contamination was tested—and results of the original tests confirmed.
Overturning the robustly supported conclusion that the Shroud was manufactured by a medieval artist would take extraordinary levels of evidence in favor of some alternate explanation.
(Nickell, Joe. Looking for a Miracle. (Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 1998.) pp. 22–29)To me it was never a question of it was a fraud. It was just the details of the fraud that were interesting.
(via skepticalavenger)
Source: skepticblog.org
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.”
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
A controversial Jewish circumcision ritual is under fire after allegedly causing the deaths of two infants and exposing potentially thousands more to the risk of herpes infections.
New York City health officials are pushing a proposed regulation that would require parents to sign a consent waiver before they take part in a circumcision ritual called “metzitzah b’peh,” typically practiced by ultra-Orthodox Jews. The ritual potentially poses a fatal risk to newborns, according to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
The legislation was proposed at a Board of Health meeting last month by Dr. Jay K. Varma, deputy commissioner for disease control for New York City’s health department, after 11 infants contracted neonatal herpes between November 2000 and December 2011, after the circumcision ritual. Two of the infants died.
Jews regularly practice circumcision as part of their religion, but mostly ultra-Orthodox Jews practice metzitzah b’peh, during which the mohel, or person performing the procedure, orally sucks the blood from the infant’s newly circumcised penis.
The health department reported last month that an estimated 20,493 infants in New York City were exposed to direct oral suction. Baby boys who were reportedly circumcised “with confirmed or probable orogenital suction” between April 2006 and December 2011 had an estimated risk of contracting neonatal herpes (HSV-1) infection of 24.4 per 100,000 cases, making the risk 3.4 times greater than those infants who did not have direct oral suction, according to the health department findings.
In a statement advising New York parents to refrain from direct oral-genital suction during circumcision, New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley said, “There is no safe way to perform oral suction on any open wound in a newborn.
what the fuck is this shit
(via helvetebrann)
apology accepted.
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
beliefsunderstanding 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
I think people with an overriding necessity to believe in god or a particular religious tradition can and will always find a way to maintain that belief.
Richard Dawkins. Who here does not know that name by now? If not, then at least everyone should know his book, The God Delusion, which stirred up a religious reaction equal in ferocity to that of the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004. Now, there seems to be no practical point in going through his book with a fine comb and discussing every theory he invents to disprove the existence of God; people have already done that now in books of their own. I think the most crucial point one needs to grasp about Dawkins is that, being an Atheist, he has absolutely no notion of God or religion. This begs the question, how can he hope to disprove something in which he knows nothing about? Simple answer: he cannot. This is most evident when he examines extracts from the Bible in a manner that even a first year Religious Studies student would disagree with. It would seem that in many cases Dawkins is out of his depth when it comes to a philosophical understanding of the Bible.
However, what we need to understand is that, on the whole, the Atheist belief that religion corrupts people’s minds and causes violence is very much correct. When it comes to religious fundamentalism (as discussed earlier the type of religion to which Atheists react most powerfully to in the first place) I would have to agree with them. I for one do not believe in Creation over Evolution, I believe that God created the universe, but the idea it was created in seven days is ridiculous and shows that Dawkins is not the only one with an infantile grasp of the Bible. Not only that but throughout history we see instances of the Church abusing their power for political gain, or just simply more power. The Crusades come to mind. This is where religion breaks down, when it starts to develop ulterior motives. The very word “Catholic” now carries connotations of corruption and greed. All of these provide the grounds that give Atheists the right to denounce our God and our church.
Some may argue the other side to this argument, that churches do good both locally and internationally, and they would be right. But this very fact has a sour undertone, for surely one can still provide charity outside the confines of the church? Yet still churches are one of the major charity providers in the world. This alludes to the monopoly on morality that they have established. The popular Christian saying, “God is good” is a very clear example of that, essentially saying that only through God can one be a good and moral person, well that’s just simply not true. Churches were originally established as a group of people who all believed in God through Jesus and the miracles he performed. I suppose it was the instruction to “spread the word” that led to more formalised religions, for how can you spread the word if you do not have a clear-cut idea of what you are spreading? And then in the good old spirit of humanity, everyone started to disagree with each other…
In light of all this I personally believe that a return to spirituality and a downplaying of religion is very much called for. I believe the Bible should be a philosophical book, which we use to question the world around us and ponder the meanings that bring us closer to God. Books like The Shack are a good place to start, for they do not deal with the different nuances of religions, but come from a pure spiritual perspective. It is possibly worth mentioning though that whilst The Shack is indeed an interesting book, it is poorly constructed and written; but if you can see past that it does have a powerful message.
Doing this would, I feel, also downplay the role of Atheism. The theory discussed in my previous post would be proved wrong if it did not. If you have noticed, Atheists can be just as arrogant and in your face as the very people they accuse of trying to force religion upon innocents. I know many Atheists who hear you are religious and make it almost a personal vendetta to ‘enlighten’ you from your dark age thinking… Well is that not exactly the same thing that some people try to do from a religious perspective? Extremes seldom work, in the end it always has to come to a middle ground.
I know this has been an intense digression from what I was talking about previously, and I have not addressed reasons why Atheists are wrong… Instead I mainly seem to point out why they are right. I have done this because I feel it would be irrelevant to put forward my own theories on God and creation and everything else. A return to spirituality would also mean a return to individualism; people would form their own beliefs and values without having to conform to the mainstream teachings. Only in this way can people be truly liberated from persecution and labelling whilst at the same time having respect for others for formulating their own opinions. Furthermore, a lot of the arguments against religion would become null if in fact it stopped causing as much trouble as it does, for the reality is that it does, and this really needs to change.
good luck being taken seriously.
chekmate atheboobs
i can’t say i’ve ever smelled spoiled paint before.
(via iamvishnu)
Source: fuckyeahdolan
4th and 5th centuries - Jewish synagogues burned, death toll unknown
316 - Pagan priests killed and temples destroyed
Between 3rd and 6th century - Thousands of Pagans killed
356 - Pagan services declared punishable by death
372-444 - Thousands killed for practising birth control
386 - Priscillianus and six followers beheaded for heresy
4th century - Philosopher Sopatros executed by Christian authorities
408-450 - Theodosius has children killed for playing with Pagan symbols
694 - Jews enslaved and children forcibly baptized
6th century - Pagans declared void of all rights
782 - 4500 beheaded as they were unwilling to convert to Christianity
10th to 12th century - Jewish communities destroyed and hundreds killed
1095 - First crusade
1096 - Thousands killed in Hungary and Turkey
1098 - Over 100,000 Turks killed
1098 - Thousands killed in Syria and bodies eaten by Christians
1099 - Jerusalem conquered with 60,000 victims
1099 - Thousands of ‘heathens’ slaughtered in Israel
1147 - Several hundred Jews killed in France during second crusade
Total victims of crusades - Estimated to be between 1 and 5 million
1209 - Beziérs destroyed with between 20,000 to 70,000 victims
1209 - Multiple other French cities destroyed, thousands killed
1232-1324 - Estimated 1 million Cathar heretics killed
Other heresies globally, killing over 100,000 people
1234 - Between 5,000 and 11,000 Germans killed for not paying suffocating church taxes
1290 - 10,000 Jews killed in Bohemia
1389 - 3,000 Jews killed
1391 - Seville’s Jews killed (4,000) or sold as slaves (25,000)
15th century - 1,019 churches and 17,987 villiages plundered by Knights of the Order
15th century - Crusades against Hussites, with thousands killed
1415 - John Huss burned at the stake
1484-1750 - Several hundred thousand witches hung or burned with several thousand extimated to have been killed between the start of Christianity and 1484
1492 - 150,000 Jews expelled from Spain, many dying along the way
Late 15th century - 10,220 burnings
1527 - Michael Sattler, family, and followers executed
1538 - Professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake
1568 - 3 million ‘rebels’ ordered to be killed with between 5,000 and 6,000 protestants drowned by Spanish troops
1572 - 20,000 Huguenots killed by command of pope Pius V
16th and 17th centuries - Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish ‘pacified and civilised’ by English troops
17th century - Magdeburg sacked, 30,000 protestants killed
1600 - Giordano Bruno burned at the stake
1648 - 200,000 Jews massacred in Poland
1697 - Thomas Aikenhead hung for blasphemyNot only is Christianity responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people, but it is also responsible for the mistreatment and abuse of billions worldwide. People who claim religions to be harmless are terribly misinformed and ignorant.
This incomplete list does not include Christianity’s impact on natives, which can be found on the source page.
(via christiantheatheist)
I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
“The difference between faith and insanity is that faith is the ability to hold firmly to a conclusion that is incompatible with the evidence, whereas insanity is the ability to hold firmly to a conclusion that is incompatible with the evidence.” -W. Harwood
This is a blog about Atheism. I'll do my best to remain professional and respectful as long as you do
Top
