God is imaginary

[BigPhil]

I must say the non-religious glut in Seattle is still throwing me off guard. I just moved here from Colorado Springs, where everyone and their neighbor is a brow-beating evangelist keen to judge you for your sinful behavior. I drove by New Life Church (of male-prostitute-hiring meth-snorting evangelist Ted Haggard’s fame) and another mega-church just to get to work every day! I wouldn’t dare let my own beliefs be exposed, and I had an Atheist pin or t-shirt that I’d only wear if I had two or three friends around. If my employer(s) had known my disbelief, I would have immediately been distrusted, because atheists are clearly shady and will lie and steal (per them).

If the mega-churches and massive evangelical population wasn’t enough, we also had the conservative Air Force Academy and the headquarters of many evangelical organizations, including Focus on the Family.

Here, I mention that I don’t buy into the nonsense that is Christianity and Islam and I get looked at like “yea, so?”

Refreshing doesn’t even do it justice.

Share This

[JustSarah]

BigPhil, I have to admit that when you mentioned in your initial post that you moved here from Colorado Springs, I was the slightest bit… curious, we’ll say, about how “Colorado Springy” you are. I have read a lot about how conservative that city is, and yes, how evangelical the population tends to be. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, of course, but I came from a decidedly non-religious background (not atheist, but certainly not devout), so I don’t generally relate well to people with very strong religious convictions.

Share This

[anonyme]

Eskimo: If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?

Priest: No, not if you did not know.

Eskimo: Then why did you tell me?

Share This

[anonyme]

DP: It may be safe to utter the word “liberal” in West Seattle; the rest of the state, or even other parts of the city, not so much. Bellevue, for example.

Ken, I like your style. Included one of my personal favorites, above. We should all get together for an Atheist Coming Out Party…!?

Share This

[DP]

If it weren’t for God, how would atheists define themselves?

http://www.wimp.com/walkwater/

Share This

[JoB]

DP..

well… yes.

loved the video clip.

Share This

[JoB]

Sarah..

i don’t think anything will get rid of mormon missionaries at the door.. not even attack dogs.

Share This

[Ken]

“An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.”

— John McCarthy

Share This

[Ken]

“*Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief.* One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as “the belief that there is no God of any kind,” or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism– and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. *Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief.* An atheist is not primarily a person who *believes* that a god does *not* exist, rather he does *not believe* in the existence of a god.”

— George Smith

Share This

[anonyme]

DP, funny video. It was supposed to be funny, right? I kept picturing Jesus in a wet suit practicing his technique.

As to your question, I would say that atheists don’t define themselves solely by what they don’t believe. They define themselves as everything else under the sun – not under heaven. We are humans doing the best we can with the time we have on this planet; we live, love, work, play and think. We are are already without God, so need no further definition. It’s like asking who Democrats would be without Sarah Palin. Who cares?

Share This

[Ken]

Bible based marriage laws:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

— Hunter

Share This

[JoB]

Ken…

good heavens..

are you that literal?

i mean.. on everything?

somehow i doubt that.

because i am sure i can find some science texts that still contain some real doozies…

and that’s SCIENCE …

the great god of atheists everywhere…

Don’t you know that God is she who doesn’t need to be defended ;->

Share This

[Ken]

JOB, I grew up around Biblical literalism and there are several on this forum :)

Cherrypicking fundies keep telling us that every word is true until you cite one of these and then it is allegory.

“Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope.”

— P.J. O’Rourke

Share This

[anonyme]

One difference between science and theism is that science not only welcomes scrutiny, it demands it. Ascribing to a cult of female deities does not change the fact that political, patriarchal Gods continue to persecute women the world over. Sadly, it would appear that a matriarchal God is just as impotent and apathetic as that other one.

Man made God in his own image. Or hers.

Share This

[Ken]

“It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible.”

— George W. Foote

Share This

[JanS]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html?_r=1

Share This

[Ken]

The problem is not science. The problem is science where it interfaces with journalism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1

The republican war on science could not be won without the now traditional formula used on media sites and tv.

Share This

[JoB]

anonyme..

science demands scrutiny?

LOL.. believing that takes real faith.

i live each day with one of those “mystery” illnesses… a mystery because science hasn’t caught up with it’s cause and likely won’t until the scientist at the CDC who labeled it hysteria in the 80s retires…

religion isn’t the only place where one encounters dogged literalism to one’s dismay.

the good news is that there are still scientists who choose to question…

and believers who do the same.

as for that female cult thing…

it’s a joke..

the only gender god has is that designated by man… who has used it to abuse women.

still.. every belief system starts with a story

even atheism.

Ken..

i was raised in one of those households myself… and have a son who has made the same choice.

and yet.. my faith survived…

now that is true miracle ;-)

Share This

[Ken]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/dont-know-much-about-religion-youre-not-alone-study-finds/?hpt=Mid

Not surprising since every evangelical and fundy I know is proud that they don’t have any books in the house except the Bible. Could be a southern thing though. My ex-mother-in law was freaked by how many books I owned.

I aced the above test.

Share This

[JoB]

Ken..

that was a test?

I was raised with books in the house… abbreviated classics and the encyclopedia…

if only my mother had known how dangerous those books were when read :->

we are doing our best to limit the number of books in our house these days and still my personal library has a couple dozen plus books on the world’s religions..

Being a christian doesn’t make you illiterate, narrow minded or judgmental.

Share This

[Blitztour]

Share This

[DP]

From anonyme:

We are humans doing the best we can with the time we have on this planet; we live, love, work, play and think. We are are already without God, so need no further definition. It’s like asking who Democrats would be without Sarah Palin. Who cares?

  —If that works for you anonyme, then great. But now that you mention it, what would Democrats be without Sarah Palin?

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.

—Voltaire

  —What the hell do you suppose Voltaire meant by that?

And now for something completely inflammatory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68

Share This

[ws4ever]

People choose their beliefs about religion. So why try to change someone else’s mind if they perceive things differently through the lens of their own personality or experience? Gah! If we understand that we’re just talkin’, then it can be interesting to explore ideas.

Share This

[HolyKow]

I have to point out that the seperation of church and state is NOT specifically present in any form in the Constitution. It was an idea that was supported first by a sitting president in 1802 in a letter to the Danbury Baptists by then president, Thomas Jefferson.

This is one of the primary places where we devise that the Founding Fathers were in favor of non-theocratic form of government, unlike the Christian Extremists that are attempting to further hijack our government in the name of god and “HIS” teachings (so far as their selective readings of those “teachings” are).

The letter to the Danbury Baptists below,

hk

================================================

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” *thus building a wall of separation between Church & State*. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

Share This

[HolyKow]

And to all those that claim that we should use the bible as the basis for the law…..

hk

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and

female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of

mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you

clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in

Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price

for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in

her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how

do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates

a pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours.

They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus

35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to

kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an

abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I

don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I

have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses.

Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the

hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.

19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig

makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two

different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments

made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also

tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to

all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?

Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family

affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Share This

[Author]

Posts