mbm-2

I thought I’d share this with you. The BBC has a page for each religion where they give a bit of information at a glance, and one for atheism too.

Atheism is the absence of belief in any gods or spiritual beings. The word Atheism comes from a, meaning without, and theism meaning belief in god or gods.

  • Atheists don’t use god to explain the existence of the universe.
  • Atheists say that human beings can devise suitable moral codes to live by without the aid of Gods or scriptures.

Reasons for non-belief
People are atheist for many reasons, among them:

  • They find insufficient evidence to support any religion.
  • They think that religion is nonsensical.
  • They once had a religion and have lost faith in it.
  • They live in a non-religious culture.
  • Religion doesn’t interest them.
  • Religion doesn’t seem relevant to their lives.
  • Religions seem to have done a lot of harm in the world.
  • The world is such a bad place that there can’t be a god.

It is possible to be both atheist and religious. Virtually all Buddhists manage it, as do adherents of other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity.
But many atheists are also secularist, and are hostile to any special treatment given to organised religion.

Atheists and morality
Atheists are as moral (or immoral) as religious people.
In practical terms atheists often follow the same moral code as religious people, but they arrive at the decision of what is good or bad without any help from the idea of god.

What does it mean to be human?
Atheists find their own answers to the question of what it means to be human.

What are your main reasons for being an atheist? Mine are:

  • There is zero evidence of the supernatural in any shape or form. (except the Invisible Pink Unicorn, may you die an honorable death, trampled under her holy pink hooves!)
  • Religion is harmful if swallowed. It survives and thrives on indoctrination/brainwashing, especially in early childhood when a person has no defense for its insanity.
  • Religion has caused more death, murder, destruction, harm, repression, ignorance, destruction of knowledge, etc, than anything else.
  • I live in a religious culture and I see the hypocrisy and harm it causes.
  • The morality of the religious is twisted and usually extremely hypocritical. As an atheist I have my own moral code that doesn’t rely on 2,000 year old rules from desert goat herders who liked to stone people for wearing 2 different fibers at the same time.
  • Life does not appear to be sacred to the religious, despite their constant braying about the issue. The religious seem desperate to control everyone’s life but their own. (More hypocrisy). The religious subjugate themselves in this life (at least they pretend on the surface, while breaking their rules in secret often) because they want eternal life that doesn’t involve roasting forever in hell (so it’s based on fear of suffering, not on being good for goodness sake).As an atheist, this the the only life I have. It is natural, amazing, awe-inspiring, and precious beyond measure. Every moment is to be treasured and lived fully.
  • Religion is based on faith, which by definition, has no proof. Religion abhors such free thought. I embrace reason, critical thinking, logic, observation, experimentation, facts, science, intelligence, freethought and skepticism. Basically I believe in using your brain, and thinking for yourself.

That’s my short list. I’m sure I have other reasons for being an atheist but I can’t think of them offhand. So what are yours?

1718295_222350_110564f499_pI’m bored. I have about 5 matters I should be attending to, but I’m uninspired to tackle any of them at the long end of a productive day. So I’m doing what every self-respecting blogger/Geekess/hermit does. I’m stumbling the internet.

Oh, and now is the time to remind you that I officially live under a rock. Someday I’ll take a picture of my rock so you can see how nice it is. But suffice it to say, I’m not a newshound, always up on the latest and greatest of everything.

So in my stumbles I come across a BusinessDay article, a South African paper. This is how I learned this awesome explanation of the difference between an atheist, 2 kinds of agnostics, and a theist. Here we go:

The difference between an atheist, an agnostic and a theist can be summarized by their responses to the question: do you have a dog?

The atheist will simply answer, “No”. If you go to his house to search for a dog, you won’t find one. There will be no signs in the house or the yard that there ever was a dog there. None of his relatives or friends will remember having seen a dog there. They’ll ask, “Does he have a dog? How could I not have known?” And they’ll be absolutely right. There are no signs that there could ever have been a dog at the atheist’s house or indeed anywhere where he spends his time. Not at his home, not at his work, nowhere.

The agnostic who thinks that there’s simply insufficient proof for either having or not having a dog will be a great deal less certain. Read the rest of this entry »

loljesus_children_go_to_hellHey everyone! Beth is back for more! I just got her email a bit ago, which is not really good timing. My parents are getting here tomorrow about the time that I get up, so I really don’t have any time to reply in detail. But that shouldn’t stop you from commenting or emailing replies to heavingdeadcats@gmail.com. I’ll be happy to incorporate your replies into the post as well as my reply to her. I feel like I’m on a merry-go-round here!

Here is the email in its entirety. She is replying to my statements (from Conversations With christians 4a) which are not in block quotes:
~
Whether you agree to the label or not is irrelevant. It doesn’t make it any less true. What history and science resources are you looking at to come to these conclusions? How are you so sure that you are getting the whole story? Please give some of your resources. I am quite curious as to what you’re reading to come to such wild opinions. For instance, name one contemporary document from Jesus’ time that refers to him. Better yet, name one person who wrote about meeting him, outside of the gospels. You can’t because no such documents or evidence exists. Since you insist that he existed, that he was magical and had special powers and rose from the dead, the Burden of Proof is on you, as you are making the positive claim. Please provide references. Simple inflammatory statements are baseless.

No, I do not agree to the label because your accusation that I am “cherry picking” is baseless in itself. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not is unimportant, however. It does not change the fact you are wrong.

I will gladly share my sources with you. One I use quite frequently is tektonics.org. It has great articles that address many of the issues you appear to have with Jesus and the New Testament especially. Furthermore, I’d like to establish that while I do not doubt that Jesus once walked the earth that the rest, as far as him being the son of God, performing miracles, and being resurrected is all a matter of faith. I cannot prove that to you.

Why didn’t jesus write anything down himself? He was a god-man after all. Why not document his life and teachings to share for future sheep to get his message accurately? Why rely on flawed men to write things down 40-80 years after his supposed death? This doesn’t bother you in the slightest? You don’t find it odd? Read the rest of this entry »

jesus-saves

So below you’ll find the latest email from Beth, which I posted the other day. After chilling out and thinking happy thoughts, I am ready to tackle it with your help. My replies, mixed with your comments, are added below. I am wondering though, why Beth is still talking to me? What is your opinion? Is she trying to get me to change my mind and find the lord? It’s obviously not to learn anything. What could be her motivation? I have no idea. Your suggestions are welcome, as usual.

I will never agree with you that I am “cherry picking” as I am not. In fact I was discussing it with another person of no faith and they even wondered how you drew such a conclusion. The Bible, as I stated in earlier messages, is nothing more then a compilation of documents put together by men. As we both concurred, the Holy Book is not without fault and was subject to being edited wrongly. Therefore I turn to history and science to determine what books are authentic and which are not. I do intend to look at what you suggested. I’ve honestly never come across it before. It will definetely be an asset to my research.

Whether you agree to the label or not is irrelevant. It doesn’t make it any less true. What history and science resources are you looking at to come to these conclusions? How are you so sure that you are getting the whole story? Please give some of your resources. I am quite curious as to what you’re reading to come to such wild opinions. For instance, name one contemporary document from Jesus’ time that refers to him. Better yet, name one person who wrote about meeting him, outside of the gospels. You can’t because no such documents or evidence exists. Since you insist that he existed, that he was magical and had special powers and rose from the dead, the Burden of Proof is on you,  as you are making the positive claim. Please provide references. Simple inflammatory statements are baseless.

Why didn’t jesus write anything down himself? He was a god-man after all. Why not document his life and teachings to share for future sheep to get his message accurately? Why rely on flawed men to write things down 40-80 years after his supposed death? This doesn’t bother you in the slightest? You don’t find it odd? Read the rest of this entry »

reason is the greatest enemy of faithThe other day I did a post called Here We Go Again…. A christian had come by HDC and offered to have a bit of discourse so I posted what he had said and replied accordingly. Apparently there were quite a few comments, some of which got a bit heated and unpleasant. But a few questions were asked in amongst all the angry exchanges that I thought I’d address directly.

Sometimes I know I can be a bit vague about where I stand on issues, mainly because I don’t want to offend anyone. I like to be happy and make others happy. But I think at a certain point, honesty really is more important than a bit of bruised ego. So let’s stop pussyfooting around and I’ll lay my cards on the table. I am not trying to offend anyone. I’m just being honest.

It was noticed that I don’t ever capitalize god. Why should I when there is no such thing? I capitalize Jesus when I feel we’re talking about a person, even though I don’t believe Jesus existed. I capitalize Rome because it’s a place. But I don’t capitalize god because it’s a concept, not a reality. There is no god, hence no need to make it a pronoun. When referring to yahweh or jehovah, also not real… no reason to make them pronouns either.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, on the other hand, is completely real, bless her holy hooves. LOL… sorry.. trying to lighten the mood.

In that vein, Michael Mock in the comments referred to god as G-d.  I find the whole g-d thing irritating because it is done out of deference for the christian god, even fear. That’s why it bothers me. Because it’s silly. Your god can spell, after all. So whether you stick that “o” in there or not means nothing. It’s simply a sign of fear for a god who seems cruel and arbitrary if something like writing out the word god, all three letters, is bad.

There was also a good discussion about indoctrination. I agreed with Steve that people adopt the detergent/ political party/ religion and eating habits of their parents and community.

Religion by its nature is done through indoctrination. And here I’ll say it. I think religion is inherently evil. I think indoctrination of any sort, whether for religious reasons or for simple manipulation is also evil. It assumes that the person being indoctrinated has no free will and gets no say in what they are forced to learn to believe. It’s evil. Read the rest of this entry »

take this thing off of me. it burns

Forgive me if I sound less than over the moon about this. Another christian has volunteered to converse. His name is Ash. I’m just not getting my hopes up. He left a comment the other day which I’ll share with you below:

Here is Ash’s comment:

Hello, I was led to your blog from de-conversion.com and wanted to share my thoughts. I’m a Christian who grew up going to church and then stopped believing for about seven years, and was led back to Christ just in the past few months.

“it took scientists to do careful experiments, then to share those results, then have them verified and checked, and have other scientists to do the same experiments before the law of gravity was considered more or less a given.”

Sounds about right. I am an artist, but I have a pretty good understanding of the scientific process, having taken classes in high school and GE’s in college. It definitely stimulates the mind, which is a great experience for most people. I have a little scientist in me as well who loves to experiment and observe the world in the spirit of trial and error. We’ve all learned to trust in evidence.

Art is different because it’s more of a bodily experience. There is a great amount of thinking that goes behind art, but the actual experience has more to do with the body: producing with the hands, consuming with the eyes. It’s more about the feeling and less about the thinking. Often we can’t pinpoint exactly why we love a work of art- I know that for me I’d rather just listen to a song I love in the time that I could spend analyzing it.

And then there’s the spirit. I believe that to pursue God, whether you knew him in the past or not, you need to be willing to let go of your dependence on proof. I think the reason art/literature/music is mainly seen as a break from work is because that’s when you can sit back relax, and stop thinking. I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t need the occasional break from mental stimulation. The thing with Spirit is, you can’t look at God (objectively or subjectively) without thinking. I really don’t think it’s possible. But spirit is missing that essential element of proof that scientists live by. Instead of proof, we are asked to trust in faith.

If human beings can accept both art and science despite their natural differences, I believe they can also accept the concept of faith, if they really want to. I myself am still getting used to the feeling of having this faith, since I lived without it for so long.

I agree that you can be happy without God. But there is a different kind of joy in believing in God that I find completely amazing. The desire to share this joy is really so overwhelming, and that’s the reason why we Christians can’t leave you guys alone, even if we have the utmost respect for you.

If you’re interested at all I would really love to trade ideas over email and share our experiences. If not, I can only pray that you’ll always keep an eye out for God, and that my ultra long ramble made at least a microscopic drop of sense.

I have been busy since he commented so I hadn’t replied. But apparently he got the interest of 2 people who I will quote below in all their splendor. I’ll intersperse my comments within as usual. If you want you can click above and read the original comment and replies in context. Read the rest of this entry »

atheist-cat-sees-no-evidence

Remember Craig the christian from last month? He emailed me yesterday about the recent post I wrote: Cherry-Picking and a bible Lesson for Atheists. I’ll quote his email and then post my replies.

Craig said: I do not have a problem with your use of the Skeptic’s Bible per se. The issue I have with the Skeptic’s Bible is the use of the King James Bible, which relies on later documents for its translation (8th and 9th century if I remember correctly) as opposed to the 1st and 2nd century documents other translations use (NRSV & NET to name a few).

Neece’s reply:
If you know of a more accurate interpretation of the bible that I can link to online and read online, can you link me? Otherwise I’ll stick to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. Because it’s the one people know best, and it’s the one I was indoctrinated with, and it honestly shouldn’t matter that much for the following reasons below.

Craig said: Unchecked, the Bible can be made to mean a number of things. The Bible has been used to support slavery and patriarchy. It has also been used to try to define marriage and condemn homosexuality. I’m sure we will get into these matters at a different time. My point is, that the Bible does none of these.
There are three different courses of action on can take when interpreting tricky passages from the Bible
1. Cherry-pick from the texts
2. Ignore difficult texts
3. Admit that we don’t know what the text means and hope that future research will shed light on the meaning.

(Neece’s note: Craig thoughtfully included commentary regarding the quotes I chose in the bible lesson for atheists from April 7th, but I am omitting them here. If you’d like me to include them, comment below and I’ll add them to the bottom of this post.) Instead of getting tangled in the apologetic thinking of the commentary, I said this: Read the rest of this entry »