I denounce the works of satan and any copyright infringements of productions or reproductions portending to the deification of a noun or otherwise which by intent would bring harm through the occultivation or rendering of severe and irrivocable damage to hetero-erectus or any or all of its lineage with the exclusion of the class of primates which has showed a failure within the past 100,000 years or so to evolve.
I denounce Satan, Santa Claus, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas or any of the other nominal personalities which people may emulate or follow including Stalin, Hitler, and especially Torquemada basically because they were not (pardon the expression) god.
I am not an atheist, but was deeply impressed by your honesty on NIGHTLINE and fully support you in your honesty.Submitted by Serafim Evgenie... on January 31, 2007 - 4:21pm.
Furthermore, I empathize with your convictions, and, although I am convinced that rational persons can come, rationally, to even opposite conclusions in all areas of human life/culture (not only regarding religion), feel that you are acting more honourably and decently than perhaps the majority of people do in publicly expressing your rationally, from your own experiences, openly propounded atheism. It is very sorrowful for me to hear that you have received obscene and threatening communications from not only irrational, but cruel - and, in the cases of death threats, criminal - persons. I am extremely grateful for your honesty, although, again, I myself am not an atheist. Of the Russian Orthodox Faith, I surely feel that, if for no other reason but your most honourable honesty, you are to be admired far more than religious, agnostic or atheist individuals who do not speak out openly for what they have rationally concluded to be true. You have every right to express yourselves and I thank you for doing so. It is an ethical and moral abomintion when those who disagree with you send you obscenities and threats; it is an ethical an moral abomination that you must hide, to protect your very lives, in an unidentified, bunker-like studio. I hope the day will come when you will be free to share your convictions without fear, and without facing threats. Now, sadly, you cannot. Still, I sincerely hope that the day will come when you can. You have my deep respect and profoundest hopes that you will soon be free to be yourselves, to express yourselves freely, and to engage in dialogue both with those who share your views and with those who do not freely.
There is a 100% chance that there is no such person as God.
Too often, activists find themselves confronted by those who desire an advantage. And too often, activists fall into the trap. "Scientists would never admit a 100% chance that there is no god, it's just that the probability is so minute. There is a 99.99999...% chance that there is no god..."
First and foremost, god is a concept. An idea. Not a theory. Following scientific methodology, you follow facts and produce theories. You do not dream up ideas and then attempt to interpret facts to make those concepts more real.
Here is a partial list of the many cases of Allah's Gloating in the Qu'ran.
Being [use any of the below-mentioned gloats], the all-powerful creator of the universe should be a little more secure of himself...
Additions and comments welcome!
002:020--"...is able to do all things"
002:029--"...is Knower all things"
002:037--"...is Relenting, Merciful"
002:054--"...is Relenting, Merciful"
002:074--"...is not unaware of what you do"
002:085--"...is not unaware of what you do"
002:095--"...is aware of Evil-Doers"
002:096--"...is Seer of what they do"
002:106--"...is able to do all things"
I'll be making a special segment of my blog into "The Mysteries of the Unconscious Mind." Enjoy!
In common parlance the terms unconscious and subconscious are used as if they expressed some kind of scientific or even religious certainty. This may be convenient. We wouldn't get too far if we were forever stopping to analyze every word we use. Tacit conceptual agreements make conversations smooth and newspaper articles easier to read. Obviously there's some benefit to this kind of collective unthinking.
But there's a shortcoming too. All too often our socially accepted terms become more than mere tropes and catch phrases. The repeated use of a concept in everyday life can lead to reification. Reification occurs when ideas are assumed to represent some real entity or thing—for instance, the sociological idea of the state. Reified concepts may even point to detailed legal entities. But the question remains: Does the thing written and talked about exist as described?
It has long been the case that people have sought to use law to control the behaviours of other people.
Take alcohol prohibition, for instance. There was a mass appeal, particularly by religious zealots, to deter people from drinking alcohol. "I don't drink, so you can't drink either" was the line of thought. In order to get legislators to listen and enact the probationary laws, consumption of alcoholic beverages was presented as being the cause of crime and corruption.
Of course, such feeble connections rarely hold true. After the enaction of probationary laws, however, anyone who obtained and consumed alcoholic beverages were committing "criminal" activities. Thus, the connection between alcohol and criminal activity became standard.
Here they are, straight outa 'da Summa Theologica of the Angelic Doctor:
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
I have noticed that every hospital I ever see is invariably linked in some way to a christian church organisation. In a community of hospitals here, there are like two or three methodist hospitals, a baptist hospital, a lutheran hospital, and several "St." hospitals.
Does that mean that medicine and medical technology is being controlled by religious organisations? Is the medical establishment invariably a religious entity?
I understand that the early beginnings of what came to be hospitals were religious establishments where priests would pray to the gods (hellenistic) and perform rituals that were supposed to bring healing to the sick. But, in our postenlightenment era, you would think that there would be more hospitals built by scientific establishments instead of having all of them built by religious organisations.
I faked being sick from work today because I didn't feel like going, so I decided to learn some philosophy!! Yay! And I finally figured out what this "ontological argument" was, and boy, is it ridiculous! Mind games, delusional mind games. It's sad to know that people were so delusional as to come up with an idea like that. You could create any number of imagined things! Even Thomas Aquinas knew this argument was bunk! An ontological argument seems to be the loophole of all loopholes. Kinda like saying that "since in the Bible it says God is real, and the Bible is never wrong, then God is real! ZOMG so easy."
Let nothing trouble you, let nothing make you afraid. All things pass away. God never changes. Patience obtains everything. God alone is enough.
Saint Teresa of Avila
Also, the Carthusian motto:
"Stat Crux Dum Volvitur Orbis"
The Cross Stands While The World Turns