There are, like, two churches of atheism here in Texas that I know of. I have often considered this to be rather absurd. I mean, what would a preacher of atheism have to preach on? Is there a holy textbook telling what the nongod dictates to the unbeliever?
However, I do understand a certain amount of the reasoning behind opening a church of atheism. The general populace of the United States seems to hold that only those who adhere to some sort of religion have rights in the US. They then state that everyone must believe in some sort of "higher power". They then afford no legitimacy to those things spoken by someone who does not profess some sort of religious belief.
I have never really thought about it until I really read and heard a lot of what Richard Dawkins has to say. Crazy how that happens... it takes someone else to make me see things a different way.
I was watching a video of a question-answer session he had on Youtube the other day which really got me thinking. He stated in there (somewhere) that atheists are really one of the last major groups in the United States still facing serious discrimination and degradation due to their beliefs or lack thereof. The really sad part of that sentence is that to be an atheist in this country means that you must be "in the closet" in a lot of respects.
Humans generally consider humans to be rather intelligent, at least by human standards. This is primarily because the standard is set by humans.
Looking at this, we can see that computers were designed by our human intelligence. All computers that are manufactured and marketed by a company run by humans tend to process data in exactly the same fashion. This enables us to create programs that work the same on all systems.
Looking at humans, however, we find that all humans do not process information the same way. Many cannot even follow simple directions on the highway. There is a great deal of diversity in the way that humans think about things, and many different ways of interpreting data.
Something to Ponder When Dealing With Xians
Abraham Lincoln used to ask this question: "How many legs does a horse have if you call its tail a leg?"
What do you think the answer is? Some people say 5, or 4 or 3, or 1 or trying to outsmart the person who asks the question, zero.
But the answer Lincoln gave is "4." Calling "a tail" a leg does not make it a leg. A leg has definite properties. A leg is very different from an arm, or hip, face, or back.
When I first heard this I thought it was just a joke. But Lincoln had serious reasons for asking the question.
I'm happy to find this site. Anything that Dr. Dawkins supports is good enough for me as a starter. There is so much to say, and yet, I would like to lurk a bit and think about the best way to contribute. Thanks for creating the site.
Hey Baby, Can You Bleed Like Me?*
by Kat S.
Normally it's a bad thing. When humans bleed we're in pain, we're injured, things are not right.
Except for 49-51% of the population. For almost a week out of every month.
We're women, and we bleed. It's a natural thing. Hell, as you read this there's a very good chance that a woman is near you or in the same house or apartment, and she's bleeding RIGHT NOW. Bleeding from her vagina. *gasp*
So many men reel in horror from this. We're not allowed to talk about our periods. It's "gross" and "dirty".
For 26 years I have refused to believe in a divine being of any sort, and I am glad that there are others who agree with me. Although I severed my connection to the alleged-godhead at the age of 12 in a fit of pique, I have used logic, history and rational analysis to continually come to the same conclusions and maintain my vigil against the God-fearing among us.
Upon admitting that I am an atheist, I experience a range of responses; anything from the old and trite utterance, "There are no atheists in foxholes," to the intentionally patronizing "That's okay, Jesus loves you anyway." Undoubtedly at some point, all of you will experience things like this, but I caution you to not become angry.
Why are there so many laws keeping honest people away from guns and attempts to avert ownership of guns in the U.S.? Could it possibly be that the U.S. government wants citizens that are wholly reliant on the government to protect them?
Gun control laws do not prevent people from obtaining and carrying guns. They do allow people who fear the retribution of governing authorities into victims of those who do not. As a rule, someone who wishes to go out and shoot someone doesn't want that person to potentially shoot them. They want unarmed victims. Thus, someone who is armed and ready will be more able to fight back against a potential murderer than someone who isn't.
I wrote this out early in the morning with no sleep before I forgot. Bear with me through the grammer. Is something sounds confusing or something could easly throw off my whole idea and seems out of place just point it out.
This is about the first cause argument, but also some what lays out my idea of existence. The idea is really just the reaction to a bad argument that showed me how certain assumptions are false ones.
The following is me arguing with thaprofessa3. I get a message from him asking me about a comment I left on someone else's video. They just sounded cures to me, but I guess was wrong. Its not like I'm having trouble though, but this guy can be a little frustrating forgetting about parts of my message...