Theism has its place.

Theism has its place. Take the Mormon religion (I think it’s particularly kickass). Its people are happy and kind to others. They’re taught to be not fight, not to kill. They’re taught not to be selfish, not to be greedy. They’re taught to be loyal, they’re taught to be good mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. They are taught, in general, to be love everyone as much as they love themselves. They are taught to be clean, to work hard, and to be honest.

What is wrong with this? Morals given and a reason to follow them, sounds good to me even if I didn’t think the doctrine was true, even if I didn’t think God existed.

i would like to call the majority of you people one this site hypocrites, here u are denieing any all gods and religions saying that peop.le need to stop following religion and "think freely", but if none of these religions are true, then that means someone mustve taken the time to think for themselves and create them, and others decided to follow that free thinker, just as you people are trying others to follow your "free thinking" and get them to denie everything that isnt fitting your standards of "no god". Now i call you people hypocrites cause you are denieing and telling others to denie religion which if they are not true are the result of free thinking, so you are denieing the right of free thinking to others cause it doesnt fit your standards, thus you are telling otheres not to do wat you do cause you dont like how they do it.

I have been writing my two senators since for at least the last 6 years. My two senators from Virgina are Senator Warner and Senator Allen. Allen is up for re-election against democratic challenger Webb. So Warner is an old school republican from the more righteous classical middle of the road conservative thought. Allen is a neocon fuckhead, a mouth piece for george bush's dick. So..I've been writing to both senators constantly about a variety of issues.

Sen. Warner's office has always sent me a reply, agreeing or disagreeing with me, but giving at least some thought and care into his constituents.

I am an atheist. I used to be a Christian, and then I read the Bible, thought about it, and left Christianity. Soon after that, I examined the concept of “the supernatural” and became an atheist. Hearing my story would probably be interesting to some people, but apart from some minor variances, it’s no different from the stories of thousands of other “de-converts.” Most atheists are well versed in the logic necessary to rid the mind of religious delusions. What I want to discuss in this essay is the number of theists who fully comprehend the same logic, and yet remain theists. Clearly, this phenomenon should be of great concern to the freethinker who would like to see friends, family, and society in general rid themselves of the poison that religious thought injects into culture.

To: The Old Guard
From: The New Management
Subject: New Memo
Date: 10/24/2006

Note to staff,

All theists will be responsible for this information in their next review by a non-theist.

In light of AIG's release of arguments we think creationists should NOT use, Management thinks that this is an appropriate time to draw your attention to three erroneous positions assumed by theists who are still using those ubiquitous old memos:

1. "Belief in evolution/science is analogous to faith in God."

Please refrain from further use of this non- comparison. Faith is not a type of knowledge. It neither requires evidence nor gives us any method for determining what is true or false. It is therefore, by definition, utterly distinguished from, and not analogous to, scientific knowledge. The old memo that encouraged you to equate faith with everyday beliefs that certain events will or will not happen is no longer valid, because even those types of beliefs are based upon empirically determined calculations (e.g. assumptions based on habitual recurrences), and not solely wishful thinking for unproven ideas or events that don't habitually recur (although wishful thinking may sometimes accompany an assumption that a common recurrence will again recur, it is not intrinsically tied to it, as it is to faith). Please be informed that even this second kind of (everyday) belief is less accurate than scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is tested in controlled settings with rigorous standards- and even then, is still only considered functional after substantial peer review. Last, faith is not a virtue. Compared to critical thought, it is the laziest option available. Think about it. The paper shredder is available until 6:00.

There are 13 lunar months in one solar year on earth. Yet our calender was fixed to work out of 12. Why?

The reason for this is the same reason that all savior-hero christ figures have 12 disciples. It all comes from Babylonian cosmology and the 12 signs of the Babylonian zodiac. The Christ of the Christian bible, as well as every Christ in every culture around the world that I know of, has 1 disciple for every sign of the zodiac. When our calender was initiated, it was decided to accept a model that worked out the same way, accepting one month for every sign of the zodiac.

Perhaps it is time to work towards a more sensible calender framework, but I fear that it is much to late for that. Thus, we are stuck in senselessness.

(Note: I think the forums hate the embed tags, oh well people need to view it so it gets higher on the rating system)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msfxiodoMQQ

"Man's capacity for delusion is infinite, however, it is certainly preventable." ~Razor

I am a bran spankin new member, and golly its nice to have rational people about.

If you missed my first blog, I'm telling Bible Stories, fairy tale style. The premise is simple. I use fairy tale language and assume that everything is true. Yes, I know the objections Christians will make. I know that there are differences in translations and that words sometimes have different meanings than they do today. Before you criticize my interpretation, ask yourself this question: Have you read the entire Bible for yourself? Did you cross reference with Hebrew and Greek to check the meanings of questionable words? Think twice about criticizing my scholarship if you answer "no" to either question. Looking foolish is your right, but I don't recommend it. These stories are an excercise, designed to provoke thought. Here's a thought to start with. If you were not a greek or hebrew scholar, and you read the Bible literally, wouldn't you expect a loving God to mention in his text that a lot of the passages didn't mean what you thought they meant because they were not translated well?