Delta Air Lines drops ads from Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show

The Catholic League announced Monday that Delta Air Lines had pulled its sponsorship of Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show following a boycott launched by the organization.

The most common impediment to clear thinking that a non-believer must confront is the idea that the burden of proof can be fairly placed on his shoulders: “How do you know there is no God? Can you prove it? You atheists are just as dogmatic as the fundamentalists you criticise.” This is nonsense: even the devout tacitly reject thousands of gods, along with the cherished doctrines of every religion but their own. Every Christian can confidently judge the God of Zoroaster to be a creature of fiction, without first scouring the universe for evidence of his absence. Absence of evidence is all one ever needs to banish false knowledge. And bad evidence, proffered in a swoon of wishful thinking, is just as damning.

But honest reasoning can lead us further into the fields of unbelief, for we can prove that books such as the Bible and the Quran bear no trace of divine authorship. We know far too much about the history of these texts to accept what they say about their own origins. And just imagine how good a book would be if it had been written by an omniscient Being.

The moment one views the contents of scripture in this light, one can reject the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity and Islam definitively. The true authors of God’s eternal Word knew nothing about the origins of life, the relationship between mind and brain, the causes of illness, or how best to create a viable, global civilisation in the 21st century. That alone should resolve every conflict between religion and science in the latter’s favour, until the end of the world.

In fact, the notion that any ancient book could be an infallible guide to living in the present gets my vote for being the most dangerously stupid idea on earth.

What remains for us to discover, now and always, are those truths about our world that will allow us to survive and fully flourish. For this, we need only well-intentioned and honest inquiry - love and reason. Faith, if it is ever right about anything, is right by accident.

Source: Sam Harris, New Statesman: Faith No More (via growingtornadoes)
savagemike: Intelligent design?

savagemike:

Intelligent design?

Over 600 Atheism vs. Theism Debates

For those who enjoy atheism vs. theism debates, here’s the most complete list you’ll find on the web (615 of them and counting)

Douglas Adams

nonplussedbyreligion:

As always I like to post the entire quote when I can find it.  Getting the whole picture is always so much better.  This is so much better when you read the whole thing.  ~ Kim


“Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I’m sure we’ll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn’t withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn’t seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That’s an idea we’re so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it’s kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is ‘Here is an idea or a notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not. Why not? — because you’re not!’ If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’, you say, ‘Fine, I respect that’.

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking ‘Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?’ but I wouldn’t have thought ‘Maybe there’s somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics’ when I was making the other points. I just think ‘Fine, we have different opinions’. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody’s (I’m going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say ‘No, we don’t attack that; that’s an irrational belief but no, we respect it’.

It’s rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that’s grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise—that’s a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is it is. In the case of an idea, if we think ‘Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity’, what does it mean? Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that’s holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we’ve just got used to doing so? There’s no other reason at all, it’s just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it’s very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it’s very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.”


[picture source]

[quote source]

Christian Doctrine Proves Their God Cannot Exist

nonplussedbyreligion:

“God Is Dead” – New York Times, Jan 9, 1966

The most common argument that Atheists are asked to defend is to provide proof that god does not exist. This is known as “Proving a Negative.” Technically, it is defined as an “Argument from Ignorance.” Essentially, it is a logical fallacy in that a claimed premise is deemed true only because it has not been proven false. This is one of the most common retorts I get when debating a believer and it is also one of the most difficult to explain to them because they just cannot grasp the utter ridiculousness of their request.

Do invisible pink unicorns exist simply because they have not been proven not to? The burden of proof always lies with the person who is making the claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When someone tells me that god exists, I ask him or her to prove it with real, empirical evidence.

Perfect Imperfection…

According to Christianity, their god exists and he is perfect. An imperfect god cannot exist, so if we can prove that god is not perfect, then, by default, we can prove that he does not exist and the entire house of cards that is Christianity collapses. We can know that god is not perfect, and therefore not exist because he screwed up so bad that even trying to hide his imperfection is impossible. Christianity teaches that creation was perfect because it was fashioned by a perfect god, and it remained so until the “fall of man” occurred in the garden of Eden.

This begs the question of why god felt the need to create anything in the first place. The need to create results from a perceived lack of balance between what is and what should be. So, what disturbed god’s perfection and compelled him to create? If god is presumably perfect, then he would have been complete and in need of nothing. Conventional Christian “wisdom” teaches that god created us because he desires our worship. Well, desire results from need, and need connotes lack, and lack connotes imperfection. This is where the existence of the Christian god becomes impossible, because perfection cannot exist as long as there is need, want or desire. A god who is perfect does nothing except exist and thus, a perfect god who creates anything is not perfect.

Higher Ways…

Of course, a favorite amongst Christians is the imbecilic answer of “his ways are higher,” which is not only the height of ignorance, but shows a lack of reason so profound that all you really can do is just shake your head in disbelief. What it comes down to is that an allegedly perfect god created a perfect universe which was rendered imperfect by his creation, humans. Thusly, the ultimate source of imperfection is god himself. An imperfect humanity could have only been created by an imperfect god and Christianity does not allow for an imperfect god, so thus, god does not exist. He is a logical fallacy unto himself.

This is, indeed, a paradox of monumental proportions for Christians, and has spawned a plethora of Christian colleges, universities and think tanks all for the purpose of trying to figure this all out. The best they can come up with is the concept of “free will,” which basically states that human imperfection is only a byproduct of our capacity as free moral agents. That’s all good and well, but the concept was doomed to fail from the start.

The characters portrayed in the bible as “Adam and Eve” used their free will to choose evil, which was a design flaw and if we are to believe in intelligent design, then creating something that is broken does not make god intelligent at all. It was this flaw in god’s design that was responsible for the introduction of imperfection into his previously perfect universe. Another proof of imperfection, thus another proof that god does not exist.

Abraham, I Need A Favor…

To make matters worse, god knew that Adam and Eve were going to totally fuck everything up for the rest of humanity and did nothing about it, in spite of hearing screams of the damned. No, this perfect, all-compassionate, all-loving god went ahead with his plan anyway, knowing that billions of humans would end up eternally damned to hell. Nothing screams compassion louder than eternal suffering for temporal sins…

Of course, eternal damnation is avoidable as long as one accepts Jesus as lord and savior. However, salvation is only necessary because the problem of sin was brought on by god in the first place. The need for salvation is incompatible with a perfect god because if god were perfectly just, he would not dole out infinite punishment for finite sins. The fact that the best god could do was offer up human sacrifice as a solution to his design flawed humanity is further proof that he is imperfect, and thus does not exist.

So It Is Written…

Another proof that god is not perfect is the venue that he chose to communicate with his imperfect creation – the Bible. Avoiding eternal punishment by knowing and believing in Christ is wonderful if you have access to a bible. However, there are billions of people in the past, present and future all over the planet in remote areas who have never heard of nor will likely never hear of Jesus Christ or his “gospel of salvation.”

According to Christian theology, all of these people are doomed to eternal punishment – regardless of their generosity, kindness, morality, ethics or disposition – because they have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Without access to the Bible, they are being punished for committing a crime they had no idea even existed. A god that would judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions is imperfect, and thus does not exist.

So, how does god combat the problem of the shortage of bibles in every language known to humanity and the equal shortage of Christian bookstores in the Amazon jungle and other remote places where there isn’t even a Starbuck’s? Happy feet! Yes, happy are the feet that bring the gospel of the good news of Jesus Christ to the world, right? And who do these feet belong to? None other than the most destructive groups of people ever to walk the face of the earth. Missionaries. They have destroyed whole cultures and have stolen entire countries from their indigenous inhabitants.

If you don’t believe me, just ask any Native American. Missionaries believe that their job is to bring the “word of god” to the savage masses, savage meaning anyone who does not believe like they do.

The problem is that like the imperfect Christian god, the bible is also imperfect. It is indecipherable fusion of books that contain so many errors, contradictions, misinformation and ignorance beyond any standards of logic and reason that it boggles the mind that it’s even taken seriously. It is a poor excuse for the supposedly perfect word of god. The fact that no two individuals will ever agree on what the bible says in its entirety makes it suspect. An imperfect god who reveals his imperfect will in an imperfect book is another proof that god does not exist.

I Second That Emotion…

Another interesting point to note is that according to Christianity, god experiences all of the emotions of a human being. What they fail to understand is that emotion is a response to something previously unknown. A perfect god who is omniscient god would be ignorant of nothing. Nothing would be hidden from him and nothing can be revealed, thus there would be no need to act emotionally. Thus, he is not all knowing. Another point to ponder as to why god cannot exist.

Yet, two billion people still stubbornly insist that there is a god and he is watching us all the time, which should make them uncomfortable, to say the least. Is he casting his watchful eye over us as we take a dump? Does he watch us have sex? Masturbate? Pick our noses? Scratch our butts? Does he listen into our phone conversations? Read our email? God is everywhere? Is he up our behind? Please, when will people realize just how illogical and unreasonable the whole god thing is and come to the place in their lives when they finally realize that there is no god?

Deities were invented at the dawn of time and persisted throughout our history to explain what was unexplainable in the early years of our development. The culmination of human knowledge and intelligence has answered many questions with certainty that were unknown even up until very recently. We no longer need to rely on ancient superstitions to explain weather patterns, genetics, biology and other life sciences. We no longer need to make sacrifices or live a life if credulous servility to appease an angry god so he allows our crops to grow or to keep sickness at bay or any one of a plethora of other superstitions.

The concept of god is one that is passed and no longer needed. Humans are more than capable of moral behavior, altruistic actions, inner peace and happiness on our own. We have a choice to make. We can choose to do what is right regardless of what religion tells us, or we can do what religion tells us, regardless if it is right. The former is the choice that will allow our species to evolve. The latter can only result in our annihilation.

Think about it…

——————————————-

Excerpted from my book, “A Voice Of Reason In An Unreasonable World – The Rise Of Atheism On Planet Earth“

(Source: freethoughtblogs.com)

The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal

In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.

Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.

Ask any American evangelical, today, what the Bible says about abortion and they will insist that this is what it says. (Many don’t actually believe this, but they know it is the only answer that won’t get them in trouble.) They’ll be a little fuzzy on where, exactly, the Bible says this, but they’ll insist that it does.

That’s new. If you had asked American evangelicals that same question the year I was born you would not have gotten the same answer.

That year, Christianity Today — edited by Harold Lindsell, champion of “inerrancy” and author of The Battle for the Bible — published a special issue devoted to the topics of contraception and abortion. That issue included many articles that today would get their authors, editors — probably even their readers — fired from almost any evangelical institution. For example, one article by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary criticized the Roman Catholic position on abortion as unbiblical. Jonathan Dudley quotes from the article in his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Keep in mind that this is from a conservative evangelical seminary professor, writing in Billy Graham’s magazine for editor Harold Lindsell:

God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.

Christianity Today would not publish that article in 2012. They might not even let you write that in comments on their website. If you applied for a job in 2012 with Christianity Today or Dallas Theological Seminary and they found out that you had written something like that, ever, you would not be hired.

At some point between 1968 and 2012, the Bible began to say something different. That’s interesting.

It’s par for the course, actually. People have always been reinterpreting the bible to suit their own ends. This is one of the (many) reasons I decided long ago that it’s all bullshit anyway.

(Source: kohenari)

Pretty much.

Pretty much.

theramblingnarcissist: Time to pay up. And then there’s this. A woman was fired from her job as a teacher at a Lutheran school. She filed a discrimination case. The Supreme Court unanimously sided with the church, effectively saying that a church can discriminate in it’s decisions about employees. A Lutheran school is a business, not a church. Just because a church runs the business does not mean that religious freedom should trump basic human rights. Besides, I fail to see how settling this woman’s case would somehow infringe upon religious freedom. In my opinion, of course. I’m not a Supreme Court Justice, so my opinion matters little. But this does make me Supremely uncomfortable.

theramblingnarcissist:

Time to pay up.

And then there’s this. A woman was fired from her job as a teacher at a Lutheran school. She filed a discrimination case. The Supreme Court unanimously sided with the church, effectively saying that a church can discriminate in it’s decisions about employees.

A Lutheran school is a business, not a church. Just because a church runs the business does not mean that religious freedom should trump basic human rights. Besides, I fail to see how settling this woman’s case would somehow infringe upon religious freedom. In my opinion, of course. I’m not a Supreme Court Justice, so my opinion matters little. But this does make me Supremely uncomfortable.