?

Log in

You make religion look bad
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in You make religion look bad's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]
Tuesday, October 26th, 2010
10:31 am
[evilgrins]
...uhm...
Among some of the more questionable things Christine ODonnell (O'Donnell?) has said is her more recent statement that "God is praying for me".

Normally when people are well wishing towards others they pray to God for them. Does this seem to imply that God has a God or Gods? Otherwise it means God prays to Itself, which seems redundant to an extreme...as God wanting to wish good will to someone could be simply It just easily could do rather than try to convince Itself it should.

Thoughts?

Current Mood: confused
Tuesday, September 7th, 2010
1:38 pm
[evilgrins]
Who is the Lord really?
10:23 AM 9/7/10 · An ongoing sore point for me has been when anyone refers to Jesus as the 'Lord'. It's not I think him undeserving of the title so much as it is that he didn't want any special treatment when he was alive. He seemed to prefer a simple life and no one to treat him any different than anybody else. So being called a Lord would seem to be something he wouldn't be in favor of.

It doesn't happen often but if some random Bible thumper happens upon me and asks if I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, I say no and yes.

Always a fun conversation after that!

I've wondered on this and last night I had an epiphany...or just something random pop up just before I started dreaming. Managed to hang onto it until I woke up so here we go.

Did people refer to God, pre·Jesus, as the Lord?

I think they did and this may lend itself to the confusion. Having had numerous chats about this over the years with a host of people, mainly online, I've learned that where Jesus & God are concerned there's a lot of people that hold to 2 different opinions.

Some believe Jesus was the son of God.

Some believe Jesus literally was God made flesh.

There's not a lot of crossover there. Most everyone I've talked to that hold Jesus was not actually God do not see any wiggle room that he might possibly be, ditto vice versa. I come from a more polytheist bend so that even if you allow for the Trinity, Jesus is still not God. He may be A God, enough other children of deities are referred to as Gods at some point or other, but he's definitely not the Big Kahuna.

So, where do you stand on this? Do you think Jesus is God or just the son of? If God was called The Lord before Jesus was born is it possible Jesus is called this by those that believe he literally was God made flesh? Do you think, my 'no special treatment' thought in mind, that Jesus would've wanted to be referred to as Lord if he had a say in the matter?

On a random only vaguely related note, History Channel presented a random notion I'd not heard before a couple days ago. That after Jesus was executed and rose from the dead, he descended into Hell to free all those that had gone before but didn't deserve to be there. Line of thought seems to be in keeping with those that say only through acceptance of Jesus as your savior you are gifted with Heaven, that all those that died before his birth went straight to Hell.

Even Moses.

I've never liked this idea, and still don't, but I'd never heard this particular myth until just recently.

Thoughts?

Current Mood: contemplative
Wednesday, August 4th, 2010
6:45 pm
[dataraveler]
Friday, May 28th, 2010
11:39 am
[incendiary_eve]
if the Last Supper was a Seder
Jesus could have picked anything at the table to compare himself to, even Elijah's absence. He picked bread and wine, continuing that Christian conflation of the humble and the sublime. My body is as common as bread; my blood ordinary as table wine. Forget me, that you may celebrate me through the everyday. How is this day different from others? perhaps it is not. Just a thought.
Sunday, May 16th, 2010
5:46 pm
[evilgrins]
just a bit outside
1:34 AM 5/16/10 · This is a religious post but it's just as much a historic deal as that. I'm watching a 2 hour special on the History Channel, contrasting the current Robin Hood movie with the actual historical accounting and it's touched on a relative sore point of mine. I've seen just about all of the Robin Hood movies but most notably in recent years it's the ones where Robin has been portrayed by Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe, & Sean Connery. Yeah, there's been others but these 3 feature that ever present sore point I'm referring to...

...the Holy Crusade.

I tend to frown on the praise that Christianity tends to insist it deserves due to a number of points in history, as well as some of their rather annoying behavior into the present day, and The Crusades is a biggie. Wherein the Church at the time basically gave English knights carte blanche to slaughter as many people as they possibly could so that they could be assured a place in Heaven. Not an unusual tact, lots of religions have used the promise of paradise the incite violence...but let's stay on point.

There's also the whole bit in regards of reclaiming the Holy Land for Christianity.

By the by, mildly amused by the accounting that back then the Christians referred to the Muslims as 'the infidel' and in modern times that's been reversed.

What I've never gotten is this. Realistically it means that the Christians were going to a place they never had been to take it from the Muslims that were in power there at the time in order to not give it back to the people who actually were from there; the Jews. Now it's possible my perspective on this is a bit off, I've not pursued the actual history of this since high school...

...it's just that my recall is that the Holy Land orginally belonged to the Jews. The Muslims came to power sometime after that but Christianity never has a footing there until after the Holy Crusade. It's not so much that the Holy Crusade was based on an outright lie but even if Christianity ever held any real influence in the goings on of the Holy Land it most certainly wasn't the Christians that came from England.

Of course, that little detail in the 10 Commandments regarding not murdering people adds to the soreness of all this.

Okay, Jesus was from the Holy Land (more or less) but he wasn't a Christian. He was Jewish, a rabbi. Even his disciples weren't really Christians, just a Hebrew cult if you'll allow for the phrasing. From my understanding there were any official Christians, referred to as such, until a very long time after the crucifixion.

Maybe a hundred years or so.

Am I wrong about this? Did Christianity ever have an actual sphere of power in the Holy Land before the Muslims took over? I'm thinking maybe Charlamagne but without looking it up I don't recall where he figured into all this historically. Not to mention he was ordained by the Pope and as brutal a Christian as there ever was.

Current Mood: pensive
Sunday, May 9th, 2010
11:26 pm
[yessur]
The Science God
It seems that the US President is about to appoint another baby murderer to the US Supreme Court.

No this is not politics. This is religion. I know that the main purpose of this journal is to attack Christianity, not religion. I'm not going to attack them but those who believe in the Science God.

I find it horribly confusing that in the Public Schools one must study the Science God but any mention of any other God is strictly forbidden. Why is one God allowed and not the others? We are forced to endure the sacrifice of your unborn children to your Science God but we are not allowed to mention our Love of our God. We must, by law, study your Science God. You have nothing but "Theories". Theory of Evolution. You have no proof or it wouldn't be a Theory.

I hope someone can shed some light on me. I respect your right to proclaim whatever you wish but I do have a problem with the murder of the unborn.

Peace be with you.
Friday, April 9th, 2010
2:28 pm
[evilgrins]
don't think it was originally in the rule book
10:28 PM 4/3/10 · In the past year I've lost a few friends, one of which was suicide. Now I know insofar as Christianity goes this is a direct line to Hell, for those of them that believe in it, or at the very least a roadblock from Heaven...

...and I just don't think that is right.

I'm wondering on the origin of this little stipulation. It's like the whole celibacy thing for priests. It's a big rule in Chrisiandom but it's not actually in the Bible. Priests didn't used to be celibate but, roundabout the Dark Ages, it was made a rule because the Church did not want a priest's property to goto their heirs.

Yes, the Church is a greedy institution. Most noticeable in how nice and pretty Churches are even in neighborhoods that are falling apart.

*ahem*

Granted, my knowledge of the bible and its contents is a vague thing at best. I read portions of it when I was younger but as the years grew on me, the more I learned that it's not a complete work. That whole bit with a council deciding what 'Books of *insert name here*' were worthy of the final book or not. From my understanding only the Gnostic & Ethiopian Bibles are complete comilations and I've never been able to lay my hands on one of those to contrast them with the local most common variety...

...but I digress.

So, is the ban on suicides in the Bible or not? Or is it more likely something that the Church instituted in truly depserate times to keep their congregations from trying to get to Paradise via the express route?

That may sound horribly cynical but remember this. During the early Colonial period of the United States, the local Churches told people that if they didn't 'contribute' exorbitant funds to their parishes then they would goto Hell. Not the members of the Church, mind you. They told them that they had to literally buy their way into Heaven.

It's little stuff like this that gives me pause on certain supposed tenats of the faith.

Current Mood: pensive
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010
1:14 pm
[evilgrins]
don't actually believe this...
...but it is an interesting line of thought.

10:39 AM 2/7/10 · The problem with being a polytheist is so many get on your case for not having God in your life. That's actually the beauty of it, you do! Still, I sometimes try to explain a possibility in the whole multi·God theorum to others as simply as possible.

Maybe there's not actually multiple Gods.

Maybe it's just the one pantheon and it's just God & Co.

Take an apple. A relatively simple fruit (detached from the Adam & Eve myth) to most anybody. Across the face of the globe though, different people would describe it in different ways. The name of it sounds different in a multitude of languages, even if many still simply say 'apple' the accents make it sound different.

Different people, different cultures, all going on about the same thing.

God is in Heaven (or Club Med) and is surrounded by a host of Angels. God occasionally spawns (we only know of the One) children with human mothers. This follows the general structure of a pantheon, from the Greek Gods to the Norse Gods to the Egyptian Gods, insofar as it's generally perceived worldwide.

A father God and many other Gods that follow him.

Angels.

Now I get many do not see an Angel as a God but take it for what it is. A non·human being of immense power. Angels can level cities, they're tactical nukes with limbs! If you did not know anything of God and were presented with an Angel in all of its majesty you'd think it was a God.

So, it's possible that polytheists have seen God and Heaven and the Angels and just given them different names and viewed them a little differently than Christians would have it be. Keep in mind, Christianity is essentially a different branch of Judaism and back in the day even the Jews were polytheists.

As I said, I don't really buy this line of thought but it is interesting. Ultimately it falls before one particular moment in Biblical lore.

Moses.

When asking Pharoh to free his people, Moses got into a mystical duel (which nowadays would've made a neato Vegas act) with Pharoh's high priest. Both representing their Gods, Moses the one and the priest the many, they turned their sticks into snakes and had them fight it out...

...and if they were truly, however unknowingly, representing the same pantheon then the fight would never have started...

...although it is yet another good example of the Bible showing there's more than one God.

Thoughts?

Current Mood: awake
Friday, January 8th, 2010
2:03 pm
[evilgrins]
Sol Invictus / Saturnalia
8:27 PM 1/7/10 · I'm more than a little annoyed at Christmas. Not so much the holiday itself, it is the most wonderful time of the year after all, as for what it is currently representing...

...however innaccurately.

Christmas is supposed to be Christ's Mass. This is the part that bothers me because it gives people the mistaken idea that Jesus was born on the 25th of December. Those much more learned on the subject than I would say that the actual date of birth for him was somewhere roundabout March...but the masses in general do not know this. The Church, having taken over and co·opted a Pagan holiday, a pair of them technically (see subject line) because they needed a day and they liked what they were celebrating.

Interestingly enough, part of the confusion of Jesus' birthday is the fact that the ancient Christians, ironically enough, believed that the celebration of anyone's birthday was a Pagan act in and of itself. So, they didn't celebrate anyone's birthday or really track the passage of time insofar as a person's age. There may've been a head nod or something but there were no birthday cakes nor were there any giftings or anything that we attribute to birthdays these days.

While Christians of old didn't celebrate birthdays the modern ones most certainly do. Still not fond of Pagans, or anyone that doesn't worship their God, but birthdays are now hunky dory. Still you'd think that maybe they could've tried to pick the guy's actual birthday to celebrate it on, right?

Why did they pick the date they did? It's the Winter Solstice, which isn't so much Pagan in and of itself, but the date it was celebrated on isn't the same one we know of it being on today. Much as with the old Christians, the calendar system wasn't entirely the same as it is now. The Winter Solstice by the old calendar fell on the 25th of that month. When it got updated the Solstice was moved to the 18th and, for whatever reason, Christmas was left on the 25th. As to why that day, it's what it represented that caught the Christians eyes.

Sol Invictus was celebrated on the Winter Solstice. It was a Pagan holiday where the worship of Sun Gods, the day was referred to as having to do with 'The Birthday of the Unconquered Sun', was shared among multiple faiths. Most notably the Gods Elah·Gabal (Syrian) & Sol (the God of Emperor Aurelian) & Mithras (a soldier's God from Persia)...

...being the 'birthday of the unconquered' the Christians deemed it should be for Jesus as who could be more deserving of the title than him?

Pride goeth.

Saturnalia I don't know so much about. Regardless, the Christians in their usual way of stamping out Paganism (which often involved a lot of persecution and torture vack in the day) stamped out the other religions and celebrations celebrated on that day to claim it in the name of Jesus.

Oh, de humanity. The hypocrisy.

Christians.

Don't you think that if Jesus' birthday is to be celebrated by the masses in general it should be actually done on the day of his actual birth and not borrowing on, or really stealing, the holidays of other faiths?

Current Mood: morose
Saturday, December 26th, 2009
9:30 am
[evilgrins]
a lot bothers me but let's just stick with these 2
Personally I don't understand the whole concept of suicide bombing at all. Still, at least with the Al·Qeda (however you spell it) version I've a bit of confusion in 2 parts:

1) What's the appeal of this reward? Supposedly they die and in the afterlife they will receive 50 to 100 (number is really not important) virgins. Personally I'd think a large number of highly skilled sluts would be more pleasurable...but what's so great about a flock (bushel?) of virgins?

2) Lots of different faiths in the world but they all pretty much seem to agree that in the afterlife things are not grounded in physicality, nothing is solid. So, you're in the Next and you've got your large number of virgins. What good does that do you if you can't actually touch them and none of you have skin?

Current Mood: weird
Sunday, October 11th, 2009
6:01 am
[beliy_kroleg]
Orthodox clergy conducts the seizure of power in Russia.
Orthodox clergy conducts the seizure of power in Russia.

Orthodox missionaries share their experience about transformation to zombies to atheists and agnostics when using administrative resource. is worth noting that the authorities at all levels have given support in the state program on "the revival of traditional spirituality", despite the fact that Russia is officially a secular state.

more, this text has a method for converting children from schools and kindergartens in zombies.

the original version of the article was rewritten. this is a cover-up. translation of the original version of Google's cache.

translation of the original versionCollapse )

sorry for broken English.
Wednesday, August 26th, 2009
11:57 am
[evilgrins]
Lucky Bastard!
I'm watching George Carlin: It's Bad for Ya!, which I think was his last performance, and the religious part of this has got me rolling. He's gone the whole circuit from there is no afterlife, to discussing possibilities if it did, to our loved ones watching over us...and so on and so forth.

You should really rent it, this part alone will make it all worth it.

Had to pause it cuz I about died when he went on about God. Says he finds it interesting, when wondering about how much time God actually worked, that the Christians gave God Sunday as a day off. That the Jews gave God Saturdays off and the Muslims gave God Fridays off...

...and, in that way that he has, he looks dead center out from the screen with that semi·sarcastic appeal, and says that God has an eternal 3 day weekend!

Whereupon I had to stop it to type this.

Current Mood: giggly
Monday, June 29th, 2009
12:05 pm
[evilgrins]
must've been a typo
8:59 PM 6/27/09 · Rented a bunch of movies and one of them had this trailer on it that looked pretty cool. It's an action flick with lots of martial arts and gunplay. It was called The Fifth Commandement and it looks remarkably like Bangkok Dangerous from what I could tell...

...haven't seen that yet either, just the trailer.

At the end of the trailer they flash some intense scenes, inbetween each flash is a word. The words are "Thou Shall Not Kill".

That really got my attention.

I don't have the 10 Commandments memorized or anything but I keep this utility on my PDA called "Big Ten". It's got buttons in Roman numerals, one for each commandment. Handy little thing but only if you keep it for a long time because these sorts of things don't come around everyday. Hell, sometimes not every month. Anyway, after watching the trailer those words kept bugging me so I decided to check.

"Thou Shall Not Kill" is actually the 6th commandment, though I have the wording as "Do not murder". Personally I like my way better because if you were really going to stick to the more archaic, and possibly badly translated, wording then you'd absolutely have to be a vegetarian...

...the 5th commandment is actually to honor your mother and father.

Guess whoever made the film didn't bother to followup on their research. That or not everyone lists them in the same order.

Current Mood: amused
Sunday, June 21st, 2009
11:46 am
[evilgrins]
Quote of the Week
From this weeks Real Time with Bill Maher, Paul Begala said "We Catholics believe that sex is a vile, disgusting, perverted thing that we save only for the ones we truly love."

I'm paraphrasing a bit.

Current Mood: giggly
Monday, June 15th, 2009
9:58 am
[incendiary_eve]
They say there's no such thing ...
... as an atheist in a sickbed, but my recent bout of bronchitis doesn't necessarily make me think what's out there's benevolent. It could be a cruel demiurge up there that, instead of wanting us to say Abba father, twists our arms till we say uncle. What do y'all think? I mean, is there a constructive purpose to the scar tissue of prior pneumonias convincing each doctor I see that I smoke when I don't? What's the moral lesson in pointless suffering?
Friday, June 12th, 2009
11:47 am
[evilgrins]
mistaken impressions
10:11 PM 6/10/09 · Caught two religious themed episodes of Law & Order in as many days and the one I'm watching right now has to do with The Rapture.

*cue spooky music*

An email is released from a guy that subscribes to unraptured.com, which probably isn't a real website but feel free to look if you want, that informs this guy his uncle killed his aunt. The uncle panics when he finds out the email went out because he thinks The Rapture has occured. The email was released from the website which is run by 3 people that live in 3 different states. At least 2 of them have to log in once every 2 days or the site assumes The Rapture has occured and sends all the stored emails to whoever they were addressed to...

...the assumption being that if The Rapture has finally happened then all the true believers have been physically taken off the Earth and ascended into Heaven.

I have a couple of problems with this.

My knowledge of The Rapture is remarkably limited. I vaguely skimmed the Left Behind series. There was a really disturbing movie starring Mimi Rogers (think that's her name) way back when. Haven't read a Bible in years, more like decades, but even back when I did whatever part dealing with The Rapture (is it odd I keep capitalizing that?) didn't make much of an impact on me. All I know of it is that the 'true believers' are those that fully accept Jesus into their minds and souls.

Which kind of leaves everybody else on Earth on their own to do...whatever.

The Bible teaches that we are all made in God's image but a lot of people don't believe that's the whole one head and two legs and two arms deal so much as the soul. The whole belief that everyone that is a true believer is going to bodily raise off the ground and ascend seems silly. Seems more likely they'd just die on the spot and their souls would ascend, being what it is Heaven isn't so much of a place for flesh & blood types.

The uncle that had the email on the website confessed in it that he'd murdered his wife. Now he may well be a true believer, so far as this story goes, but he's still a murderer. He was storing her body in a huge freezer in his living room! I've long had a problem with the notion that you can commit horrible crimes (murder for example) but so long as you truly believe, or confess all those crimes before you croak, you've got a get out of jail (Hell) free card. Personally I don't think it works, that it's more likely a propoganda deal put forth by the Church and people still goto Hell because ultimately they have to account to a higher authority than is found on Earth

Of course, that could just be me.

While a much more minor note, the whole deal with the website is a little flawed. Say The Rapture actually does happen. What's the point of sending an email to your loved ones? Seems a little elitist to just assume you're going to ascend but they're going to be stuck on Earth.

By the by, is there really a convention called RaptureCon?

Current Mood: pensive
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009
4:59 pm
[evilgrins]
kinda came to me while I was waiting to see Terminator: Salvation
Jesus' name was not actually 'Jesus'. I forget the reason but it was entered into the Bible that way due to some concern of common name confusion. His name was actually Yeshua. So, even if you take into consideration his last name wasn't actually 'Christ' either...

...how is saying "Jesus Christ" taking the Lord's name in vain??

Current Mood: contemplative
Saturday, May 9th, 2009
6:44 pm
[limegreensquid]
Religion: It's all about Preferences
I'll admit, i prefer to be atheist. A) Because, overwhelmingly, it seems to be the only likely idea, and B) because i like to be honest with myself, and the world i see.

If religious people understood that their beliefs are Preferences, and not divine missions from one of the thousands of gods out there that for some reason they think is real when all the others aren't, a lot of strife will be avoided.

If people realize their own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, are all just preferences (instead of projecting onto things that can NOT be chosen, things you can't honestly just change your mind about, as being "preferences" - aka homosexuality), ideas that you Prefer to cling to, not something born into you (we are all born atheist, after all) along with eliminating the rule in each of them that states "our spiritual preference, out of thousands, is the only true spiritual preference. All others, given the exact same circumstantial 'evidence' as ours, and sounding just as ridiculous as ours are wrong, because we say so, and we don't need to explain ourselves because we have faith (ie, we don't prefer to think about things, but demand bizarre things to be true if we feel like it, without needing to have any valid way of backing up our truth-claims)" will seriously work towards ending religious warring - the biggest cause of death in the entirety of human history - outnumbering the top 3 fatal illnesses combined.

But no, too many religions are built upon that one "holy" rule - which in one fell swoop should indicate corruption of that religion - where belief is more important than the spiritual connection to the universe, more important than the love and welfare of other people (especially those who don't share the same preference, or opinion) and animals, even to the point of restricting potentially life-saving research just because it doesn't jive with their superstitions, as well as restricting people who love each other from choosing a life-bond because again, it doesn't jive with their superstitions.

Their PREFERENCE to believe in superstitions.

If they prefer to believe in society-retarding superstitions, those that encourage bigotry and discrimination based on superstition, let them - as long as they don't demand everyone else believe in them, and as long as they don't act on them - because discrimination without valid cause is bad for EVERYONE. (I will not discriminate against a homosexual, because they are just looking for love - their parts may not have evolved to work together, but there are so many genetic differences, it would be ridiculous to discriminate if they aren't hurting anyone - but i WILL viciously discriminate against child-molesters because, even though maybe they were born with a different attraction like homosexuals have been, they ARE hurting people).
But then there are some that think it's their duty to spread these cancerous superstitions, and don't accept the idea that people may prefer not to adhere to them, and so they make up some bullshit to justify their brand of discrimination, such as their preferred devils supposedly making people do things to turn away from their preferred god. You start believing in that shit, you can just about justify anything - and that's a scary thought, and though it may start out as a mental illness within a certain person, it is always backed up by some passage in one of the many horrifying holy books!

And yet Atheists are the ones least trusted in north america ... I mean come on!
Ever notice how many lies and deception are used by religious people trying to argue their case (forging prophetic documents after the fact, encouraging ignorance to unbiased, factual, scientific study, claiming faith in something that they've never seen - hey, you know, faith is a form of lying, if you think about it), while atheists go out of their way to use absolute honesty and facts to argue theirs, also honestly stating when they don't know something?

Of course i can't deny some rogue atheists who may try to falsify information - but the difference is that atheists don't HAVE to, since religion is its own worst enemy.

Anything that requires your mind to do loops and acrobatics to avoid a fact, or dance around it, twisting words around it to make you ignore it, in order to believe the thing is just not worth the effort to think about.

Things that are out there, and can be studied and tested and don't require colourful language to hide the flaws in the argument are much more worth our time thinking about!

In fact, scientific study demands full, honest disclosure of any flaws in the argument so that they can be scrutinized and analyzed and changed or removed if all the tests prove it wrong - at least the scientific study that doesn't rely on capitalism to survive, like "beauty" products and "diet" products. But what money to evolutionary scientists make? Maybe a couple dozen out of hundreds or thousands of them have written a book here and there - but that's hardly an agenda-driven pursuit.

What amount of fully disclosed flawed arguments do religious people willingly give out to be challenged, changed or removed when proven wrong?
"Believe in our preferred spiritual opinion, or go to our preferred version of hell. Our word is flawless, (even though that word comes from a book that contradicts itself on every message it has an opinion on - but we don't ever admit that!)"

That's it? That's all they'll give us?

Atheists can read word-for-word bible passages to religious people more often and more thoroughly than the vice versa. We will give them the straightforward bigoted, sexist, homophobic, slavery-encouraging, mind-policing bible passages that showcase how much of a brutal, evil tyrant their god really is, and they'll STILL say atheists haven't read the bible.

An obvious clue to the fact that those particular religious people haven't read it.

Or if they have, they ignore the parts they don't like - so why bother have a bible if they ignore all the parts they don't like, the parts that don't justify their agendas (many christians will say the old testament is obsolete, jesus changed all the rules, but will still pull out the Adam and Eve story, as well as the infamous Leviticus 20:13 - condemning homosexuality and ordering homosexuals to be put to death - to push their bigoted agendas by using features specifically from the "obsolete" Old Testament)?

Again, it comes down to preferences. They prefer the happy, peaceful loving verses when they want to swell their flock, but use the discriminatory, or superstitious verses when they want to hinder human relationships they don't prefer, or scientific research they prefer to be superstitious about.

Prefer your own gods or rules - just understand they are YOUR PREFERENCES, and no one else is required to have them!

My preference is toward atheism, as it's the only option that makes any sense. I don't have to stretch my verbal or mental acrobatics to justify anything about it. I don't have to ignore facts, or evidence, i don't have to ignore the natural processes of the observable universe to come to my decision.

How many religious people can say that?

When a religion comes around that is completely open to scrutiny, actively encourages debate, doesn't rely on inventing ideas in people's heads as answers to big questions - "You never knew the answers to any of my questions, did you? You made up all the answers to my unimportant existence." Pantera, "25 Years" - doesn't rely on falsifying evidence (the shroud of Turin dates to the 15th or 16th century, not the first, and christian historians admit the christian tampering of one of the four "eyewitness" accounts of jesus [big number for a world-changing messiah]), or discrediting respectable, overwhelmingly factual and accurate scientific facts and theories with ridiculous, impossible, or overwhelmingly unlikely speculations (ie, the devil putting dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith in the bible's 6000 year old earth story - anyone who doesn't laugh at the ridiculousness of that idea should be turned immediately in the direction of the nearest mental assylum - it's the epitome of pulling something out of your ass, next to the whole "god gave us free will" and "mysterious ways" silliness), if the religion doesn't rely on any of the above, then i might take preferential interest in it, beyond just my general interest in mythology.

But since none of the religions of this world have ever delivered on any of those terms (well, some of the pagan ones may not have relied on deception as much), i will still prefer atheism.

Anything that relies on lies to further its influence, and demands unquestioning faith needs to be questioned and have its historical record brought to light as soon as possible.

What would you really prefer?
Tuesday, March 24th, 2009
5:25 pm
[moonshaz]
Flap over Obama speaking at Notre Dame commencement
In case anyone hasn't heard, President Obama has been invited to speak at the May 17 commencement ceremonies at the University of Notre Dame. Unfortunately, some have taken exception to this decision. Fortunately, the University is sticking by its decision.

Notre Dame sticking with Obama for commencement

SOUTH BEND, Ind. (AP) — The University of Notre Dame is sticking with its invitation to President Obama to speak at its May 17 commencement despite criticism from some Roman Catholics that his views on abortion and stem cell research run counter to Catholic teachings.

"I don't foresee a circumstance in which we would rescind the invitation," Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown told The Associated Press in an e-mail message Monday.Read more...Collapse )

Current Mood: indescribable
Tuesday, March 17th, 2009
8:35 am
[incendiary_eve]
Pope: condoms not the answer in AIDS fight
By VICTOR L. SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE – Pope Benedict XVI said Tuesday that the distribution of condoms is not the answer in the fight against AIDS in Africa.

Benedict has never before spoken explicitly on condom use although he has stressed that the Roman Catholic Church is in the forefront of the battle against AIDS. The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of the disease.

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Some priests and nuns working with victims of the AIDS pandemic ravaging Africa question the church's opposition to condoms.

The pope also said that he intends to make an appeal for "international solidarity" for Africa in the face of the global economic downturn.

He said that while the church does not propose specific economic solutions, it can give "spiritual and moral" suggestions.

Describing the current crisis as the consequence of "a deficit of ethics in economic structures," the pope said, "It is here that the church can make a contribution."

Benedict's seven-day pilgrimage will take him to Cameroon and Angola.

Africa is the fastest-growing region for the Roman Catholic Church.

[source]
[ << Previous 20 ]
About LiveJournal.com