“I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.”
Yeah, secularism sure does suck, and of course secularism leads to a takeover by radical Islamists, because they are so darn secular.
The Republican Party is in big trouble. I don't think the USA is full of enough morons to elect guys like this.
March 30, 2011
March 17, 2011
Matt Stone, C'Mon Man
Matt Stone, one the creators of South Park was recently interviewed about their new Broadway play "The Book of Mormon." I'm sure the play will be hilarious. South Park is most of the time.
But Stone and his idea about atheists really bug me.
Here is what he said in a recent interview when asked about his religion:
"I'm an atheist. I don't think about it that much, I seem to live my life as an atheist, but it's not that I don't like religion. In fact I kind of admire it and I'm really pretty into it. But whenever I'm having a hard time I don't look for God, I just don't. So I guess I'm an atheist but I have tons of doubt about atheists.
But this question is really what our musical is about—we are fascinated by the idea that happiness and faith could be higher values than truth. What if the truthfulness of religious stories doesn't matter, but faith in them does? That's something that troubles atheists. I can't prove that those goofy Mormon stories have a positive effect, but the idea at least seems like a good thing to sing and dance about."
You guess you are an atheist? An atheist is someone who simply says no to the question of whether they believe in God. That is it. If you don't believe in God, if you don't accept deities, then you are an atheist. You don't guess you are an atheist. Either you are or your aren't.
Tons of doubts about atheists? WTF does that mean? Are you saying that atheists don't get it. Most of the atheists I am in contact with, do get it. Atheism is more or less a logical conclusion based on evidence that every phenomenon has a natural explanation, and the fact there is absolutely no evidence to support the supernatural. Most atheists also know that humans are born with an innate susceptibility to accept the supernatural. This of course, doesn't mean supernatural explanations are correct, only that sometimes rationality has a problem winning.
What if faith in stories does matter? I don't see how this fact troubles atheists. Of course, faith in these fairy tales matter. That is why many believers hate homosexuals or fly planes into buildings. That is what troubles atheists. It should trouble believers too.
I don't know if atheists are troubled by faith possibly having positive effects in keeping some people from raping or stealing if it really does. The thing that is troubling is certain believers state that it does. How many atheists are in jail in proportion to other prisoners? Stats I've seen suggest that atheists have a smaller share in the prison population that they do out of prison population.
And if scientific studies suggest that faith gives one a better chance in fighting cancer or heart disease, I don't think there is an atheist who would say that is a bad thing. Though I think most wouldn't trade their overcoming the brainwashing that God exists, to have that faith.
But Stone and his idea about atheists really bug me.
Here is what he said in a recent interview when asked about his religion:
"I'm an atheist. I don't think about it that much, I seem to live my life as an atheist, but it's not that I don't like religion. In fact I kind of admire it and I'm really pretty into it. But whenever I'm having a hard time I don't look for God, I just don't. So I guess I'm an atheist but I have tons of doubt about atheists.
But this question is really what our musical is about—we are fascinated by the idea that happiness and faith could be higher values than truth. What if the truthfulness of religious stories doesn't matter, but faith in them does? That's something that troubles atheists. I can't prove that those goofy Mormon stories have a positive effect, but the idea at least seems like a good thing to sing and dance about."
You guess you are an atheist? An atheist is someone who simply says no to the question of whether they believe in God. That is it. If you don't believe in God, if you don't accept deities, then you are an atheist. You don't guess you are an atheist. Either you are or your aren't.
Tons of doubts about atheists? WTF does that mean? Are you saying that atheists don't get it. Most of the atheists I am in contact with, do get it. Atheism is more or less a logical conclusion based on evidence that every phenomenon has a natural explanation, and the fact there is absolutely no evidence to support the supernatural. Most atheists also know that humans are born with an innate susceptibility to accept the supernatural. This of course, doesn't mean supernatural explanations are correct, only that sometimes rationality has a problem winning.
What if faith in stories does matter? I don't see how this fact troubles atheists. Of course, faith in these fairy tales matter. That is why many believers hate homosexuals or fly planes into buildings. That is what troubles atheists. It should trouble believers too.
I don't know if atheists are troubled by faith possibly having positive effects in keeping some people from raping or stealing if it really does. The thing that is troubling is certain believers state that it does. How many atheists are in jail in proportion to other prisoners? Stats I've seen suggest that atheists have a smaller share in the prison population that they do out of prison population.
And if scientific studies suggest that faith gives one a better chance in fighting cancer or heart disease, I don't think there is an atheist who would say that is a bad thing. Though I think most wouldn't trade their overcoming the brainwashing that God exists, to have that faith.
March 3, 2011
Pope: Finally, Jews Not Responsible For The Death Of Jesus
Finally, I can let go of all the guilt I've carried all my life. The monkey is off my back. I can sleep at night now.
I have a feeling that the Pope's revelation is a disappointment to many Catholics. They might be questioning his fallibility now. Actually, I think there are enough pissed Catholics already who hate the idea that the Vatican accepts evolution.
In fact, if the Vatican/Pope goes one step further and admits there is no evidence for God, I will be close to seeing eye to eye with them...well, with the exception of them turning a blind eye to child molesting clergy.
I guess it would be too much to ask that they also admit that Jesus was most likely a myth and that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for his historical existence. Nah, maybe in a few hundred years. Not just yet.
But getting back to the Jews killing Jesus. I think that is the message the bible writers at the time wanted to get out. If I'm correct and the bible was written during a time where the early Christians and sun worshipers were looking to merge maybe 200-300ish AD, it wasn't a good idea to piss off the Romans and make them the culprits in Fairy Tale Jesus' death.
The Jews, the ones who wouldn't convert to Christianity were the best damn scapegoat going.
So basically, the Pope is now reinterpreting the New Testament because he is a progressive.
I think the end result of this is a good thing. But it doesn't take away from all those quotes in the NT blaming the Jews collectively, and not just a few decision making Jews.
I have a feeling that the Pope's revelation is a disappointment to many Catholics. They might be questioning his fallibility now. Actually, I think there are enough pissed Catholics already who hate the idea that the Vatican accepts evolution.
In fact, if the Vatican/Pope goes one step further and admits there is no evidence for God, I will be close to seeing eye to eye with them...well, with the exception of them turning a blind eye to child molesting clergy.
I guess it would be too much to ask that they also admit that Jesus was most likely a myth and that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for his historical existence. Nah, maybe in a few hundred years. Not just yet.
But getting back to the Jews killing Jesus. I think that is the message the bible writers at the time wanted to get out. If I'm correct and the bible was written during a time where the early Christians and sun worshipers were looking to merge maybe 200-300ish AD, it wasn't a good idea to piss off the Romans and make them the culprits in Fairy Tale Jesus' death.
The Jews, the ones who wouldn't convert to Christianity were the best damn scapegoat going.
So basically, the Pope is now reinterpreting the New Testament because he is a progressive.
I think the end result of this is a good thing. But it doesn't take away from all those quotes in the NT blaming the Jews collectively, and not just a few decision making Jews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)