Comments on Green by Red: Atheism Unshrouded

I am a humble agnostic soul. With this very limite...

2011-02-19T12:27:57.896-07:00

I am a humble agnostic soul. With this very limited human mind, the only thing I know is that I don't know sh|t. :)

Btw, your blog is awesome! I just subscribed. :)

Terrific work! This is the type of information tha...

2010-12-21T15:44:52.439-07:00

Terrific work! This is the type of information that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for not positioning this post higher!

Theists have a pre-loaded manuever in response to ...

2009-06-03T17:25:51.480-07:00

Theists have a pre-loaded manuever in response to a person's view of scientific fact being...well...fact. Many have been trained to suggest that "so your religion is science" or "well that's just one way of looking it." Science, by definition, is correct and irrefutable. It's not a belief structure because there isn't any need for "a feeling there's something out there." When in doubt, you look in a petri dish and see if the shrimp are fucking or not. While I think it's all well and good to allow people to practice whatever religion they want for whatever reason they want (and the bond of being a part of a group is a pretty valid reason), it should not be taken into account when making any political or social decision on any level. I quote the great Dr. Gregory House, when asked why he doesn't believe in God or a Heaven: "I'd like to believe that all of this is more than just a test."

Speechless: http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle...

2009-06-03T11:14:00.804-07:00

Speechless:
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/christianist-groups-billboard-compare

I would like to add something to your statement. T...

2009-05-31T16:29:20.350-07:00

I would like to add something to your statement. There is a difference between believing in God and being religious. A religion is human made. It's as human as you can get. It wasn't a belief in God that caused the Crusades, it was a belief in Catholisism. It wasn't a belief in God that sent missionaries to every continent, it was a belief in Catholisism, Sunni-ism, Angelicanism. Its not God that does the damage or judges believer or non believer, it's the -isms. This includes Atheism. -isms are what judge other people and seek to fit them into their particular -ism. Same thing happens with Conservat-ism, Social-ism, Commun-ism, Nazi-ism, and even Liberal-ism. The problem is when other people try to FORCE their beliefs on someone else, no matter what those beliefs are. When you or your other commenter say we need to fight the religious right with a different -ism your sinking to the same level as those you want to fight. The fact is, you don't have any more of an idea about what the truth is than anybody else and the tighter you wrap your comfortable -ism around yourself, the less likely you are to discover anything near the truth. Bottom line Humanism and Atheism are no different and no less dangerous than Catholisism or Conservatism.

I can understand the problem with being called an ...

2009-05-31T10:46:55.751-07:00

I can understand the problem with being called an atheist. Partly because it is a reactionary word, not exactly a negative, but it has a very narrow meaning, as in non-theist--not much positive there. If this movement is going to succeed, we need more than the relatively small group of people who will personally and publicly identify themselves as atheists. I'd prefer to see a word which would allow larger numbers of people to unite as a viable force to counteract the craziness of the religious right: perhaps "Humanists," which might more easily attract all those folks who also don't want other people's religions in government or intruding on their beliefs or lack thereof. Although I don't believe in a supreme deity, I believe "God" is meant to be symbolic of the whole of the Oneness of which we all are--the honoring of that. "Onenessists," however, is just not a good word. I think it is important that this new movement be not just a bunch of naysayers, but more inclusive of people who are agnostic, or who simply may not ascribe to organized religion, or who may identify themselves-- mostly by habit--as Christian, Jewish, etc, but may actually not have any particular religious beliefs. Or those who do have various spiritual beliefs, such as "New Age," Buddhist, etc. Let's not just be a backlash, let's have our own meaningful name. Added benefits: it would be difficult to find arguments against Humanism and it might be a wonderful platform from which to create a more enlightened consciousness with a philosophy that includes tolerance, ethics, personal spirituality, science, etc. After all, it is about all being in this together and honoring that Oneness--surviving without exploiting others or the environment--which is probably what religions were trying to say in the first place. People were trying to figure out how to live in a way that was "good," which may be where the word "God" came from in the first place???