This blog is about atheism. My personal blog about everything else is linked somewhere below.

Elizabeth, 20, USA (WA more specifically), agnostic atheist, feminist, in college double majoring in philosophy and music (vocal performance).

Famous atheists I like: Bertrand Russell, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Adams, and more!

Famous atheists I don't like: Richard Dawkins, TheAmazingAtheist, and more!

I only argue with believers if they post on the #atheism tag.

Friendly reminder: Ad hominems are not a legitimate argument tactic.

I don't believe in "New Atheism."

 

gayheathen:

carry-on-my-wayward-butt:

total-queer-move:

LOOK. IT’S EVERY SINGLE STEREOTYPE ABOUT MEN’S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS PUT INTO ONE HANDY-DANDY DEMOGRAPHICS SURVEY SO IT CAN BE STATISTICALLY VALIDATED!! [x]

THANKS R/MENSRIGHTS!!

sweet fucking lord

*sigh*

It’s interesting to see how they’re both mostly strongly conservative and mostly non-religious. Most non-religious people tend to be liberal, so clearly MRAs are a minority of non-religious people, but I expect that at least someone will use these statistics to villainize atheists.

I have this pet theory that misogynistic guys only join the MRM if they don’t have a religion to justify their sexism instead. Religious conservatives are clearly anti-woman, but they don’t bother with the MRM because they can advocate the same things but with more credibility (credibility by the definition that it looks like they know what they’re talking about- doesn’t mean that they actually do) if they use their religion.

ramblingsarcasm:

limited-probabilities:

skepticalavenger:

via Ultimate Atheism

No, but you’re forgetting that God is supposed to be omniscent. Obviously Christianity has successfully spread around, right? So the strategy worked even though it was unlikely. If God was omniscent, he would know that the unlikely strategy would work, so it wouldn’t be an unlikely one as far as he was concerned, it would be the strategy he knew would work.
Also, don’t you think that Jesus would get lost in the crowd if he had been born somewhere where there was a larger population? It seems to me that being in a place with a smaller population increased his chances of being noticed in the small population, and once famous with the small population the chances of the fame continuing into the larger populations would increase.
I’m still an atheist, it’s just that this isn’t the best argument.

It hasn’t really been as successful as it wants to be, though, has it? Christianity the most popular religion in the world, sure, but there are still billions of people who are not Christians and millions, if not around a billion (though missionaries are trying their damndest), who have never heard of it. Additionally, Christianity is massively splintered, almost to the point of being a religious fractal. Much of this splintering, historically, has occurred because the New Testament is so self-contradictory. If Jesus had been born somewhere where the citizens were more interested in writing down his actions while he was alive, this might not be the case.
On the subject of him being lost in the crowd, I can think of two counter-arguments. They contradict one another, so take your pick. First, since I’ve been reading a ton of Kierkegaard, I can tell you that he would say Jesus should have gotten lost in the crowd. Jesus standing out makes it too easy to follow him and him having this spectacular life with all of these miracles and a memorable death all makes Christianity easier and easier. True Christianity is an obscure group of rebels who are constantly being hunted and persecuted for their beliefs and it requires a genuine acknowledgement that this doctrine is impossible to understand, which is the requirement for a leap of faith (or a leap to faith, to use his actual term, but they’re more or less synonymous at this point). So if you said, “Not as many people would have followed Jesus!”, he would reply, “Good!” Then he would write a massive pseudonymous book calling Hegel an asshole. (The part of Philosophical Fragments about the ease of the contemporary follower, a lot of the second third of Concluding Unscientific Postscript, and all of Attack Upon “Christendom” are good sources for this kind of philosophy.)
And then, second, let’s contradict Kierkegaard just for fun. Like you said, God is omniscient. But you left out another one of God’s characteristics: God is omnipotent. So Jesus only would have been lost in the crowd if God wanted him to get lost. He would be ignored only if God wanted him to be ignored. God can change people’s hearts to be receptive or to be unreceptive, so even if he can’t force them to believe in Jesus he can at least get them to notice Jesus. With this line of thinking, wherever Jesus was born, he would have been as famous as that region would allow him to be.
Plus, imagine if a baby were born in, say, China, at that time. This baby grows up and somehow has complete knowledge of Jewish scripture despite never being introduced to it. Of course, with Jesus being born in Jerusalem, he studied the Hebrew texts for his whole childhood. Presumably in China, this wouldn’t have been the case. So he would have this miraculous knowledge of another culture with which he had absolutely no contact. That would certainly get him put in some sort of record and, if he was able to get famous enough there that people in Europe heard about his vast, impossible knowledge, Jesus followers would have skyrocketed. Maybe an emperor becomes Christian even before Constantine.

But maybe God is just pretending to be omnipotent in order to intimidate but he’s actually bound to the rules of causation like everyone else.

ramblingsarcasm:

limited-probabilities:

skepticalavenger:

via Ultimate Atheism

No, but you’re forgetting that God is supposed to be omniscent. Obviously Christianity has successfully spread around, right? So the strategy worked even though it was unlikely. If God was omniscent, he would know that the unlikely strategy would work, so it wouldn’t be an unlikely one as far as he was concerned, it would be the strategy he knew would work.

Also, don’t you think that Jesus would get lost in the crowd if he had been born somewhere where there was a larger population? It seems to me that being in a place with a smaller population increased his chances of being noticed in the small population, and once famous with the small population the chances of the fame continuing into the larger populations would increase.

I’m still an atheist, it’s just that this isn’t the best argument.

It hasn’t really been as successful as it wants to be, though, has it? Christianity the most popular religion in the world, sure, but there are still billions of people who are not Christians and millions, if not around a billion (though missionaries are trying their damndest), who have never heard of it. Additionally, Christianity is massively splintered, almost to the point of being a religious fractal. Much of this splintering, historically, has occurred because the New Testament is so self-contradictory. If Jesus had been born somewhere where the citizens were more interested in writing down his actions while he was alive, this might not be the case.

On the subject of him being lost in the crowd, I can think of two counter-arguments. They contradict one another, so take your pick. First, since I’ve been reading a ton of Kierkegaard, I can tell you that he would say Jesus should have gotten lost in the crowd. Jesus standing out makes it too easy to follow him and him having this spectacular life with all of these miracles and a memorable death all makes Christianity easier and easier. True Christianity is an obscure group of rebels who are constantly being hunted and persecuted for their beliefs and it requires a genuine acknowledgement that this doctrine is impossible to understand, which is the requirement for a leap of faith (or a leap to faith, to use his actual term, but they’re more or less synonymous at this point). So if you said, “Not as many people would have followed Jesus!”, he would reply, “Good!” Then he would write a massive pseudonymous book calling Hegel an asshole. (The part of Philosophical Fragments about the ease of the contemporary follower, a lot of the second third of Concluding Unscientific Postscript, and all of Attack Upon “Christendom” are good sources for this kind of philosophy.)

And then, second, let’s contradict Kierkegaard just for fun. Like you said, God is omniscient. But you left out another one of God’s characteristics: God is omnipotent. So Jesus only would have been lost in the crowd if God wanted him to get lost. He would be ignored only if God wanted him to be ignored. God can change people’s hearts to be receptive or to be unreceptive, so even if he can’t force them to believe in Jesus he can at least get them to notice Jesus. With this line of thinking, wherever Jesus was born, he would have been as famous as that region would allow him to be.

Plus, imagine if a baby were born in, say, China, at that time. This baby grows up and somehow has complete knowledge of Jewish scripture despite never being introduced to it. Of course, with Jesus being born in Jerusalem, he studied the Hebrew texts for his whole childhood. Presumably in China, this wouldn’t have been the case. So he would have this miraculous knowledge of another culture with which he had absolutely no contact. That would certainly get him put in some sort of record and, if he was able to get famous enough there that people in Europe heard about his vast, impossible knowledge, Jesus followers would have skyrocketed. Maybe an emperor becomes Christian even before Constantine.

But maybe God is just pretending to be omnipotent in order to intimidate but he’s actually bound to the rules of causation like everyone else.

skepticalavenger:

via Ultimate Atheism

No, but you’re forgetting that God is supposed to be omniscent. Obviously Christianity has successfully spread around, right? So the strategy worked even though it was unlikely. If God was omniscent, he would know that the unlikely strategy would work, so it wouldn’t be an unlikely one as far as he was concerned, it would be the strategy he knew would work.
Also, don’t you think that Jesus would get lost in the crowd if he had been born somewhere where there was a larger population? It seems to me that being in a place with a smaller population increased his chances of being noticed in the small population, and once famous with the small population the chances of the fame continuing into the larger populations would increase.
I’m still an atheist, it’s just that this isn’t the best argument.

skepticalavenger:

via Ultimate Atheism

No, but you’re forgetting that God is supposed to be omniscent. Obviously Christianity has successfully spread around, right? So the strategy worked even though it was unlikely. If God was omniscent, he would know that the unlikely strategy would work, so it wouldn’t be an unlikely one as far as he was concerned, it would be the strategy he knew would work.

Also, don’t you think that Jesus would get lost in the crowd if he had been born somewhere where there was a larger population? It seems to me that being in a place with a smaller population increased his chances of being noticed in the small population, and once famous with the small population the chances of the fame continuing into the larger populations would increase.

I’m still an atheist, it’s just that this isn’t the best argument.

If heading any direction but north is the wrong direction and you only head in the “right” direction, wouldn’t you freeze to death sooner or later? I mean, the north pole isn’t exactly hospitable.
Fail metaphor.

If heading any direction but north is the wrong direction and you only head in the “right” direction, wouldn’t you freeze to death sooner or later? I mean, the north pole isn’t exactly hospitable.

Fail metaphor.

(Source: fuckyeahreligionpigeon)

maswartz:

I honestly think people forget that the church and state are supposed to be separate. Give me one non-religious reason against same sex marriage. One non-religious reason against stem cell research. One non-religious reason against safe abortions. Go ahead.

In my ethics class last summer we looked at Why Abortion is Immoral by Don Marquis  which is a secular argument against abortion. I don’t agree with it- I’m strongly pro-choice and I prefer Judith Jarvis Thomson’s defense of abortion, but it exists. Granted, most anti-choicers are arguing from their religion and not from arguments like Marquis’s, but secular reasons to oppose abortion do exist. I think opposing stem cell research follows from the opposition of abortion too.

I agree that separation of church and state is important. I agree that people try to involve their religion in government too much. I agree that stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and access to safe abortions are good things. I’m just saying that the arguments do exist.

Well, I guess it’s been two years since I started this blog. Feels like a lot longer.

Anonymous asked
I'm curious as to know your definition of your personal decision to be an athiest. Did you turn away from a religion in particular? Was your initial statement "there is no god," or was it "there is no reason to believe in god"? As someone actively reading the bible in KJV, you seem to be trying to prove your position, but how can you prove the absence of something? Anyone would think me crazy to say, "I specifically remember not seeing you that time." Aren't you doing the same?

It’s been a year or two since the Bible reading project.

I can’t prove that there is no god, but I can disprove individual arguments in favor of there being a god.  I can’t rule out the possibility that a convincing argument may exist and I just haven’t seen it (hence why I’m agnostic), but I have proven that every argument I’ve seen so far in favor of there being a god is unsound. I don’t do this so much because I think it needs to be proven that there isn’t a god (though I have my qualms with religion I have nothing against the belief that there is a god) but rather because I wish that people had a better grasp of what makes a good or bad argument. I mean, I get paid to grade logic exams at my college. Logical arguments are kind of my thing. It ought to be taught in high school. So no, I’m not trying to prove there isn’t a god.

As far as the Bible reading is concerned, when I first told my cousin that I was an atheist, he told me to read the Bible to restore my faith, so I read part of the Bible to prove that it’s not a sound argument (the Bible doesn’t even try to argue for the existence of a god, it just assumes you already believe, so it’s not convincing at all). There are a lot of Christians who think that atheists are only atheists because they don’t know about Christianity and often they’re annoying about it. I’m proving that this is not the case for me. My parents dragged me to church every Sunday and I’ve read more of the Bible than the average Christian, so I am not an atheist out of ignorance.

I can prove that the Bible itself is contradictory and morally questionable and not a reliable source. This is important because people try to use it as a basis to push for teaching creationism in classrooms and banning same-sex marriage. All this has nothing to do with whether or not a deity exists, it has to do with government actions based on an unreliable source. 

Anyway, I became an atheist because I realized that I was only Christian because I had been raised that way and if I had been raised in another religion I would follow that religion, which isn’t the way to reach truth. With things like math or science, if you forget the answer you will get back to the true conclusion just by going through the process again. I decided to do the same thing with religion- pretend I didn’t know anything about Christianity and wait for the arguments to convince me. Obviously they didn’t. At this point I’m completely happy with being an atheist. If someone came up with a spangly new argument for theism I would consider it though.

On Facebook

Me: You know agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive? I'm both.

Friend: How is that? Does not one deny the existence of a god and one accept the possible existence of a god?

Me: *explanation of the terms*

Friend's question: *accumulates likes*

goddamntoothbrush:

sugashane:

Most “Atheists” aren’t atheist. They are simply anti-religion. If they were really atheists, they wouldn’t think about or debate about religion or the religious. Religion wouldn’t matter to them in the same way that television doesn’t matter to fish. 

Right, because as an atheist, religion has no impact on my life whatsoever. It’s not endorsed on my money. It’s not thrust upon me at my job. It’s not constantly being forced into legislation. 

Do you even understand what atheism is? Clearly not.

How exactly does it follow that if someone is anti-religion they must believe in a god? That’s what I think the OP needs to explain.

Does anyone else have awkward moments when you reveal to a group of acquaintances that you know a lot about Christianity and then you realize that they might conclude from this that you’re super Christian and you can’t think of a way to non-awkwardly correct their possible assumption?

al-the-stuff-i-like:

on reddit there was a discussion about how Good Luck Charlie became the first children’s show with gay parents. One person was complaining, using the typical “how do I explain it to my kids” bullshit, and then someone replied with this utter smackdown

image

blardenfrazifonochip asked
How do you feel about people (mostly leftists on this site) saying that atheists aren't a marginalized group? I mean, I don't think we experience as much discrimination as LGBTQIA people or POC, but we're still very hated by a large section of the population. It's only been a year since we even got any representation in Congress, there was that poll that said we're the least trusted group in America, and there's laws on the books in seven states saying we can't run for office (To be cont.)

(Part 2) A lot of atheists do receive backlash or get disowned from their families when they tell them of their non belief. I understand there’s a lot of misogyny and islamaphobia in the community, but obviously there are lots of people like you and me who want to change that (at least on the misogyny part. Haven’t looked too much at your blog yet and so far found nothing about Islam.).

I think they just don’t want us distracting from higher priority social issues. I mean, yeah, we’re marginalized, but we aren’t actually oppressed in most communities. Also, I think that prejudice against atheists is pretty region specific, so if you live in an area that is accepting of atheists it’s easy to assume all of the US is like that. So while it may be incorrect to say that atheists aren’t marginalized, people’s reasons for saying it aren’t necessarily so bad.

As for my views on Islamophobia: I see that Muslims are oppressed in the culture I live in and, as I am against all oppression of people, I wouldn’t do anything to contribute to their oppression.. When I see people directing ridicule and/or ad hominems at Muslims I try to call them out on it because no good comes of such immaturity.

That said, no ideas are above criticism, so I don’t consider well-informed arguments against Islam itself (the idea, not the people who follow it) to be a crime. As I say in the description of this blog, I’m a fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali (ex-Muslim and badass). If Islam was the majority religion in the area where I lived, I would criticize it to the same extent that I criticize Christianity. Some people consider any criticism of Islam to be islamophobia, so by their definition I’m an islamophobe. But if you scale back the definition to include only people who are against people who are Muslim, I am not.

Anonymous asked
I know you don't like theamazingatheist, but do you have any atheist youtubers you follow?(I was the anon can you still see my messages?)

Yep, I can see you :)

I don’t follow any atheist youtubers, which is not to say that there aren’t any good atheist youtubers, it’s just that I don’t really like videos as a format for presenting information- just as a matter of personal preference.

May have accidentally hit the “ignore” button rather than the “delete” button on the anon asks that I quoted. If I did, but you can see this, sorry anon. I really didn’t mean to.

Anonymous asked
1:The Illuminati was first used to refer to a secret society of freethinkers and humanists who lived in the enlightenment age. I'm not talking about people who believe corporations control the world. There is an article on Gawker that sums up the modern day beliefs pretty well called 'A Comprehensive Guide to the Illuminati, a conspiracy theory that connects Jay Z and Queen Elizabeth'(the second half of the article is for skeptics) I'm specifically talking about the people who believe pop stars

2: like Beyonce are satanists who are trying to control our minds. I got into an argument with a christian who adamantly believed that these people become possessed by the devil if the have a triangle in their music videos, describing a modern day illuminati were people can sell their souls to the devil and become successful. Many people have different interpretations of the illuminati, but I’m specifically talking about people who believe in things like the 13-year-old Youtube Intellectuals

3: who believe the New World Order is controlled by reptilians or believe the illuminati is made up of satanists.

Interesting