TTA blog posts and comments

  

 
 






23 comments

The Thinking Atheist Community

 Login  













d



Sort by Best









 
Favorite ★ 

Share ⤤














Join the discussion…



























































 







Avatar
Martinrc  • 4 months ago  




So if Satan deceives, and Jesus saves, does that mean the person deceiving you with a fake five dollar bill is a follower of Satan, and therefore theres a good chance their information about this Jesus character is also a lie like the five dollar bill!!!
 
38 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Starkweather > Martinrc  • 4 months ago  




You sir, just blew my mind
 
7 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jeff Levy > Martinrc  • 4 months ago  




I was just going to post about the fake $5.00 bill..
you did it just fine...
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Chris  • 4 months ago  




Haha - totally take that tract disguised as a fiver and put it in the donation box for the nearest church.
 
29 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Cactus_Wren > Chris  • 4 months ago  




There are other versions designed to be left for waitstaff in restaurants, some with such messages as "Here's a REAL tip for you!"
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
August Rode  • 4 months ago  




I suppose that the picture is supposed to be horrific but the inclusion of a pom-pom, still in the girl's hand as though she had gone directly from cheer leading to the abortion clinic, turned it into the theatre of the absurd.
 
10 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Paul Gloor > August Rode  • 4 months ago  




I know eh, and I highly doubt its such a gruesome scene either in real life, maybe back in the 18th century, as were many medical procedures of the time, but not now. This actually is the kind of scene that legalizing abortion would eliminate, I think thats a coat hanger hes using !
Anyone notice the "doctor" has a smoke going too ? :P
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Brynecho > August Rode  • 4 months ago  




What is the doc supposed to be holding there anyway? Looks to me like link sausages.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Matt Hvidsten  • 4 months ago  




we don't see that much of this in Canada. At least not in my experience. We don't get many kids at our place. So we make sure the kids get something good here. Full sized chocolate bars.
 
8 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Iknowyou  • 4 months ago  




"Satanic Human Sacrifice" haha, the first thing that came to mind was "So human sacrifice is OK if it's for God".
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nick the swede  • 4 months ago  




Seth, You're the best! The mass hysteria about religion is so foreign to me. Richard Dawkins hates the fact that people gets borne into religion, so do I. I would say that most of us here in Sweden are baptized, yet a small percentage of us takes religion seriously. (I'm not one of those who do.) You could say that the swedes gets borne into atheism. We get to choose by ourself if we want to believe or not. Most of us choose the right path. Anyway, I really enjoy to read your blogg/listen to your podcast about religion and how big it actually is in your part of the world. It's really interesting and I do believe you help people to open their eyes and help them to get on the right path of life. Best of wishes and happy halloween! // A fellow non-believer
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bob  • 4 months ago  




The abortion scene from the hell house is a good example of how these morons will shamelessly lie and deceive to emotionally manipulate people. Their sad attempts to sear completely false images into impressionable children's minds in order to control them is just another way they will justify the very things they accuse others of as "sin" but because they think that they are doing the "Lord's Work" it is justified.
Anything is A-Okay with the Sky Wizards blessing and the bible is full of it. Murder. Rape, Genocide. Infanticide. They go on and on about how life is sacred but that is a lie. It is all about obedience and their silly book is full of examples of this. When the X-ians shamelessly lie like this I can't help but think of Kirk Cameron's ploy of asking people if they have ever lied and then extrapolating that this means you deserve to die.
Thing is, they don't stop at that. These people embrace the belief that it is moral and good that billions have been doomed to suffer unbelievably for eternity. The greatest lie X-ians tell is the false kindness they show everyday. it is nothing more than a duplicitous falsehood meant to help them draw more people into their death cult.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Linda Stuart  • 4 months ago  




Seth, you don't pull any punches. That picture is gross, but it does get your point across. What idiocy!
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Paul Gloor  • 4 months ago  




Stifling creativity is what the church does best !
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Magicskip  • 4 months ago  




Seth, 99% of the time you are awesome. But springing that Hell House picture on me without so much as a warning... well, that's in that other 1% of the time.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Brynecho  • 4 months ago  




I never heard of this in Canada. I know the JWs don't go trick or treating or shell out - they all go to church to pray the devil back into hell (or whatever).
Hallowe'en has changed a lot since I was a kid out trick or treating in the 1950s. We used to get really cool homemade fudge, candy apples, carmel popcorn, and (not my favourite) loads of apples - along with molasses candies, gum (confiscated), and other assorted jumk food. Our costumes were homemade as well - a blanket and a headband with a crow feather stuck in it and you were an "indian", gun & holster and Dad's old fedora for a cowboy or an old white sheet or tablecoth with holes for eyes for a ghost. Everyone in the neighbourhood watched out for everyone's kids and sometimes you'd get invited back to a house for hot chocolate and popcorn after the trick or treating was done. No way this happens now - evryone is in designer costumes, all treats are store bought and everyone is afraid of pedophiles around every corner. Something has been lost that can never be returned.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
j9clements  • 4 months ago  




I vividly remember my parents handing out Chick Tracts. It bothered me back then too.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stephanie @ Life, Unexpectedly  • 4 months ago  




In our neighborhood are a couple of people whose "faith does not allow them to participate in that hellish holiday". I'm sorry that your faith is so cruel and doesn't allow you to participate in preading joy to little children. Maybe your faith will change its mind...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Shane  • 4 months ago  




Awesome post Seth. Thank you. And, as always, you hit the nail right on the head with this one.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
freetoreason  • 4 months ago  




Like how Mrs. Baxter 'speaks the truth in love' about poor Timmy: 'Bobby, that decision caused your friend to go to hell FOREVER'. Too bad when he grew up Bobby struggled with his homosexuality and killed himself after a visit with his sexually repressed youth pastor.
I went to a church that had a rack full of these Chick tracts, and yes they handed them out to the worldly kids on Halloween. The good news is God loves us and made a way for anyyone (bolded with two y's) to go to heaven and be with Jesus and the beloved Mrs. Baxter and her sewing circle.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Victor  • 4 months ago  




Whoa!! 1-888-NEED-HIM... errr... .is that a male escort service?!
Also, is the guy in the abortion scene holding a coat hanger?!? Isn't that taking the "Plan 'C'" joke a bit too far?!?!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 


−
⚑ 


Avatar
Bob > Victor  • 4 months ago  




The real irony of the coat hanger is that the only reason women and girls have ever gone to such lengths is when the fundies have manage to restrict or eliminate access to abortion. Blood everywhere, a smoke hanging out of his face and of course the coat hanger. This is so emotionally manipulative and full of lies it is absurd. They must have missed their commandment of "false witness" when they lost their basic human morality.
That this is what they use to emotionally manipulate children along with all the hell nonsense is nothing less than criminal abuse. Trauma to the mind and emotions is actually biochemical and neurological at its root and that harm usually lasts longer than any physical assault.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Owen Marshal  • 4 months ago  




Keep up the excellent work, Seth. You are a true, and rare, American Hero!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














 
 





What's this? 


Around The Web



 Don't Let Your Kids Play With These 11 Dog Breeds   Dog Reference 
 



 9 Huge Celebrities Who Are Surprisingly Small   Celeb Zen 
 



 11 Movies You'll Regret Not Watching   Movies Talk 
 


Also on The Thinking Atheist Community

 Hate Can Make You Do Nice Things?   34 comments 
 

 Why Should Atheists Want "Community?"   13 comments 
 

 A Scary Dilemma   11 comments 
 

 "I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"   90 comments 
 

Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 


Avatar














 The Thinking Atheist
Videos

Podcasts

Forum

Editor’s Blog

Shop

Events

Resources












 

Home » Blog » Happy Halloween. Have Fun In Hell.
 

Happy Halloween. Have Fun In Hell.
 Seth
 Oct 28, 2013 at 7:00 AM
 4 Months Ago
   Comments

   
 
      

trick or treaters on religious door
It's Halloween night on the porch of a religious home, and a group of children is about to receive The Good News Of Jesus Christ on tiny booklets tossed into their sacks of treats.
CHILD:  "Trick or Treat!"
RELIGIOUS HOMEOWNER:  "Hi kids!  Here's a single piece of candy and whole PAGES of pathetic religious propaganda.  (By the way...nice devil costume.  That'll come in handy if you wind up in Hell.  G'nite!")
Yes, it's once again the Season of Fear.  Not the frivolous, fun spooks and scares of All Hallows Eve.  No, it's time for religious people and organizations to attempt to scare the literal Hell out of children.  The faithful wail about Satan's Day, about the true witchcraft represented in those icky witch costumes, and about the holiday that they don't celebrate (while they actually do) because it's chock full of E-V-I-L.
For the church, October 31st is a critical day in the fight of Good Versus Evil, and its weapons are often facepalm-worthy, like this classic bait and switch that's sure to piss off children and parents: a religious message disguised as...CASH!
religious tract money
 
Here's another gem: Jesus Harvest Seeds (with a scripture on every candy packet!).
jesus harvest seeds candy
 
Available from Memory Cross is this little gem, which includes the assertion that each child who reads it should confess to Jesus, "I know I have done wrong" (aka: I was born), so that he/she can receive a eternal treat that will last much, much longer than that worthless ol' candy. 
religious tract
 
Another website, the infamous Chick Tracts site, has a whole series of cartoon booklets on Halloween.
chick tract halloween
 
I'll give the God Squad a helpful tip here.  Kids who ring your doorbell on The Most Awesome Holiday Of The Year came for two things: 
1)  They want to show off their groovy Halloween costume.
2)  They...want...CANDY!
That moment when these young children fish through their sacks of sweets to discover a lame cartoon about a boy named Bobby frightened into Pascal's Wager after God sent his dead friend Timmy to Hell?  That's when many of them learn to swear. 
For the slightly older kids, the church turns up the volume.
Religious fundamentalists don't do haunted houses.  They do Hell Houses, where the patrons aren't confronted with ghosts and vampires, but instead get to witness DUI car accidents, teen suicides, botched abortions and entire rooms filled with the simulated agony of hellfire.  Whole documentaries on the phenomenon of the Hell House have been produced (here's one:  http://youtu.be/BbhQsRJ6ARw)
The pic below is just one scene from the Hell House at Trinity Assembly of God in Dallas, Texas.  Children pay their admission in the spirit of a genuinely fun, frivolous holiday, and they're treated to scenes like this, framed as a real-world consequence for the rejection of their cherished myth.
Hell house abortion scene



Perhaps the most mind-numbing part of this whole scenario is the absolute ignorance about the origins of the Halloween holiday, a day which has huge ties to (wait for it)...THE CHURCH.  I did a radio podcast on the subject in 2011.  Click To Listen.
Look, if you're religious and don't want to participate in Halloween, fine.  But stop infecting a fun, festive holiday with your superstitious nonsense.  Stop co-opting an enjoyable, harmless fantasy to promote your own harmful one.  Stop junking up our kids' treat bags with bullshit stories about a loving God torturing young children for noncompliance.  Stop throwing the planet's bloodiest headlines at Hell House ticket holders and blaming the carnage on their own sinful hearts.  And stop vilifying a holiday that's much, much less terrifying and offensive than huge portions of the Christian Bible.
Happy Halloween.
 
-Seth Andrews



 
Tags: Seth Andrews The Thinking Atheist atheist atheism halloween Hell House
 
  


 
 
   
 
Advertisement
Advertise Here 

Hot Dogs Saved My Life - Learn everything you need to know from A-Z to run a successful Hot Dog Vendor business
 


Latest from the Editor
MAR
03
"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts...

FEB
27
The "Son of God" Survey
The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-...

FEB
07
A Random Act of Kindness
I was informed by a Facebook friend that she had picked up a stranger's breakfast tab at McDonald's yesterday. When Tonya shared the experience on ...
 
Latest on Facebook
 
The Thinking Atheist
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.
Copyright © 2013 The Thinking Atheist. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Yii Framework.
Community Site Developed by
Web Evolved, LLC.

Back to top
© 2013 The Thinking Atheist · Contact · Privacy · Log in
     
ShareThis Copy and Paste

 - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/65/Happy-Halloween--Have-Fun-In-Hell#sthash.qF0m1Pe4.dpuf



























  

 
 






143 comments

The Thinking Atheist Community

 Login  













d



Sort by Best









 
Favorite ★ 

Share ⤤














Join the discussion…



























































 







Avatar
Nicole Bonnett-Dostal  • 4 months ago 




I treat religious people with respect, they are my friends, my family and loved ones. I give religion the respect it deserves - none. Would I post a satirical meme on a religious person's website, facebook page or otherwise? No, but I would also ask that they refrain from posting religious messages on mine. Would I post a satirical meme on my own page or on another atheist's page? Hell yes. We enjoy the laugh.
 
76 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
WayPastDueToo > Nicole Bonnett-Dostal  • 4 months ago 




Well said, Nicole!
When I talk with my Christian friends and family about touchy topics, I'm always careful to avoid phrases like, "this is a no brainer" or "it's just common sense" because that communicates that I think they aren't intelligent or that I'm smarter because I 'figured it out'. And none of that is true or how I feel at all. I haven't figured out anything! I've just eliminated one of many possibilities. And so have they! I mean, Christians don't believe in Zeus, Astarte, Shiva or any other god you could name. They just haven't eliminated Christ. I have.
Do I WANT to blast their precious jezuz? Sure! Sometimes it's all I can do to hold my tongue. And while I agree that poking fun at Jesus is therapeutic, there are right places and wrong places to do that kind of therapy. I think you're doing yours right here on this blog is the right place. Like changing the channel on the TV, you can click away from any page you find distasteful.
 
14 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Jennifer Giles  • 4 months ago 




In my husband's family, we recently had a niece decide to serve a mission for the Mormon church and our small family (husband, kids and I) was invited to attend her farewell address at her local church building. I wavered back and forth whether to actually attend the church service rather than just the after-party, but figured I would as I wanted to show I care about my niece and I wanted to hear what she had to say.
I showed up wearing a knee length dress, but it was sleeveless (it had thick shoulder straps, just no capped sleeves). My husband, a former Mormon, gave me a hard time in the foyer (prior to entering the chapel) about why I hadn't donned a sweater to cover my shoulders, as the Mormon church is big on modesty and one aspect of being a "true-blue Mormon" is wearing the garments (magic underwear) which cover the shoulders and in turn, must be covered with clothing that does the same.
He later told me that I was invited to THEIR "house" and that I needed to respect their rules. But that's just it. I respect my family members who are Mormon, but I don't respect the church. Also, I'm not a Mormon. I told him that it's a lot more offensive that the church teaches that I, as a non-Mormon, will be separated from my family in eternity (husband and kids), that it's "concerning" that many young women want careers instead of marriage and child-rearing, that it's a lot more offensive that they teach members not to associate with individuals or read material that puts the church in a negative light and that the church basically restricts honest inquiry. The newly formed motto from one of the top leaders is to "Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith".
I understand the rationale behind my husband's insistence that I "conform" in order to show respect, but I think it's outdated, incorrect and ultimately more of the forced behavior/pseudo-piety that the church is famous for. Why be offended at the sight of my human flesh (shoulders, I know, shocking!), but not at the limitation of my choices, the barring of my knowledge, the multitude of punishments set for those who don't "stay in line"? What about the outright lies the leaders of the institution speak as scripture from the grand pulpits (like saying that the church is built on unchanging principles, or that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the earth)?
Religion does not deserve respect, and I refuse to be complicit in its appearance as something respectable. It's anything but.
 
35 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
JacobBe5 > Jennifer Giles  • 4 months ago 




I have to agree with both of you on that example.
It is their house and they get to make the rules.
The implicit threat is they will not grant you entrance unless you conform to their rules.
Which is 100% their right.
You too are correct. In particular the Mormon religion has some serious issue in their past, and present. I also agree you should not attempt to conform to their rules in order to gain their favor. It would only empower them further. And they need to be exposed, not protected.
Love me some Mister Deity by the way:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

 


Good luck with your family.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Jennifer Giles > JacobBe5  • 4 months ago 




I suppose it's a little late to point out that it's not really a "rule" that women who come into the Mormon chapel area follow a dress code. Once you're a Mormon, you're counseled on what to wear but the reason for the shoulders being covered is, again, to cover the garments on endowed individuals, which not even all Mormons are. Some are not endowed, meaning they don't wear the garments. I'm no longer a Mormon. So it's kind of silly that my husband made a big deal about it, but it goes to show that old habits die hard.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
JacobBe5 > Jennifer Giles  • 4 months ago 




Norms can be formal or informal. They are still norms. And in religions the enforcement of them is especially cruel as it oh-so-often relies upon using family emotional ties to hurt people. Some religions are more explicit and hurtful about it than others of course. Like the policy of SPs in Scientology or Jehovah Witnesses being told they can't eat a meal with family members who have left.
I haven't set foot in a Mormon church in better than 20 years. I don't miss it.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Jennifer Giles > JacobBe5  • 4 months ago 




You're right. I think what I miss the most is the easy camaraderie and instant "belonging" status that being a Mormon within a large Mormon family garnered me. True, as you know, the Church is insistent that faithful members (the Temple Worthy ones, anyways) not read anything or associate with those who are "against the Church" and each member of my husband's large family who are still practicing Mormons take that to they extent they will in their interactions with me. I don't have to sit at an isolated table at family gatherings, for instance, but as an ardent atheist, I'm "disfellowshipped" in other ways, more subtle but still apparent to me. I try to make a distinction when I "like" something atheistic or write/interact on Facebook to let my disdain for the dogmas and mechanisms of religion stand separately from my admiration/respect for the individuals who are religious. I find those individuals in my life to be hard-working, sincere, loving (usually) quality people and I often write about that. Seems to get lost in the inflamed passions that arise when these people in my life see me have something against either the scriptures or a joke at religion's expense. They take it very personally and to varying degrees (depending on the individual) see me as an outright enemy, an "ass", lost and usually, most commonly, as someone to be avoided, ignored, or fought against. It doesn't matter that I reach out to make kind comments regarding neutral territory, such as children's pictures or work promotions, etc. I'm ostracized. The "family" who gives me the strokes and approbation simply for being a person, albeit one with strong ideals and opinions, are the Atheist friends I've made within The Thinking Atheist community. By and large, it is they who offer comfort, share a joke, and don't treat me like a pariah. All because I refuse to go along with religious nonsense that I find harmful and detrimental, which conclusion I came to by reading the Bible, followed by learning the "less-pleasant" truths about the LDS Church. So I'm damned from human association simply I've done my homework and dare speak out publicly about it, which THAT in turn, is only on Facebook. So much for the whole "God is love" scenario.
And to the very few who do still regard me as a person worthy of human association, despite differing worldviews, a hearty thank you, you are in the severe minority.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
JacobBe5 > Jennifer Giles  • 4 months ago 




I agree with everything you said. A sense of belonging is a powerful motivator.
We use it to motivate people to be positive members of society. the person who lies and cheats gets shunned, which has the positive effect of reducing the amount of lying and cheating being done. it stigmatizes the frauds those actions represent.
But religion takes that social pressure and uses it to support itself. I have friends who are Catholic, some are Mormons, some are Evangelical, some are hard-core Republicans and some are hard-core Democrats (even if the last two categories tend not to admit it). They are all good enough people (no worse than me probably), but fall prey to the same kind of thinking when it comes to their particular dogmas.
My personal fav lately has been the hard-core republicans who denounce Piers Morgan for saying something like 'Politicians need to quite listening to what people want and instead do what the people need.'
Since a liberal said it they immediately voice strong opposition. Ignoring that for years they have been saying the exact same thing. It is the same with some religions and their adherents, where once a person is "out" then everything their do is verboten. Luckily not everyone is like that, but sadly the ones who are become the ones motivated to action. The moderate, or tepid, follows of a faith are rarely cause social ills. They may not help fix them, but they aren't cutting off people's heads.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Doug Foxford > JacobBe5  • 4 months ago 




So I'm an active Mormon. I chose this. While I yes, my parents were Mormon when I was born, I would not say I was raised Mormon. It wasn't until I was a teenager that I, on my own, chose the embrace this truth that I have found. Its been good for me, I live how I want to live. Its amazing to me how people want me to disregard something I hold dear, something that I know to be true. Its sad to see how religion in general is burnt at the cross (pun intended) in our social media. I find it ironic that people who claim to not believe in what I do find offence in things that you mentioned (not being with family in the after life, ect). Why would it matter to you? If you are so convinced that we (Mormons, Christans, ect) are wrong, why would it matter to you?
There have been times where I have doubted my faith, wondered if there was anything real to it. It is when I look and search when I find that my faith is real.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
JacobBe5 > Doug Foxford  • 4 months ago 




Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
Do you embrace the doctrine that the Book of Mormon is the most factually correct book on the planet?
Do you embrace the doctrine that people are black because their ancestors were sinful, and if they convert to Mormonism then eventually their descendants will be a white and delightsome people?
I disregard what you hold dear because it doesn't hold the same value for me. Much as I assume you disregard the dictates of Islam.
It matters to me what the religious believe because historically the religious have implemented their beliefs in such a way that it affects others. Such as the doctrines on slavery. The doctrines on the role of women. They have used these doctrines to justify subjugating others firmly under their heel.
You decry how religion is burnt, it burns in flames its own construction. We don't have to make up lies about religion, your own doctrines provide the kindling, fuel, and the matches.
 
11 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jennifer Giles > Doug Foxford  • 4 months ago 




I find it ironic that you come to an atheist page to post your feelings, not facts, about the Mormon religion and then ask the question to me, in my element, "Why would it matter to you?"
You honestly don't understand the offense in a dogma that teaches the separation of families based on one's acquiescence of or refusal of a mish-mash of ever-changing storytelling by dubious men who teach outright lies and inaccuracies? To claim that I don't deserve to be with my family in their version of eternity based on the whims of a Bi-Polar, Unstable, FICTIONAL Exalted Being?
No, I don't believe in life after death, but I find the self-deluding teachings of a fraudulent religion to most surely be an insult. I care because I'm a member of the human race and despite your seemingly self-contained, insular world view that we should each live in our respective bubbles, I actually care what is taught to masses of people, including my loved ones, and their being told that they can't seek outside information that might detract from the "glory" of Mormonism; I find it a violation of human progress that these people, Mormons, are told that they should doubt their doubts, which is to say doubt yourself and your own mind before you dare doubt what the Dear Leaders of the Faith preach.
"Once the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done." Yeah, I care about the real harm that such cult-mentality does to people's lives, especially as I was a Mormon for 10 years and endured the ever-elusive answers to prayers, evasive dodging by leaders of my sincere questions and continual mind games of wondering whether or not I was following the obscure/undefined path that God had for me.
You wonder why it should matter to me? Perhaps because I relish freedom, self-expression, human potential and feminine liberation. I'm very glad that I'm not raising my young children in this net of manmade rhetoric and I feel very passionate about telling my story so that others may find liberation as I have.
 
10 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Doug Foxford > Jennifer Giles  • 4 months ago 




I only came here because a good friend who is an atheist. I have just come to the conclusion that atheists have soft skin. Out of respect for everyone on this page, I'm not going to share what I really think of your statement. This is what we call respect, take note of it. I'll try to send over a package of emotional band-aids as soon as I can. Cheers.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Jennifer Giles > Doug Foxford  • 4 months ago 




Your condescension is noted.
 
12 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joe Smith ConMan > Doug Foxford  • 4 months ago 




You have come to the wrong conclusion. Your statement is a classic response when your beliefs are questioned. This is understandable, as many of us are former believers of some faith. We know what it is you think, how you think, and why you respond with insult. But, your typical response is the reason why I do not respect believers or the faiths they hopelessly cling to.
The fact of the matter is that in order for you to come to a real conclusion, you need to move past mere doubt. Stating that you have doubted your faith is merely an excuse that is used to outwardly announce a false sense of vulnerability. It is the catalyst of confirmation bias for the believer. "I am weak, but god swooped in like a knight in shining armor and saved me." How is it then, that so many millions of people that do not believe in your deity are able to get back up when knocked down with no help from a god? How is it so many survive?
The questions that were asked of you regarding your faith are legitimate. Most of us are painfully familiar with the various stories, rituals and scriptures that religions are comprised of. Why is it when questioned, you choose to ignore answering with factual information? The problem is that you are unable to. You are unable to answer these questions because you do not know the answers. Poking holes in christianity, islam, mormonism and so forth is very easy.
One can easily take down the abrahamic systems by reading the torah. Take for example the book of Exodus. Abrahamic faiths claim that there is only one god. But in the book of Exodus, it is written that other deities exist. The Egyptian gods are mentioned, and god claims it will punish those gods. This alone negates the entire single god claim. It only takes one scripture to prove that the rest of these texts are false.
Christianity is completely destroyed by jesus' own words written in Matthew 24. In it, he tells his contemporaries that the end times will take place before the generation of his disciples have passed. It is not the only time where this comes up in the gospel, either. Christians enjoy using the misinterpretation defense. "Oh, you just misinterpreted it." Well, no. You see, the bible also states that "no prophecy of the scripture is of private interpretation." The claim the bible makes is that all scripture is the direct word of god written through the hands of the authors of the bible. None of it is an interpretation. By default, interpreting the scripture is wrong.
You think that your religion is the truth and the way. Those of us on the outside know that it isn't. We know your faith better than you. We've studied it. We know the mormon cult was founded by a con artist and a pedophile with many wives. Some of which were as young as 14. It is possibly and very likely that some were younger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Joseph Smith is a proven liar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
Take note of this. You and your religion are not worthy of respect. Want respect? Research your own religion without bias. Lingering doubt doesn't mean anything until you research.
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BlueRoux > Doug Foxford  • 3 months ago 




We don't' have soft skin at all, we are simply outraged that you would be so delusional as to REFUSE to understand why we don't want you pushing your superstitious fairytales on us and our children. Your willful and deliberate ignorance is an ugly thing and we don't want it or you in our lives.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Joe Smith ConMan > Doug Foxford  • 4 months ago 




If your parents were muslim, then you'd be posting as a muslim right now. Don't think for a minute anyone believes your claim that you weren't groomed into joining the mormon cult.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam Chapman > Doug Foxford  • 4 months ago 




I wonder if you "chose this" nonsense because your playmates stronger religious leanings made you feel less than normal, since: "my parents were Mormon when I was born, I would not say I was raised Mormon." You'd done better to emulate your parents, not your playmates.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Doug Foxford > Sam Chapman  • a month ago 




Dude, I'm 26 years old, I choose to live like this. I'm not Mormon because my friends are. Over half my friends are not Mormon. I'm a grown man and have found a way of life that I like and that I know is true. I could (and can still) wake up in the morning and say "You know what, it was a fun ride, but now I'm done". But that is not what I want to do. I want this for me.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BlueRoux > Doug Foxford  • 3 months ago 




It would be just fine if you were to just keep your delusions to yourself. And not try to push them on others. Which is precisely what you do when you go on your "missions". I find it ironic that you get all up in arms that we find offense in your pandering your batshyte superstitions at us and our children and when you try to legislate your nutjob "morality" issues on everyone else. It matters us because we have a right to not have your idiotic superstitions forced on us and our children.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Doug Foxford > BlueRoux  • 3 months ago 




Dude, if you don't want to hear it, thats fine. There were plenty of people that said they were not interested and were polite about it. It was cool, I left and went to go find people that did want to talk about it. If I put my foot in the way of the door when you are trying to close it, then call me a douche and be rude. But why be hostel from the get go? If you know its us at the door and you don't want to talk, then don't open the door!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
babby660 > Doug Foxford  • a month ago 




to be frank, I find both mormons & jehovah's whitnesses to the nuisances when they come to the door with their spiels. they are not easily turned away & always want to leave some kind of tract behind. I have enough garbage to manage, thank you.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Doug Foxford > babby660  • a month ago 




You know what, I know what you mean with people coming to your house and bothering you. I've gotten my own people, JW's, pest control guys, security guys, Realtors, ect. But here is the thing, if you're not interested. Just politely decline their invitation and go on your way.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Brynecho > Doug Foxford  • 3 months ago 




Mormonism is so lame - to believe that Joseph Smith, a convicted con artist was able to talk to god or some alien and get tablets of gold, that conveniently disappeared, to enable him to write the Book of Mormon by talking into a hat. To believe that black people are inferior - oh, right, that has been repealed just of late - because the Mormon church was going to be sued!! Women are second class citizens good for nothing but pumping out babies year after year until their wombs explode. What a crock!
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Doug Foxford > Brynecho  • a month ago 




Yupp you're right. A religion that does teach that would be a crock. Good thing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints doesn't teach any of that rubbish.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Bryncho > Jennifer Giles  • 3 months ago 




I understand your thinking re not respecting the religion. However, when we were in Egypt and entered a mosque on our tour we were required to remove our shoes. Women were not obliged to cover their heads but I did and was able to speak to people in the mosque while other women in our group were glared at and/or ignored. It's the "when in Rome" adage. But, it was your choice and your protest against what Mormonism stands for. (I think it is pretty lame myself.)
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Jennifer Giles > Bryncho  • 3 months ago 




So respecting religion is the right thing to do, but calling me lame is ALSO the right thing to do? Actually, I didn't don bare shoulders as an outward sign of disrespect, I wore a dress that I thought was cute and didn't cover it up with a sweater because I thought it looked better without one. I'm in the "golden years" of my youth and if there was there was any protest to be had, it was against looking like a frumpy old mother--I still wanted to look youthful and vibrant. The more you know ;)
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Jennifer Giles > Jennifer Giles  • 3 months ago 




Or perhaps you were saying that you find Mormonism lame. Regardless, it's kind of like "Christ" said, "They strain a gnat and swallow the camel." The minutia of religion can reach every crevice of a person's life, yet when it comes to the larger questions of freedom, tolerance, humanity or compassion, one (following the code of religion) is told that others know best and conformity is a must or else. It so often misses the point of trying to "save" mankind by burdening it down with unrealistic and fatalistic rules.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Adrian  • 4 months ago 




Seth, it didn't occur to me until 2 or 3 years ago that I was allowed to publicly say anything bad about religion. I grew up a lifelong atheist of 26 years in the NW US. Almost everybody I knew was religious, although most were casual and not crazy about it. It really didn't come up often. I knew very little about religion, and left it alone. I honestly thought it was a simple belief of heaven, hell, god, reincarnation, or other broad concepts that centered around being a good person.
Three catalysts led me to start ridiculing religion.
--
1. My sister invited me to an Easter celebration at this huge as hell church in 2009 or 2010. I all but didn't participate. I stood when I was asked to stand, I whispered things to my mom who was next to me and is essentially an ex-catholic spiritual theist or a deist, I did not say bless you or god be with you when everybody else did. The songs about blood and suffering, and the constantly being told that I owe this Jesus character something really, really bothered me. Anyways, when it was over, my sister (who is 17 yrs older than me) told me and my mom, "I can't believe how disrespectful you were being." I was just thinking, "what, was I supposed to fake it?"
--
2. I told a girl I was attempting to date (who happened to be very Christian and raised homeschooled) about that Easter and how uncomfortable it made me. She lashed out and said, "You atheists are always saying whatever you want to say, so you know what? I'll just say it right now. If you don't accept Jesus as your lord and savior you will go to hell! And that's that." Note that I was very polite in how I spoke about everything, so I was hugely surprised by her response. What more surprised me was the content. Up until then, I truly believed that Christianity held the belief that good people went to heaven and bad people went to hell. I had no idea that belief itself was part of the admittance pass. It was at this point that I determined that there was no way I could be in a relationship with a Christian, not if she believed I would be going to hell.
--
3. As a year or so passes, I spend some time learning about Christianity, and it just sickens me. It is nowhere near the peaceful good-people centric philosophy that I thought it was all my life. Finally one day I hear this quote...and I don't know the source or the exact words unfortunately, but it goes like this. "No idea should be protected from ridicule, because if we can't challenge our ideas, we can't continue to learn." Or SOMETHING like that, honestly it was years ago and I can't remember it perfectly. But essentially it clicked with me. I was like yes, YES, YES! We cannot protect a whole class of thoughts just because people tend to flip out when you speak to the contrary. And that ridiculous expectation to be able to believe something ridiculous without being called on it, THAT's what is helping to perpetuate religion. They want to live in their protective bubble where they are never challenged, so that they can continue to believe something that is not true.
--
Look, I love people. I just hate religion. It's actually my love for humanity that makes me hate religion. If I didn't care about others, then yeah, whatever, be religious, waste your life believing in a fairy tale and preparing for your death instead of living. But no, I do care. I want people to live freely and happily without the shackles of religion. I see religion as enslavement of the mind, and the biggest scam known to man. I see it as an abusive relationship that can't continue to go uncontested.
IMO, the true monster of religion is childhood indoctrination. I grew up in an abusive household (minor physical abuse and emotional neglect), and I can honestly say I am fortunate that I didn't go through indoctrination. Indoctrination is a gross manipulation and abuse of impressionable minds.
--
Anyways, to wrap up. I see it like this. If a religious person is free to claim that god exists, Jesus said this/that, and Jesus does this/that. Well then I am pretty sure I'm free to claim that god doesn't exist, who cares what Jesus said? he was just some dude (assuming he existed), he also said a lot of horrible things, and he is dead.
--
All religions are cults, just the bigger ones tend to think they have more validity than the smaller.
--
P.S. congratulations for escaping Seth, I am truly happy for you. Keep up your amazing work because you are reaching far more than I ever will.
 
18 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
davidh > Adrian  • 4 months ago 




Right on. I often think that people who adhere to these crazy religious beliefs do so as the "price of admission" to be accepted into a particular group of people. There are people in my family, intelligent people, who became evolution deniers. My theory as to how this could happen is that because we're social creatures and acceptance is very important to us, sometimes the subconscious calculation is made that being accepted into this particular group provides so much emotional comfort, that I am willing to cast aside all intellectual honesty. And then, once they're committed to these beliefs, the confirmation bias kicks in and they are now receptive to "creation science" claims. Lastly, I think the "Endowment Effect" plays a huge role in explaining why otherwise intelligent, reasonable people will deny scientific facts that contradict their religious beliefs. The Endowment Effect has to do with assigning more value to things that you own than things that you don't own. Basically, beliefs are like property: you don't want to lose them. And threats to your beliefs, like property, are met with resistance.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
David M. Armstrong  • 4 months ago 




I just had to deal with this on my page as a result of poking fun at the girl who wouldn't run under the 'mark of the beast'. Many of my friends chimed in with their own ridicule. But a few spoke up in her defense, claiming she deserved a measure of respect for 'having convictions', to which I replied:
"If I announce to the world that I have given my life over to my coffee table and choose to believe that it guides me and is the center of the universe, I do not 'have convictions', I am CRAZY. We have allowed varying degrees of crazy to persist with our species. Religion and its myriad of crazy has maintained legitimacy under the guise of 'tolerance' and a wish to 'coexist'. And yet we have prisons and mental health facilities that are full of people with far less elaborate delusions. I and my ilk (many of whom are contributing on this thread) are tired of giving a pass to this particular kind of crazy. There is precisely zero reason to accept the claims of any of the major religions whose dogmas subscribe to anything supernatural. Supernatural, by definition, means that it lies outside the realm of natural laws, physics, et al. And the convenient argument that goes "You can't prove my god doesn't exist because she transcends the world of man and his trivial laws of physics" works just as well for my assertion that the author of all things is actually an invisible unicorn named Stan."
 
25 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Larry > David M. Armstrong  • 4 months ago 




It is a shame that you are unable to respect the opinions of others, and yet you want respect for yours?
You are the one claiming religions are supernatural, not the religions. No one can prove, or disprove, the existence of any kind of higher power, be it Jehovah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I do not believe any such thing exists, but it is still an unprovable belief. So, what you are saying then, is that it is perfectly alright for people to ridicule atheists as well, to disrespect us as you disrespected her and her beliefs. I feel sorry for you.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
David M. Armstrong > Larry  • 4 months ago 




"You are the one claiming religions are supernatural, not religions."
Uuhhhh, what?? Seriously? So I'M the one that started the virgin birth rumor? It was MY assertion the Mohamed ascended into heaven on a flying horse?
The false equivalence you assert by saying that two things are equally valid by virtue of their mutual non-disprovability is an intellectually lazy argument.
And, fwiw, I never asked for respect, tolerance, or understanding. And I have no problem with ridicule. If someone wants to make fun of me because of my wild notion that gravity is real or that evolution happened, have at it. If I openly confess my unwavering devotion to Stan, the invisible unicorn that created all existence, and you DON'T ridicule me, then it is I who feel sorry for you.
 
15 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Sam Chapman > David M. Armstrong  • 4 months ago 




David, I believe in Stan. You're not alone.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
babby660 > David M. Armstrong  • a month ago 




Stan bless you, my son :=)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KOSTAS LOUKAS > Larry  • 4 months ago 




I think they mean ridiculing the beliefs of religious people and not the persons as individuals. So you can ridicule the beliefs of atheists but that would be redundant because atheism is the lack of belief in a deity.
 
12 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Larry > KOSTAS LOUKAS  • 4 months ago 




No, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, but it is still a belief.
Either way, my point is in attacking the belief, you are attacking all those who follow that belief. If you do not like it when people attack atheism, why does attacking their beliefs make you any better?
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
jim > Larry  • 4 months ago 




Yeah, atheism is a belief,
 in the way bald is a hair color.
 
18 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KOSTAS LOUKAS > Larry  • 4 months ago 




Sorry, that's a common misunderstanding. Atheists do not believe a deity does or does not exist. I'll give you the gumball example that Matt Dillahunty uses: We have a jur full of gumballs. The number of gumballs is either even or odd. I do not believe the number of gumballs in the jar is even nor do I believe the number is odd. I cannot assert one or the other without having the full info. Belief is saying that u believe the number is even or believing it is odd. Any way u put it atheism is not a belief but rather just an observation of reality.
 
7 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Karen Jones > KOSTAS LOUKAS  • 4 months ago 




No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that no deity exists or the lack of belief that any deity exists. But if you are not expressing a belief either way (because you don't believe you have enough information or that the answer cannot be known), that's being agnostic. Which is fine, but it's just not atheism.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Andrew > Karen Jones  • 4 months ago 




Karen, if you take a look at the definition of atheism you provided, you'll see an "or" in it. This means that there are two possible meanings of the word. You are assuming the first is the only one that applies but actually, in my case at least it's the second. As for agnosticism: this deals with knowledge rather than belief and the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. I'm an agnostic atheist, for example, meaning I don't know whether a god or gods exist and therefore I don't believe in one or more gods.
 
7 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Karen Jones > Andrew  • 4 months ago 




I was responding to Kostas Loukas' assertion that, "...that's a common misunderstanding. Atheists do not believe a deity does or does not exist." Which is phrased somewhat awkwardly, but, taken with the gumball analogy, seems to be expressing that ALL atheists actually have no belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity either way. That's not right. Or, at least, it's not a statement that is true for ALL atheists. No atheist believes in god. If they're also agnostic, like you, they have no belief in the subject of god's existence at all. It's unknowable. If they're NOT agnostic, like me, they believe that there actually is no god. I'm contrasting an agnostic atheist view vs. a non-agnostic atheist view. What Kostas Loukas was presenting as a universal atheist belief is, in fact, an agnostic atheist belief. And, since not all atheists are agnostic, stating it that way made it false.
I may have stated it poorly myself when I said agnostic rather than agnostic atheist. Hopefully this is clearer.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Adrian > Karen Jones  • 4 months ago 




Hi Karen, you are correct that the blanket statement that Kostas Loukas said is not accurate in all cases. However the whole labeling system is slightly subjective, and hard for many people to get.
On the atheism side of the belief coin you have:
-Gnostic atheism, "I don't just not believe there is a god, I know there is no god."
-Agnostic atheism, "I don't know whether or not there is a god, but I don't believe there is one."
--
However since knowledge and belief are kind of intertwined and knowledge is actually kind of subjective it becomes a bit unclear. The whole "knowledge is a subset of belief" comes into play.
--
For instance, I consider myself a gnostic atheist, but I completely acknowledge that I cannot disprove a god. But I know there is no god, just like I know there are no invisible pink unicorns.
--
To me, knowledge is not "universal certainty/fact", it is just "personal certainty/fact". And personally I'm pretty damn certain on this matter.
--
Either way, the simple atheist test is this: How do you respond to "do you believe there is at least one god?" If the answer is yes, you are not an atheist. Agnosticism/Gnosticism are separate (and not mutually exclusive with atheism/theism, as we all know), and really aren't all that useful of descriptions IMO.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Andrew > Karen Jones  • 4 months ago 




I agree with the your statement about atheism covering 2 types: the positive assertion (aka belief) that no deity exists vs the more passive stance that remains unconvinced but is ready to be persuaded by evidence. It seems you fall into the former category while I'm in the latter, and we're both atheists.
I don't agree with your understanding of agnosticism though. Despite the common perception, an agnostic isn't someone who is not sure what to believe or not. Gnosticism is about knowledge not belief, so it's a separate subject from atheism. People can be agnostic theist, gnostic theist, agnostic atheist or gnostic atheist. It's all about knowledge, which may or may not correspond to belief. You might think that belief flows from knowledge and that the two things are inextricably entwined, but that's not the case:
A newborn baby is agnostic atheist: she knows nothing about deities and does not believe in any deity.
After indoctrination, a young child may become a agnostic theist: she doesn't have any knowledge of a deity yet believes in whatever deity is in fashion in her local area.
Later, after thinking things through for herself, she may become an agnostic atheist or, like you, she may have actual knowledge about the existence or nonexistence of a deity, and become a gnostic atheist. That's my understanding at least. Matt Dillahunty explains it better so I suggest you check out his material, especially the gumball example.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Lee > Andrew  • 4 months ago 




i agree atheism is a belief, or maybe more accurately, a world view. It is generally steeped in Naturalism where everything is attempted to be explained by natural causes, and it specifically rules out things that are supernatural. That presupposition (ie - no supernatural causes) is a belief. One may say it is an observation (not belief), but that observation is based on a naturalist perspective on what constitutes an observation. Most naturalists would reject out of hand things that a religious person might hold up as an observation because it is not verifiable through natural means. It is relegated to fantasy, lying, subjective interpretation, and the like. So, having an atheistic or naturalist world view is not much different than having a religious one; in fact in many ways it is more "religious" in that those that hold this view tend to be more zealous and dogmatic about their body of tenets being the only rational way to view the world.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
The Expulsion Of Gods > Lee  • 4 months ago 




-I agree atheism is a belief, or maybe more accurately, a world view.-
I disagree.
Anyone ascribing towards any particular belief, or world view, will not question said doctrine at any time, because to do so is to question their authority. So, how does not adhering to any doctrine equate to a system of beliefs?
And as many have said:
"Not collecting stamps is not a hobby."
-It is generally steeped in Naturalism where everything is attempted to be explained by natural causes, and it specifically rules out things that are supernatural.-
So, you no nothing of history? The only reason that you follow your particular doctrine is because of your parents and the catholic church which at, once upon a time, was the owner of the European continent. This is why it is the dominant religion in the north, central, and south America's.
If I'd make the claim that one of your own inchurch was the ant-christ, would you believe it, or more accurately, would you seek proof?
-That presupposition (i.e. - no supernatural causes) is a belief.-
Can you provide clear evidence that anything within the supernatural idea indeed exists? If you do, we're all up for looking at it.
-one may say it is an observation (not belief), but that observation is based on a naturalist perspective on what constitutes an observation.-
Oh, so you don't trust your own senses? Wow!
So when viewing a tree, can you see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, and hear the wind blowing it leaves and branches? That's what naturalism is.
Can you do that with any god? Or more accurately, any idea of man?
A tree is independent of the observer, and is a living thing. So too is the Earth beneath your feet, but is not alive...but can you show a living idea of men?
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BlueRoux > Lee  • 3 months ago 




"i agree atheism is a belief, or maybe more accurately, a world view.
INCORRECT.
"It is generally steeped in Naturalism where everything is attempted to
be explained by natural causes, and it specifically rules out things
that are supernatural."
To make such an assertion, you would first have to establish by overwhelming evidence that there was actually such a thing as "the supernatural". Hint: You can't.
"That presupposition (ie - no supernatural causes) is a belief."
It is neither a presupposition nor a belief. And all of the nonsense that you follow with is just as ridiculous as your presupposition/belief claim.
"So, having an atheistic or naturalist world view is not much different than having a religious one"
I love it when a theotard tries to compare atheism with religious belief; it lets me know that they know their superstitions are a Bad Thing.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
babby660 > Andrew  • a month ago 




I don't think you can rightly say that a newborn believes or disbelieves anything, as (s)he is only concerned with the next meal & comfort.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
The Expulsion Of Gods > babby660  • a month ago 




Which is the exact definition of an atheist...because the concept of any deity is learned, and is not engraved in one's own head from day one.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
babby660 > Karen Jones  • a month ago 




your definition of agnosticism is spot on, but the only thing an atheist believe is that there is no proof of god's existence.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BlueRoux > Karen Jones  • 3 months ago 




Incorrect, Karen. A-Theism means "without a deity", nothing more.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Nahaison Krips > Larry  • 4 months ago 




"No, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, but it is still a belief."
so, abstinence is a sex position now?
will you be able to understand the difference between the following two sentences?:
1) atheism is the belief that there is no deity. (you)
2) atheism is the rejection of the claim that deities exist. in other words, atheist DON'T BELIEVE the claims that any deity does exist. (actual position/definition of atheism)
let me put it this way just in case:
1) believes in a negative claim. (<= your definition)
2) DOESN'T believe in a positive claim. (<= atheism)
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BlueRoux > Larry  • 3 months ago 




"No, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, but it is still a belief."
INCORRECT.
"Either way, my point is in attacking the belief, you are attacking all those who follow that belief."
NOT NECESSARILY, but I don't have a problem with that, either.
"If you do not like it when people attack atheism, why does attacking their beliefs make you any better?"
I *LOVE* it when superstition-believers try to attack atheism. It provides a "teaching moment" which they can only either lose, or have their eyes forced open. Attacking their beliefs makes us better because once they realize the lunacy of their preposterous beliefs, they might let go of them. It's good for them and good for the species as a whole.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
babby660 > Larry  • a month ago 




why do you insist on your definition of atheism, rather than an atheist's definition? don't you think the atheist can more accurately define where (s)he stands with respect to god?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
David M. Armstrong > Larry  • 4 months ago 




Furthermore, I'll take disrespect and ridicule (my worst offense toward believers) over threats of eternal damnation (the believers perpetual offense to the rest of us) ANY DAY.
 
11 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BlueRoux > Larry  • 3 months ago 




Opinions don't deserve respect by virtue of being opinions. Nor do people deserve respect by virtue of being people, or having an opinion, especially one that involves belief in superstitions and fairy tales. And we don't have to DISprove any beliefs in fairy tales. And non-belief is NOT a belief in itself. Others can ridicule atheists as much as they like, all they are doing is showing what fools they really are.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
babby660 > BlueRoux  • a month ago 




Well if you're debating the afterlife with your 95-year-old parent on his/her deathbed, I'd say the kind & wise thing to do would be to allow them to hold any belief they want. Don't call them fools, just tell them you love them. At that point in life it matters little what they think about eternity.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
babby660 > Larry  • a month ago 




no, the religions claim that their god is supernatural. and whether or not you discuss the merits of religion vs. atheism, I would say, depends on the situation. if you're having a discussion with a friend or family member you can say whatever you want. If you're defending your beliefs & actions against an aggressive believer you must be prepared to stand up for yourself, because the religious are not shy about imposing their ideas on you.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Edward Lee  • 4 months ago 




The Christian religion as a whole does not respect or tolerate dissenting opinions. It can't. It's founder, at least portrayed in the gospels, was not an ecumenical person. Jesus did not respect differing views and opinions, nor did his followers. Jesus often taught a 'my way or the highway' message. If one did not believe it, he or she were cast into hell. Jesus did not just accept anyone, but only those who trusted him and followed him. The scriptures in the gospels that demonstrate Jesus' intolerance towards varying views on the matter are too numerous to name, but consider one of his most famous quotes. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to father but through me" Or consider the infamous John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE and ONLY son. Whoever believes in HIM will be saved. Whoever does not will be CONDEMNED." The reason we cannot tolerate the religious view or show it any respect, is that, by its nature, it does not tolerate ours. It does not respect or even listen to dissenting views. The 'all or nothing' proposition of religion natural garners a mirrored reaction. In the end, you're either with them or against them (again, a loose quote of Jesus').
 
10 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ralph Horque  • 4 months ago 




The thing to show respect for is people's freedom to believe whatever they want. The religion itself needs no respect, as anything that has the dogma that thou shalt respect it, already doesn't deserve it.
 
9 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Guest > Ralph Horque  • 4 months ago 




Well said, Nicole!
When I talk with my Christian friends and family about touchy topics, I'm always careful to avoid phrases like, "this is a no brainer" or "it's just common sense" because that communicates that I think they aren't intelligent or that I'm smarter because I 'figured it out'. And none of that is true or how I feel at all. I haven't figured out anything! I've just eliminated one of many possibilities. And so have they! I mean, Christians don't believe in Zeus, Astarte, Shiva or any other god you could name. They just haven't eliminated Christ. I have.
Do I WANT to blast their precious jezuz? Sure! Sometimes it's all I can do to hold my tongue. And while I agree that poking fun at Jesus is therapeutic, there are right places and wrong places to do that kind of therapy. I think you're doing yours right here on this blog is the right place. Like changing the channel on the TV, readers can click away from any page they find distasteful.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Karen Jones  • 4 months ago 




Some Christians like the phrase, "Hate the sin, not the sinner." Well, how about, "Respect the religious, not the religion." ?
 
8 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
BlueRoux > Karen Jones  • 3 months ago 




How about No.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
DJ Crowe > Karen Jones  • 4 months ago 




Awesome, Karen!!!!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
mandas  • 4 months ago 




Should we respect religion?
No.
Next?
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Una Morgan Shippey  • 4 months ago 




I get jesus pamphlets on my door every few months or so, and this year there was one in my son's trick or treat bag! :( If they insist in being invasive with their ideas, why should I feel bad for doing the same? I really think there should be an atheist group that goes door to door, offering intelligent discussion on the matter.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
kmzxkjau > Una Morgan Shippey  • 4 months ago 




So, get a few people together, start meeting once a week and planning how to do it, make up some "literature" about your non-belief and start knocking! You could even adopt some catchy name like "Dawkin's Witnesses"! (after all, he is pretty much the atheist pope)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
BlueRoux > kmzxkjau  • 3 months ago 




"Atheist pope"? Really? I love it when religious morons compare atheism to religion. It lets me know that they know religion's a bad thing.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Diana Morse  • 4 months ago 




As an anthropology scholar, I have to look at religion with a critical eye. Finding what religion does to/for a certain community, tribe, nation, etc. can uncover a lot about a particular culture. So in that sense, I study religion as a vessel for culture in a respectful way. I am also prone to laughing to myself and my close friends when not studying. I think my skepticism also helps my ability to sit back and compare things critically, too. So yes, I do still poke fun at religion, but I do it in a way that won't get me in trouble in the field.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jay  • 4 months ago 




I totally agree. Our religious loved ones should be respected, but NOT their silly religion. It has earned NO respect and deserves to be ridiculed and exposed for the damaging lie it is.
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Heather Gammon  • 4 months ago 




I hate this "Why not pick on Islam for a change" Mentality. I would if I knew anything about Islam, but I don't so I pick on what I know. I don't think it's fear that keeps us from poking fun, it's because we don't know enough about it and it's not the current religion trying to become law in North America. I think this whole world needs to learn to lighten up. Everyone is offended by everything these days. As for people leaving the page over the Lag Meme....really? I think anything that claims the right to marginalize a group of their fellow human beings for just being who they are deserves to be ridiculed. And as far as I'm concerned religion is just an excuse to be a bigot.
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Larry > Heather Gammon  • 4 months ago 




Then I think you need to learn more about the religions you so freely attack. It is people who are bigots. Oh, don't get me wrong, there are plenty of issues I have with various religious doctrines, but if you actually read the texts of many of them, they have been seized, and warped, by people wanting more power. Take a good look as Islam, and the fact that Mohammed stated Christians and Jews were brothers, and was the first western leader to promote both education and land ownership rights for women. Not very in keeping with some of the groups that claim to be "true followers" of his.
And yes, many use religion as an excuse to be a bigot. Just as others use ethnic background or skin color. Does that make it right to turn around and condemn all those who follow a religion as bigots because some are?
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Heather Gammon > Larry  • 4 months ago 




When they are trying to affect laws and policy with their bigoted views....Yes. Why can't they turn the other cheek for a change...I thought that was the Christian way. And as for the people and not the religions being bigoted? Well first there is the whole homosexuality issue that is in the doctrine. Oh and how women are to be subservient to their men...that's in most holy books...so what religion is not bigoted? Honestly, if you want the right to hate a group of people you just have to find a religion that also hates them and you'll have the excuse to do it in public and people will come to your aid screaming how intolerant other people are when they ridicule you for your intolerance.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Larry > Heather Gammon  • 4 months ago 




First off, again, that is individuals, not all who follow that faith. And no, Christianity does not have anything against homosexuality. Well, there is the Old Testament, but few follow that, and those who pick and choose parts to follow do not represent Christianity.
And no, it is not in most holy books, not that I have seen. Please, provide your references for that.
I would point out, as a counter, the tolerance being promoted by the current Pope. I could wish for more, but it is a significant change. I would also point to a group of Christian ministers, over 50 I believe, who defied their superiors to officiate over homosexual marriages.
Again, my point is so not to ignore them, but focus on the individuals, rather than becoming the same kinds of unthinking bigots they are.
And people find many reasons to hate groups, and do not need to turn only to religions to find a way to justify it. And their warping what a religion says, does not mean that religion, nor all of its followers, feel that way.
How does acting like they do make anything better? How is that being a "Thinking Atheist"?
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Heather Gammon > Larry  • 4 months ago 




you're version of Christianity is obviously not the same as others....there is the problem. Have you read the Bible at all? You're going to tell me the Bible treats Women as equals? PLEASE. But we will never see eye to eye on this, I don't see why I should give anyone my respect if they don't give me theirs. And The Current Pope has been quoted as saying Women have no place in Office.
Oh here are some awesome bible verses about Women. And you cannot say the Old testament does not count, it's still a christian Holy book.
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
 authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians
 5:22-24)
I think I made my point, But your logic says I should not ridicule this doctrine. I think you misunderstand if a religious person is nice and doesn't force their crap down my throat then I am just as nice to them. But I still don't see the issue with calling this stupid religion, stupid, because it is.
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Larry > Heather Gammon  • 4 months ago 




Actually, I have read the Bible. I was raised a Catholic. And there are a great many versions of every religion - Christianity, Islam, Hindu, you name it.
And yes, I can say the Old Testament does not count, as many Christian faiths already say that. But, again, I didn't say that. I said few follow it, and that I discount the PEOPLE who only pick and choose the parts of it they want to follow. Do not put words in my mouth I did not say. It doesn't help your arguments.
That said, when did I said Christianity loves women or treats them with equality? I didn't. So please do not put words in my mouth. I commented on the Pope's statements about gays, and also said there is a long way to go there too.
I am not going to defend any faith, and really do not know why you feel I should.
You can call it what you want.
My point is simple, if you do that, then don't be surprised when people calling being an atheist stupid. What good is done by you doing so?
Can you call policies like not letting women be priests wrong? Sure. And there are Christian faiths that have changed that. Are you more likely to have a positive impact on change if you show reason, compassion, and respect? Yes.
If you don't want to, then don't.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Joe Smith ConMan > Larry  • 4 months ago 




How can you say the old testament doesn't count? If you'd read the bible as you claim, then you'd know that jesus stated that he wasn't here to abolish the old law. You would also know that the christian faith is dependent on the alleged fulfillment of old testament prophecies that resulted in jesus' existence, although jesus didn't match any of them.
The reason why you won't defend your faith is because you can't.
As for your other remarks throughout this thread, you have a LOT to learn. The torah resulted in three major religions. Judaism, christianity, and islam. By dismantling the torah, one effectively takes down all three religions. Something tells me you haven't actually read any of it. Liar liar, larry.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BlueRoux > Larry  • 3 months ago 




"My point is simple, if you do that, then don't be surprised when people calling being an atheist stupid."
They will do that no matter what we do. So what? we know better. Are you an x-tard shill?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Rudolph > Larry  • 4 months ago 




God hates women and fags.
Every religion is the same.
When women or gays needs a God, they simply modify one to suit their needs.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BlueRoux > Larry  • 3 months ago 




"And no, Christianity does not have anything against homosexuality"
Guess how I know you are lying.
" I would also point to a group of Christian ministers, over 50 I
believe, who defied their superiors to officiate over homosexual
marriages."
DEFIED THEIR SUPERIORS. What part of that are you refusing to get?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Rudolph > Larry  • 4 months ago 




You should be ashamed proselytizing for Islam. It's the worst thing ever for human rights.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Larry > Rudolph  • 4 months ago 




When did I do that? Please take time to actually read what was written. And do some research. The most populous Islamic nation had a woman as their president. It is, perhaps, one of the worst used to justify human rights violations. But again, that is my point, how any religion is used does not necessarily reflect that religion properly, nor all of its followers.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Rudolph > Larry  • 4 months ago 




Anyone who has read the Quran and Hadiths knows that pious Muslims are terrorists.
All Muslims are not terrorists of course, but that is not because of their faith.
Like many of today's Christians, many Muslims are simply culturally Muslim. They know little of the tenants of their faith.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Adrian > Rudolph  • 4 months ago 




I've said this before, "A good Christian is probably a terrible person, but a bad Christian has the potential to be a great person." Because if you strictly adhere to religious texts(and very few people do in Christianity), you are more than likely not somebody I would want to be around.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
BlueRoux > Larry  • 3 months ago 




Yes, because the Muslims treat women so well. Just ask Malala Yousafzai. Just ask Aisha:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i...

 
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rudolph > Heather Gammon  • 4 months ago 




You know nothing of Islam.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Heather Gammon > Rudolph  • 4 months ago 




Yeah I just said, I know nothing of Islam....Aside form the fact that they are all insane and need to lighten up. And I'd love to say to them all, if you hate Western culture so much...Then go away.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
30hertz > Heather Gammon  • 4 months ago 




"I know nothing of Islam....Aside form (sic) the fact that they are all insane and need to lighten up"
I went to school with a girl called Heather. She was extremely overweight and wasn't at all attractive. So yeah, I know very little about girls called Heather, aside from the fact that they are all fat and ugly.
What's that? A sweeping generalisation, you say?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Babby660 > 30hertz  • a month ago 




are you the rent-a-car hertz or the unit of frequency?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rudolph > Heather Gammon  • 4 months ago 




There is no such thing as radical Islam, there is only Islam.
Google it and get the message right from the horse's mouth.
Good luck with your quest.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Criss Cringle  • 4 months ago 




Everything is subject to humor and jest. Religion does not get a special pass and that goes double for the incredibly butthurt muslims.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Steve B.  • 4 months ago 




Respect is not bestowed, it is EARNED!. Or, as provided by example, it is learned. And the churches (all of them) have done
nothing to earn it, and everything to discard it. When ridicule is called for, then the only respect you need consider is your personal feelings towards the person whom you are speaking...(and perhaps the likeliness of personal violence or injury)
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Kemar Wilks  • 4 months ago 




I think your article is very appropriate as not all forms of ridicule of religion, religious folks and practises are fair. Alot of cultures are rooted in the religions and while it still sometimes does damage to the society without them knowing, it will only take time and people like you to assist in the overall change and enlightenment of the current society. I for one welcome all sorts of ridicule as for me, i had a similar experience where i was chained and blinded by the bounds of one of the christian deities. After overcoming the boundaries and understanding the need for free thinking I had no choice but to laugh at how ridiculous I was and how ridiculous they look now.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dick  • 3 months ago 




Asking an atheist to respect religion is like asking a black person to respect the Ku Klux Klan.
We have the right and the duty as atheists to mock religion and deconvert believers. We have the duty to erase all religious belief from the Earth.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Simon C. Larter  • 4 months ago 




As a blanket statement, no, I wouldn't say that religion deserves respect. Some parts of some religions are worth respecting--soup kitchens at inner-city churches, for example--but that's more a case of respecting something that religious people do because of their religion, not necessarily respect for the religion itself. Hell, I've got mad respect for Tibetan Buddhist monks who can walk into the snow soaking wet, sit down, and meditate their way to an increased body temperature and a dry shirt. I respect pastors who dedicate their lives to visiting the sick and downtrodden. But, at least with the major monotheistic religions, there's so much intolerance built into the worldview that whatever good is done in the name of religion ends up being overshadowed by the oppression and repression that occurs in [insert deity of choice here]'s name.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nyarthalotep  • 4 months ago 




When I declared myself an atheist I was attacked by a cousin of mine. He went on to tell me that I have no rights since I don't believe in God and that atheism is a cult. He continued to attack me by furthering his argument that while I have the freedom of religion I didn't have freedom from religion. I do have freedom from religion. There is nothing I can do about yours but I don't have to follow one to have rights in this nation. During that discourse, the first person to come to my defense was a Christian. A very devout Christian, which surprised me more than anything. She told him that it is my choice to choose what to believe and not believe in. I respect her and her beliefs for that. Sadly I have only known a handful of people like that in my life. Who respected my choice in beliefs that did not go along with their own. They only get my respect if they treat me with respect back and not try and convert me or try to save my soul. I return the favor and not degrade their religion or their beliefs. But sadly those people are few and hard to find. As for my cousin, I no longer am speaking to him. His attack nearly ruined my relationship with other members of my family who also go involved in that "discussion" and one of my friends. Luckily the rest of my family has accepted my atheism and treat me no differently than they did before.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Cora  • 4 months ago 




Nonsense doesn't deserve respect
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Don  • 4 months ago 




To borrow a christian mantra:
Hate the ignorance,
Love the ignorant.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
BlueRoux > Don  • 3 months ago 




Hate the willful ignorance, screw the willfully ignorant.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mike MacK  • 4 months ago 




I think religion has earned the same amount of respect any idea has earned simply by means of being proposed: enough to be accurately presented without deliberate misrepresentation. So long as I can do that, I don't have a problem with mockery.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Usesthe Worddisrespect alot  • 4 months ago 




What we often most dislike about religious people is their "one truth"-attitude; the idea that everybody who doesn't believe just as they do must be wrong. I don't want to imitate this. I think religion has its reason. This reason might not be scientific prove (or theory, prove is kinda rare), but a need to believe in certain things to deal with life. To some this makes more sense, to
others less. But disrespecting it is in the end the same as religious disrespect for different believes. (Even though I don't mind humoring religious ideas/customs ect., B/C humor also has an effect of making subjects easier to deal with.) I think the only thing we should disrespect is disrespect. B/C there will also be someone who disagrees with one view and the only way to avoid conflict is to show some respect to their view, but not to attitudes of disrespect.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mandy  • 4 months ago  




I for one am very offended by your tasteless posts. Kenny Loggins is an amazing musician.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

 

 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joh  • 4 months ago  




I do not think religion deserves respect. None! Religions are ideologies, they are ideas! Not much different from political ideologies. Some religions even want to be a mix of faith and politics. If we do not question ideas and ideologies, how are we supposed to eliminate bad ideas and improve our way of life?
Nobody complains when Republicans or whatever are ridiculed. Nobody says "you hurt my political feelings". And if they did they would be subject to further ridicule ;)
Furthermore I'd like to ask people who say "you hurt my religious feelings" to examine what feelings those exactly are! What kind of feelings were "offended"? And why do you have them?
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mike  • 4 months ago  




Again it is a respect thing. Maybe some things are a bit over the top, but then again, get yourself a sense of humor and deal with it! We all try our best to be respectful in every day life, it's when the religious get all up in your face about their faith and how you are going to hell when I start losing that respect. Then I wish there were even more offensive things around to shove in their faces. Why respect anybody who so obviously does not respect you for who you are either?
Why is it okay for a religious person to spread his word and be protected for his beliefs, but when a non-religious person has to clarify why he/she does not believe, it is instantly referred to as slander and discrimination and what have you?! In a way I agree that is is discrimination, but no, not against the religious, against the non-believers and people of other religions that are also branded 'heretics'!
Oh yes, let's radicalize some more with ALL religions! What fun we'll have with violence, when ALL religions say some pretty important things about violence... >___<
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jerry Wilson  • 4 months ago  




I'm ok with it!
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Peter Callan  • 4 months ago  




Absolutely. Payback is a bitch.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rudolph  • 4 months ago  




Christianity is easy.
Mormons are too easy.
Pick on Islam for awhile.
Let's see how your career goes.
Let's see you if u feel as safe after your tirade on a misogynist fascist ideology than you did before.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
JacobBe5 > Rudolph  • 4 months ago  




Yep, because after they criticized Islam we never again heard from: Sam Harris; Richard Dawkins; Christopher Hitchens.
TTA tends to focus on Christianity, in my opinion, because he has a US centrist focus, where Christianity dominates.
Islam is a collection of various beliefs some of which are much worse than others, but which are all of no more value than a belief in the tooth fairy. That some doctrines of Islam adhere to the idea that lying about the faith is entirely acceptable in order to advance the faith, in conjunction with the methods by which they have fought their ongoing holy war cause me to always doubt the veracity of any self-declared Muslim. If Christianity had the same ongoing problem today I would treat them with equal distrust. But their modern history is not quite so filled with blood and bile. Islam however manages to take all the worst parts of Judaism, enhance some of them a bit (death penalty for all apostates not just those who try and turn a family member away from the faith), and then throws out anything resembling tolerance introduced in the New Testaments.
You also say Christianity is easy. Actually it is easier in the US to criticize Islam. Muslims, as a rule, lack the ability to make good on their threats in he US. Meanwhile criticizing Christianity has a much greater risk in the US. Being shunned by the community is a very real threat. Being disowned by family is a very real threat. Physical violence is a lesser threat, but as an absolute measure is greater than speaking ill of Islam if only because there are so many more adherents in the US and thus simply a greater number of people from which to find that special snowflake who is willing to do violence because you've hurt their feelings.
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Rudolph > JacobBe5  • 4 months ago  




Everyone of those speakers had extra body guards.
Your fear of being called a racist only applies to Islam.
I suggest you take a look at Europe and see what happens when Islam sets it's sights on secular countries.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
JacobBe5 > Rudolph  • 4 months ago  




""Your fear of being called a racist only applies to Islam. "
Huh? Are you reading another's comment and replying to me in error? I fear no false charges so long as I am allowed to respond to them. People who attempt to assuage criticism by imputing more base motivation absent evidence deserve contempt and ridicule.
I have seen Europe, I've been there, keep up on events from there, and understand what distinguishes the US from many of the countries there. If you wish to say you think I am ignorant of world affairs, by all means directly make the charge. Then I'll ask for your evidence.
It is not a consequence of what occurs when Islam sets it's sights on secular countries, but when an overly developed sense of tolerance expands to encompass protecting ideas from criticism which results in outcomes as seen in some parts or Europe. Islam has had it's sights set on many countries, the entire world actually. What is required to defend against it is exactly what Seth says, the ability to criticize, lampoon mock, ridicule, and even insult the beliefs being held.
And as I originally said, Seth's audience and topical focus is primarily the US, hence his topics will be those most applicable to that demographic.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John O'Brien > Rudolph  • 4 months ago  




I saw Dawkins recently and he did not have body guards.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Greg Scott > Rudolph  • 4 months ago  




Rudy, you're not really making a good case for those on the ''belief in the supernatural'' side of the fence...(Christians, Muslims, Buddists etc...)
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Rudolph > Greg Scott  • 4 months ago  




As an Atheist I think you might have missed my point.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Larry  • 4 months ago  




Let me ask the following questions:
1. Are stereotypes helpful?
2. Does bigotry help anyone?
3. Is respecting another's beliefs wrong?
The answer to all of the above, in my opinion, is no.
The Golden Rule is a good one.
Consider how you feel when you here a narrow minded person attack you because you are an atheist. How does that make you feel?
Now, does turning around and attacking that person, and anyone else who shares his religious belief, make you feel better? Does it make you a better person? Or does it make you just as narrow minded as them? Just as guilty of using stereotypes to attack even those who do not attack your beliefs, and even respect them? Make you just as much of a bigot?
When I respond, I focus on the person who attacked my beliefs, not their own beliefs. I explain and use reason, patience, understanding, compassion. And, when appropriate, point out how their religion promotes those same traits as being desired.
Returning bigotry with bigotry will get you nowhere. It will, in all probability, only confirm the low opinions of those who you are responded to/attacking.
That said, yes, some meme's are funny, poor taste perhaps, and could be just as funny with a little less crudity. But true humor, without the negativity, I have no issue with.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Heather Gammon > Larry  • 4 months ago  




Larry you can only turn the other cheek so often. What do you say to those Christian employers who refuse to hire gay people? Or forcing children of other religions or no religion, to recite Christian prayers in School? If the religious would keep their noses out of my business and keep their religion at home where it belongs then I would have a lot more respect for the religious. But now they want to mess with MY rights just because I don't believe in their brand of sky daddy, then they get ridicule. And in case you haven't noticed, no meme is attacking a person directly...we are ridiculing the doctrine, which is stupid and deserves it. We have to continue to raise our voices or let the religious walk all over our lives. I for one will not have any of it.
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Larry > Heather Gammon  • 4 months ago  




I challenge them, as individuals, using logic, the law, and reason.
How does acting like them, with insults and disrespect for their religious beliefs, help anything?
Attacking the religion and their doctrine does not help any either. The memes just make us look as narrow minded and ignorant as the people who attack atheists and try to force their beliefs down the throats of others.
The best example I saw, was a high school school board meeting. They were meeting to decide whether to follow a request from the state to change their mascot from one that was very offensive to Native Americans. There were a lot of heated statements from both sides. Then a student got up, who was part Native American, and despite the cat calls and rudeness she got, spoke clearly, with reason, explaining an incident in the school where the school mascot's logo made the principle look like a hypocrite as he stood before it lecturing the school on the need to respect others despite their differences like ethnicity and skin color. The board later admitted that it was her, and her alone, that changed their minds to vote for changing the mascot. All the insults and disrespect, from both sides, did nothing at all.
You want to stop things like school prayer, you need to be reasonable and thoughtful. That is the only way you will have any chance of getting through. Especially if the other side isn't.
But, to each their own. Personally, I prefer not to stoop to their levels. It does far more harm than good. And I would rather focus my efforts on doing good.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Kathy C > Larry  • 4 months ago  




"When I respond, I focus on the person who attacked my beliefs, not their own beliefs."
This seems ad hominem-y to me. It's the beliefs and ideas we should be focusing on, not the person. I think you have it backwards. As for your questions about people ridiculing my own beliefs (or lack thereof), I welcome it because it makes me question my own ideas, opinions, and beliefs, which I want to be robust.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JacobBe5 > Larry  • 4 months ago  




These aren't that hard to answer actually.
1) It depends, some are some aren't. For example, it is a stereotype that all child sex offenders will repeat their offense. Hence we restrict them from having certain careers. But accepting that stereotype as being always true does appear to minimize future offenses at a sufficiently low cost to society.
2) It does appear to help the kids who don't become victims in the example I gave.
3) No, demanding that respect be given to those beliefs is.
The difference is the narrow minded individuals you speak of are attacking him as a person, they tend to malign him personally. They aren't attacking his ideas, but him. As opposed to when I attack their beliefs and they pretend it is an attack against them as a person. But in contrasting the two methods of discussin, atacking their ideas rather than them does make him a better person. And very much distinguishes him from them so that he is no their equivilent so that he is not "just as guilty".
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Larry > JacobBe5  • 4 months ago  




Well, we will have to respectfully disagree on your conclusion. Disrespecting someone's religious beliefs because they said something disrespectful about you attacks not only them, but others who had nothing do to with the original attack.
As for your rather extreme example, the policies you speak of were not implemented until the basis was strongly supported by research. Further, one such extreme example, does not therefore justify using stereotypes.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
JacobBe5 > Larry  • 4 months ago  




Why do you invent motivation?
You assert that my saying something that doesn't show respect to a religious belief is *because* they said something insulting about me personally?
No, not at all. I say the their belief is ridiculous on account that it is ridiculous. Their having said something nice or bad about me as a person has nothing to do with it. But you seem to be inable to distnguish between attacking a belief, and attacking a person.
When I say the depiction of the god made in the old testament is more akin to an over-indulged child who throws tantrums rather than an all-knowing, all-loving perfect being, I am insulting no one. I am attacking an idea. People who are unable to distinguish between a comment made on an idea they hold to be true vs a comment on them personally will have problems with any discussion involving anything they have any ideas about.
And actually there was very little research, it was a risk mitigation measure advocated for and passed through a political process in which being portrayed as "soft on crime" would have been indistinguishable from refusing to run in the next election. My isn't extreme, it is simply one that is (in my opinion) agreeable to many people. It is a bigotry they are comfortable embracing.
It is also a stereotype that people are generally honest. it is a stereotype that mothers don't beat their children. Stereotype does not equal bad.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Larry > JacobBe5  • 4 months ago  




If you look back to your previous post, you will see you brought up about personal attacks being the cause of attacking someone's beliefs. And, in that context, my point remains, turning an attack/insult by one person into an excuse to attack a group because that person belongs to it.
That said, when did I say all stereotypes are bad? I didn't. They are wrong, there is a difference. And are misused to promote hate and distrust more than religion. Look at your new example, if we follow that one, no one will look to mothers as a possible source of child abuse. Is that good?
As for your comment on that depiction of god, it's not much different from Greek, Roman, or Norse mythologies. I would also say that that statement is a far cry from some of the meme's put out there attacking people's faiths. Or a statement like "Islam is the worst thing for human rights."
Again, I never said not to speak out against a faith. Respect, reason, intelligence, thoughtfulness. And accept that if you do so, it may be unfair to many who follow that faith if you base i only on what you know of it. I also said I do not approve of responding to an attack by an individual by attacking his faith. How is that different from, attacking all Irish because someone who was Irish attacked me?
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
JacobBe5 > Larry  • 4 months ago  




Try again. I contrasted the two types of comments, I did not say one is done in response to another.
"The difference is the narrow minded individuals you speak of are attacking him as a person, they tend to malign him personally. They aren't attacking his ideas, but him. As opposed to..."
So your point is based on your misunderstanding. Glad to have cleared it up before you inadvertently built it into a straw man.
Second, I said they are not equally bad. I made that assertion, I did not say you said they were all equally bad. But since you are now going to say they are wrong you are factually incorrect.
Using my previous examples, the stereotype is that mothers do not beat their kids. Is it wrong? I guess you could fall back on the idea that all things are wrong to various degrees, but that would strike me as disingenuous. It would also seem you have been reduced to saying all statement are either 100% true, or 100% untrue. It seems that would negate so many of the gradients that make up human society as to render the discussion meaningless. Assuming that isn't what you are doing I'l rather address how stereotypes are correctly used. They are used as a starting point, as a presumption based on statistical likelihood. They may be wrong, but they are relied upon because of a likelihood of being correct, not because they are going to absolutely be correct.
Yes, some people do use them, or misuse them rather, as explicit statements of fact. If your point is that we should avoid things because of how some will misuse them we will rapidly paint ourselves into a corner of inaction.
And actually yes it is good that we start from the assumption mothers are not beating their children. Since the vast majority of times they aren't.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
Gods child  • 4 months ago  




Keep mocking Jesus the son of the living God and u WILL find urself in eternal hell !!!!!!!! God will NOT be mocked !!!!!!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Seth Andrews Mod > Gods child  • 4 months ago  




I wasn't convinced until I saw the ALL CAPS and exclamation points. (Anyone else wonder why an omnipotent deity would need an anonymous web commenter to come to his defense?)
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Adrian > Gods child  • 4 months ago  




Ahhhh!! Hide yo' kids! Hide yo' wife!
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Clifford Rusk > Gods child  • 4 months ago  




Given his response, God must be like those people who make a Facebook post about sweatshops in China then go and spend hundreds at Walmart. "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE eventually okay whatever".
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John O'Brien > Gods child  • 4 months ago  




Watch this: God suck big floppy donkey dick. Jesus is a douche who likes to eat his own excrement. There I have mocked your deity and there isn't shit that will happen from it. Other than your blood pressure going up maybe.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
DJ Crowe > Gods child  • 4 months ago  




If you think god will not be mocked, I can only assume you missed Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'... Of COURSE god will be mocked. And quite adeptly, I might add...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
fjelljenta  • 4 months ago  




I was vehemently & vocally agnostic/atheist until...... in my 40's ..... quite unexpectedly, I had a *very* transformational experience. Me, personally, (really?) with no need or request. I went from one side of the scale to the other. No middle ground. No doubt. I was allowed to see&feel something that proved (yes, PROVED) to me one thing: it is THIS physical experience that is the facade. It's ok. I am quiet about it (not afraid, if you ask me I will tell, but I dont push my experience on anyone) and I certainly dont pontificate because we each walk our own path. If your path includes a transformational experience, you will know. It leaves *zero* doubt.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
davidh > fjelljenta  • 4 months ago  




What was the experience?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Daysaloo  • 3 months ago  




I clawed my way out of a fundamentalist, Pentecostal cult 20 years ago. They targeted me, a barely 17 year old girl with a 1 year old baby who was attempting to go to work and take up the responsibility of being a very young mother. I was told I was a sinner who would be on my way to hell if I didn't turn my life over to Jesus. My son, I was told, would probably grow up to be a drug addict or criminal. I was encouraged to leave my parents' home (after all, what kind of parents were they if I got pregnant), live in a communal home with other young women, wear dresses only, no makeup and no jewelry. I had to quit my job as a dental assistant to clean the toilets of wealthy families. I was slowly brainwashed to believe that if I left this place I would immediately succumb to evil. I had to stand on street corners and scream scriptures to passers by to prove my faithfulness to God. I awoke at 4 in the morning to pray and attended meetings up to 3 times per week and all day on Sunday, going to bed at midnight if I was lucky. I take full responsibility for falling for this nonsense, but an arranged and failed marriage later, finally completing a masters degree at the age of 49, and never having been able to follow my passions, I really don't care if they find me arrogant, offensive, or strident. My turn. My life. My brain. Deal.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
BlueRoux  • 3 months ago  




“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robin Hager  • 3 months ago  




I respect religious people, but not the beliefs. I used to be one. I am the only free thinker in my family and my social group. At least I think so! I am still somewhat in the "closet" because I live in the middle of the bible belt, and own a small business. I guess I am a hypocrite to some extent, but it isn't easy to approach this, as you all should know. I don't like the mean Atheist cartoons any more than I like intolerant religious ones. I think it's in bad taste. I also dislike the profanity used by some bloggers on Atheist blogs. Again...entirely unneccesary. All people deserve respect, and everyone should have self respect as well, no matter what their beliefs.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
DeVine  • 3 months ago  




Seth: What is your conception on what serious religious people hold or believe to be God?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jesus Believer  • 4 months ago  




If we believe in Jesus we have nothing to lose, BUT if you DON'T you will be PERISH
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Adriane  • 4 months ago  




Personally, I avoid atheist posts on my Facebook accounts because I do have friends that are of different faiths, and, having briefly explored religion myself once or twice, I can understand their need, and the parts of religion that fill their needs. That being said, I hide all the posts that have the word "gawd" as soon as I see them, and conversion attempts=instant "unfriend".
There is a time and place for such postings. When someone comes up to convert me, I let 'er rip. On atheist sites, with other like minded folks, vent away. At catholic best friends, I keep my mouth shut.
Also: I have a "no family" policy on all my social networks. It makes life so easy.
I applaud the below posters as well for recognizing that there is a time and a place. When atheists act abrasive, its the same as when a religious person acts self-righteous/holier-than-thou: gets nothing done for the cause, and makes the rest of us look bad.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
James  • 4 months ago  




I was listening the "Broken Record" Podcast today and I was thrilled to hear an Aussie Accent!
I'm left speechless at the trials and tribulations of the Atheist Community in the U.S. and all though there's the tiniest inkling of it here is Australia, we're pretty much secular, and if you're an unbeliever, no one is really all that surprised. In fact admitting you're a "Churchie" is probably a tougher thing to do. When I was, I found that people tip-toed around me, and invites to some events were few and far between.
However Lately one of the Key political issues in Australia has been the phenomena of Boat People. ie; Refugees from around the world who are seeking asylum in Australia. Since 9-11 many of these have been from Islamic Countries.
The Extreme-Right of our political machine tapped into our inherent racism. We have since had anti-Islamic Riots, Politicians & Radio Shock-Jocks; The former cheered on by the latter.
I live in a pretty "Red-Neck"part of Queensland. It could be best described as Australia's Mid-West, except that we don't have any cross continental rivers so 100 Miles from the coast is pretty much IT.
These days people who I know have not set foot in a Church since their last invitation to a wedding, defend their open racism with a claim that Australia is a Christian Country and these Muslims don't belong.. Firstly I would love them to have that argument with Australia's First People; The Australian Aboriginees, and secondly I would like FIRST to quizz them on NOT just the Bible, but also the Running Order of the Christian Church Service of their Choice.
No religion deserves any respect. Many religious people do, but when a religion can be worn as a badge, used as a shield, or cited as an excuse for uniting racists, it has lost any and all credibility it purports to deserve.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Fox  • 4 months ago  




Still happily married to a catholic after 45 years. She won't debate the matter very deeply these days, as she is aware that I know more scripture than she does, thanks to you, Hitchens, Dawkins & Dillahunty. The people are not stupid, just the beliefs. How do I respect someone's beliefs when they refuse to discuss them? I don't. As we have discovered, religions are terrified of having the piss taken out of their peculiar actions. That's the way to go!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
NoSuicide4Me  • 4 months ago  




In my opinion, whether or not a religion deserves respect depends on what it teaches and the individuals who subscribe to that religion .
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Keir  • 4 months ago  




I give no respect to religion - it deserves none, and I wouldn't want to treat it unfairly.
Fortunately, most people in my country are not religious, and religion is a small thing for a select minority. I recently persuaded my religious grandmother that god in fact should not be believed in, and I regularly discuss these topics with friends, but said friends are all atheists.
One guy I know is a completely deluded creationist who believes science is a religion and that nothing is true. He's the only creationist I've ever met though, so he's interesting to talk to, but he is unfathomably stupid. I remember once talking to him about homosexuality, he turned away at one point and when he looked back I was making out with another guy. That was a great "I win" scenario! :p
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
Armando Outthere Diaz  • 4 months ago  




I get a kick out of clever memes and depictions (there aren't many IMO), but i don't see them as particularly effective at driving the point home these days. The novelty is wearing off. I used to appreciate the way they would draw people into discussion, but I don't see that happening as much anymore. at least in my neck of the woods.
I'm a 40 year old Cuban who grew up in Jersey. Now between my family who were Cafeteria Catholics and additionally, practitioners Santaria (btw, my mother also claiming to be a medium lol), and the whole of my friends and their families who were mostly black and latino, i have been surrounded by religious fervor, all my life.
I didn't think much of it until I saw what little good it was doing in the lives of those same people. I used to believe as well. It was a much more lukewarm belief than anyone I knew, so my personal change was not too difficult, but to those around me, it was and is everything, even if they habitually operated as though it wasn't.
I grew up with people whose identity with the faith was not just about jesus but a tradition that produced cohesiveness in their families and communities in the context of slavery and severe racial tensions, where faith was all they had. They built around those concepts and gained as much strength as could be gotten from them. It made them whole in a place where they were constantly being attacked and broken. So while the god question and the claims of the bible are taken for granted by many of us as the main issue, we miss that for so many, particularly people prone to acceptance of others in practice, their beliefs are rooted in much more than that, which we rarely address. As a result we don't do as well in recognizing, let alone offering solutions beyond "stop believing this nonsense" or "the bible is a bunch of fairytales". In short, the rank and file are not communicating the alternative in a way that allows for people to be drawn to us.
I know much of it is necessary, and that often we have to speak loudly and boldly in order to be heard above the yammering of those who think we want to do away with values and morality by killing off god. However, i think we are clearly recognizable as a movement now, but in my opinion we need to do more than rage against the machine. We often claim lives as moral happy, and upright as any theist would want to live, but we seem to treat the religious as idiots and ripe for extinction, instead of regularly showing them that side of ourselves.
i guess I'm wondering how we can refine our interactions to include a few pokes and swipes at the theology, but not make it integral to promoting a more secular view, if only in the sense that we be treated equally as opposed to viewed as damaged goods. IDK
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mike De Fleuriot  • 4 months ago  




People only show respect for things that they hold true, so why should they show respect for things that they do not hold as true?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Epicurean306  • 4 months ago  




http://freethoughtblogs.com/gr...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Guest  • 4 months ago  




agreed.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














 
 





What's this? 


Around The Web



 Currency Crisis: 36 U.S. Cities Abandon Dollar   Money Morning 
 



 The Top Ten Worst Dogs For Kids   Dog Reference 
 



 Eat THIS, Never DIET Again!   Healthy LifeStyle 
 


Also on The Thinking Atheist Community

 Atheism: Just Another Religion?   2 comments 
 

 A Scary Dilemma   11 comments 
 

 Mail Call   2 comments 
 

 Morality and the MPAA   8 comments 
 

Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 














 The Thinking Atheist
Videos

Podcasts

Forum

Editor’s Blog

Shop

Events

Resources












 

Home » Blog » Should We Respect Religion?
 

Should We Respect Religion?
 Seth
 Nov 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM
 3 Months Ago
   Comments

   
 
      

Does religion deserve ridicule?  Do our irreverent memes and sacrilegious satires do more harm than good?  Are we being clever, or are we too clever for our own benefit?
Jesus Kenny Loggins meme
 
Some recent satirical posts have drawn the ire of some TTA page members:  the Jesus "lag" meme, The Story of Suzie video, etc.  A few have left the page in protest.
I'll address it again, and of course, you're welcome to chime in.  :)
It's a difficult thing, having such a love for people (religious and otherwise) and having such disdain for the ridiculous and often destructive mythologies they hold dear.  The religious nerve is a sensitive one, and there's little doubt that many will borrow any offense targeted to their precious deities.
I don't scour religious websites and social media pages, posting sacrilegious memes and stirring the pot for its own sake.  But I do sometimes post the sacrilegious meme here, on an atheist-targeted page, and the reason is simple:
In my youth, I was frightened with tales of the Eye In The Sky, the supreme dictator which I was to love and simultaneously fear, the author of Heaven and Hell, and I was indoctrinated to treat this deity with absolute reverence and deference.  I couldn't see him, smell him or touch him, but for years, he controlled my life.
God demonstrated horrible attitudes toward women, toward non-heterosexuals, toward things like slavery, torture, infanticide, blood sacrifice and mass murder, but as a believer, I was required to always see him in a soft-focus portrait of absolute respect.
Not anymore.
For me, lampooning God is therapeutic.  The monster in the closet no longer frightens me, and the roasting of this sacred cow is a private and public declaration that I have shed the chains of superstition-based fear and control. 
And the more I'm told to treat Jesus with kid gloves, the more I'm inclined to Photoshop him into a gay pride parade or depict him as a machine-gun-wielding merchant of 80s-action-movie carnage.
Religion (pick one) is a fairy tale, a myth, a falsehood pitched as fact, and for many of us liberated from the chains of dogma, religious god-figures are ripe for ridicule.
Now, I understand that ridicule can cause religious adherents to further fortify their theological walls, but does that mean that their cherished religion should be...respected?
We can show love and respect for people, religious and otherwise, but religion itself has earned no quarter from the rationalist. 
If religious politicians took their oath of office on a Harry Potter book, if religious parents taught their impressionable children to pledge their lives to Santa Claus, if religious institutions required 10% of one's household income to spread the message of the Tooth Fairy, few would complain about ridicule.  In fact, I suspect most would join our chorus of razor-edged disdain.
Well...Jesus is the Tooth Fairy. 
Is this style for everyone?  No.  Are all anti-religious memes appropriate and/or funny?  No.  Is the lampooning of religion a license to be completely tasteless?  No.
But as religion seeks to assert control through fear, I personally find satisfaction and liberation in roasting its precious and most sacred figures over the white-hot flame of freedom.
Do you feel that religion deserves to be respected?  You've heard my perspective.  I welcome yours.  -Seth
Some recent satirical posts have drawn the ire of some TTA page members:  the Jesus "lag" meme, The Story of Suzie video, etc.  A few have left the page in protest.
I'll address it again, and of course, you're welcome to chime in. 
It's a difficult thing, having such a love for people (religious and otherwise) and having such disdain for the ridiculous and often destructive mythologies they hold dear.  The religious nerve is a sensitive one, and there's little doubt that many will borrow any offense targeted to their precious deities.
I don't scour religious websites and social media pages, posting sacrilegious memes and stirring the pot for its own sake.  But I do sometimes post the sacrilegious meme here, on an atheist-targeted page, and the reason is simple:
In my youth, I was frightened with tales of the Eye In The Sky, the supreme dictator which I was to love and simultaneously fear, the author of Heaven and Hell, and I was indoctrinated to treat this deity with absolute reverence and deference.  I couldn't see him, smell him or touch him, but for years, he controlled my life.
God demonstrated horrible attitudes toward women, toward non-heterosexuals, toward things like slavery, torture, infanticide, blood sacrifice and mass murder, but as a believer, I was required to always see him in a soft-focus portrait of absolute respect.
Not anymore.
fucking lag
For me, lampooning God is therapeutic.  The monster in the closet no longer frightens me, and the roasting of this sacred cow is a private and public declaration that I have shed the chains of superstition-based fear and control. 
And the more I'm told to treat Jesus with kid gloves, the more I'm inclined to Photoshop him into a gay pride parade or depict him as a machine-gun-wielding merchant of 80s-action-movie carnage.
Religion (pick one) is a fairy tale, a myth, a falsehood pitched as fact, and for many of us liberated from the chains of dogma, religious god-figures are ripe for ridicule.
Now, I understand that ridicule can cause religious adherents to further fortify their theological walls, but does that mean that their cherished religion should be...respected?
We can show love and respect for people, religious and otherwise, but religion itself has earned no quarter from the rationalist. 
If religious politicians took their oath of office on a Harry Potter book, if religious parents taught their impressionable children to pledge their lives to Santa Claus, if religious institutions required 10% of one's household income to spread the message of the Tooth Fairy, few would complain about ridicule.  In fact, I suspect most would join our chorus of razor-edged disdain.
Well...Jesus is the Tooth Fairy. 
 
tooth fairy



Is this tactic for everyone?  No.  Are all anti-religious memes appropriate and/or funny?  No.  Is the lampooning of religion a license to be completely tasteless?  No.
But as religion seeks to assert control through fear, I personally find satisfaction and liberation in roasting its precious and most sacred figures over the white-hot flame of freedom.
Do you feel that religion deserves to be respected?  You've heard my perspective.  I welcome yours. 
 
-Seth Andrews

 
  


 
 
   
 
Advertisement
Advertise Here 

Hot Dogs Saved My Life - Learn everything you need to know from A-Z to run a successful Hot Dog Vendor business
 


Latest from the Editor
MAR
03
"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts...

FEB
27
The "Son of God" Survey
The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-...

FEB
07
A Random Act of Kindness
I was informed by a Facebook friend that she had picked up a stranger's breakfast tab at McDonald's yesterday. When Tonya shared the experience on ...
 
Latest on Facebook
 
The Thinking Atheist
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.
Copyright © 2013 The Thinking Atheist. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Yii Framework.
Community Site Developed by
Web Evolved, LLC.

Back to top
© 2013 The Thinking Atheist · Contact · Privacy · Log in
     
ShareThis Copy and Paste

 - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/67/Should-We-Respect-Religion#sthash.2Y1Edd9t.dpuf















  

 
 






142 comments

The Thinking Atheist Community

 Login  













d



Sort by Best









 
Favorite ★ 

Share ⤤














Join the discussion…



























































 







Avatar
Cybershaman  • 4 months ago 




I think some of the Hindu epics would make awesome films. What with demi-gods throwing chakra "energy disks" a la "Tron" around. It would be freaking awesome! :P Hadoken!!!
 
21 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Alex Shuffell > Cybershaman  • 4 months ago 




Especially The Mahabharata, but that would have to be a trilogy at minimum the huge battle there would be awesome too see on screen. Celestial weapons killing hundreds of people in single shots, all the thunder created by their swinging weapons, all the elephants and horses that get clubbed to death and invincible warriors fighting. I think it's the best fantasy book I've read, as long as you don't take it seriously. After that the death toll is said to have been about 1.6 billion.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Chaotopian > Alex Shuffell  • 4 months ago 




Grant Morrison has been trying to get an animated adaptation of the Mahabharata off the ground for several years now, and it's finally been announced earlier this year that it will be released as a motion comic on youtube.
This is a trailer from back in 2010 when he was still hoping to make an actual animation:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

 


It looks extremely badass.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Secular Advocate  • 4 months ago 




I find the way you debunk most Christian phoney-baloney is just to let them talk at length. The longer they talk, the more ridiculous they get. So any story lifted from the Bible, especially one as dumb as this one is, can only help the cause of encouraging critical thinking.
 
18 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
J. P. > Secular Advocate  • a month ago 




Seeing as how you’re such a fan of the sciences, perhaps you might consider a more intellectual and less perfunctory study of nature, science and the universe?
"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”
–Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”
–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.
“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”
“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”
–Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.
“Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”
–Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.
Oh and, btw, did you know that, according to a recent Pew survey, 51% of scientists abjure the philosophy of Atheism? (http://www.pewforum.org/Scienc... Go figure! :)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Cerberus Black > J. P.  • a month ago 




Hello, J.?
I find it interesting that you'd provide yourself with nice little Christian quotes that do nothing but give a bit of an ego boost to your insecurities, as well as provide a good laugh for the rest of us. But tell me, J? Do your quotations provide any proof for the validation of your desert war god?
Sorry, J. But I find religious quotes very unconvincing.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
J. P. > Cerberus Black  • a month ago 




They go to show that some of the world's most brilliant and celebrated minds found the evidence for God Almighty's necessary existence compelling and so found Atheism to be untenable, irrational.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Cerberus Blacker > J. P.  • a month ago 




"Atheism to be untenable, and irrational?" Ha, ha!
That is mere opinion only, and offers no truth. So again, can you or any of those scientific philosophers bring to everyones attention, based entirely on fact and not based on any bias supperstitious beliefs to thusly conclude, beyond any shadow of doubt, that your desert war king even exists? Please, by all means show us.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
J. P. > Cerberus Blacker  • a month ago 




I know not of this king you speak of. Try again.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Cerberus Black > J. P.  • a month ago 




Ha,ha,ha!
So you know nothing of biblical history? We'll, I'm not shocked at all. As to your god, I suppose you'll never know that he was an invention of the Israelites, borrowed from other religions...that both the Christian and Muslim faiths added some of their own scriptures to a little later on.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
J. P. > Cerberus Black  • a month ago 




Perhaps it would help if you referred to God by name. To which of the many gods spoken of in the Bible are you referring to?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Cerberus Black > J. P.  • a month ago 




Ha! Are you really that lost? Wasn't he supposedly the author of the ten commandments? Yeah, that one.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
J. P. > Cerberus Black  • a month ago 




What's his name? (If you know what you're talking about, that is ...)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Cerberus Black > J. P.  • a month ago 




Oh, please. I think we both already know the answer to that question, don't we? If not, then perhaps you should tell me old noble one?
I see that you're still providing yourself with a smokescreen to never really answer my question. But go ahead, knock yourself out.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
J. P. > Cerberus Black  • a month ago 




You're not making sense. How does any of this answer my simple query?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Cerberus Black > J. P.  • 15 days ago 




When you answer my question, I'll answer yours. Or will you just keep trying to confuse the issue with your "mental gymnastics?"
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
J. P. > Cerberus Black  • 14 days ago 




I asked first.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Cerberus Black  > J. P.  • 14 days ago 




Do your quotations provide any proof for the validation of your desert war god?
This was my first question. Are you really too inadequate for that task?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
J. P. > Cerberus Black   • 12 days ago 




I still don't know to whom you are referring to. Give me a name and then I can answer you accurately. Are you really too inadequate for that task?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Cerberus Black > J. P.  • 11 days ago 




I had no idea you were so clueless. Again, when you answer my question I'll answer yours. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
J. P. > Cerberus Black  • 10 days ago 




Actually no I don't. (My mind reading skills are not as good as yours unfortunately ...)
Here, I'll make this even easier for you. Here's a list of war gods and goddesses. Pick the one you're talking about:
A


• Apedemak- A warrior-god with a lion head. (African Mythology)
• Anahit- Considered a Goddess of War in the Early
Period and later the goddess of wisdom, water, healing and fertility.
(Armenian Mythology)
• Agrona- Associated with being a River Goddess of war/strife. (Celtic Mythology)
• Anhur- A God of war. One of the many titles bestowed up on him was ‘Slayer OF Enemies’. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Alala- She is considered the spirit of War cry (Greek Mythology)
• Agasaya- A Semitic war Goddess,’ The Shrieker’ who merged her identity as a Sky Warrior. (Semitic Mythology)
• Andarta- Warrior Goddess in Celtic polytheism, associated with victory. (Celtic Mythology)
• Ankt/ Anuket- Goddess of war originally personified as Nile River Goddess. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Androktasiai- Considered the female personification of manslaughter, spirits of battlefield. (Greek Mythology)
• Anath- A Semitic Goddess Love and War who is depicted as an extremely beautiful girl. (Semitic Mythology)
• Ah Chuy Kak- A Mayan war god bestowed with the name ‘Fire Destroyer’. (Early Mayan)
• Alaisiagae- A pair of Goddesses worshiped in
Romano-British Celtic/Germanic polytheism with titles ‘All Victorious’
and ‘Dispatching Terrors’. (Celtic Mythology)
• Ares- The powerful Greek God of War. Known for his physical valor Ares
 is represented in violent aspects of war. His expertise was weapons of
war, rebellion, bloodlust, and defense. (Greek Mythology)
• Astarte- A goddess of sexuality, fertility, and war
from the Bronze Age associated with Inanna. In pictorial representations
 she is often depicted naked. (Semitic Mythology)
• Ah Cun Can- Bestowed with the title ‘Serpent Charmer’, Ah Cun Can was a war god from the Early Mayan period. (Early Mayan)
• Andraste- An Icenic war Goddess. (Celtic Mythology)
• Anouke- This elder Egyptian goddess is often portrayed and depicted with bow, arrows and shuttle. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Anahita- is the ancient Persian goddess of
fertility, water, and goodness of war. The name Anahita is rooted in the
 meaning ‘The immaculate one’. (Ancient Persian)
• Athena- Is the goddess of skill, strategy, crafts,
mathematics, inspiration, wisdom, just warfare, the arts, civilization,
courage and law and justice. She is also considered as Goddess of heroic endeavor. (Greek Mythology)
• Ah Hulneb- A Mayan war God (Early Mayan)
• Anaan- An Irish goddess of war associated with
personification of death in Celtic circles. Her supreme ability was to
predict death in battle. She is also represented as goddess of cattle ,
prosperity and fertility. (Celtic Mythology)
• Ahulane- A Mayan war God with the title of ‘The Archer’ (Early Mayan)
• Aray- Is an ancient Armenian war god, also known as Ara, ‘The Beautiful One’. (Armenian Mythology)


B


• Badb- An Irish goddess who had the power to
transform into a crow. She was known to spread fear and confusion among
soldiers prior to war. (Celtic Mythology)
• Bastet/Bast- A goddess associated with war. She is often depicted with the head of a lioness. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Bia- Is the personification of force. (Greek Mythology)
• Bishamonten- An armor clad god of warriors and warfare .Known to be a punisher of evil and wrongdoing. (Japanese Mythology)
• Buluc Chabtan- Humans were sacrificed to this war god. (Early Mayan)
• Belus- Recognized and worshipped as a god of war. (Mesopotamian Mythology)
• Bellona- Often depicted wearing a helmet and
equipped with a torch and spear, Bellona is an ancient Roman goddess of
war. (Roman Mythology)
• Belatu-Cadros- A powerful god of war worshipped by soldiers. (Celtic Mythology)
• Burijas- A war god belonging to Iranian Kassites (Early Kassites)
• Bugid YAiba- Is a loa of war. (Hatian/Vodou)
• Beg-tse- A war god often depicted carrying a sword with chain-mail all over his body. (Tibetan Mythology)


C


• Camulus- Belgic Remi god of war. In some ancient cultures he was a God with a head of a horned ram. (Celtic Mythology)
• Chamunda- Goddess of war worshipped with offerings and sacrifices. (Hindu Mythology)
• Cicolluis- Irish and Gaulish war God. (Celtic Mythology)
• Chemosh- A god of war believed to do anything impossible. (Moabite)
• Cariocecus- A war god who was offered sacrifices, mostly in the form of animals, goats and horses in particular. (Lusitanian Mythology)
• Caswallawn- A God of war associated with protection. (Celtic Mythology)
• Cocidius- A war god in Romano-British often associated with forests and hunting. (Celtic Mythology)
• Camaxtli- An Aztec war god associated with fate, hunting and creation of fire. (Aztec Mythology)
• Catubodua- A Gaulish goddess that is closely associated with the spirit of being victorious. (Celtic Mythology)


D


• Dayisun Tngri- A war god associated with protection. (Mongolian Shamanism)
• Donar- German-Teutonic God of war with immense strength associated with Thunder. (Teutonic)
• Durga- A fierce Hindu goddess depicted with multiple
 arms carrying weapons and slaying demons, Mahishasura, the Buffalo
Demon in particular. (Hindu Mythology)


E


• Enyalius- A war god. (Greek Mythology)
• Eshara- Goddess of war and fields. (Chaldean)
• Eris- A goddess of strife, chaos and discord also associated with war. (Greek Mythology)
• Enyo- Is a goddess of war often depicted covered in blood. (Greek Mythology)
• Ekchuah- ‘Black war Chief’ A violent god of war often associated with fallen warriors. (Early Mayan)
• Erra- A god of war and death. (Mesopotamian Mythology)


F


• Futsunushi- God of lightning and swords. (Japanese Mythology)
• Freyja- This war Goddess is associated with love,
death, fertility, beauty and death. She is often depicted riding a
chariot being pulled by two large cats. (Norse Mythology)


G


• Gun- God of war and iron. (African Mythology)
• Gurzil- A bull-shaped war god. (Berber Mythology)
• Gu- A tribal war god of Dahomey-Benin. (Dahomey)
• Great Gish/Gish- A god of protection for ancient Nuristani. (Nuristani Mythology)
• Gaun-Di- A Taoist war god who guards from enemies. (Ancient Taoist)


H


• Huitzilopochtli- a war god of sun, fire, will and war (Aztec Mythology)
• Horus- A god of sky, protection and war (Egyptian Mythology)
• Hysminai- Female spirits personifying battle, combat, and war. (Greek Mythology)
• Hanuman- A god of courage, wisdom and war (Hindu Mythology)
• Hachiman- Syncretic God of war, protection, and archery. (Japanese Mythology)
• Homados- A personification of noise in battle (Greek Mythology)
• Hadur-‘ Warlord of Enemies’ God of metal and war. (Hungarian Mythology)
• Honos- God of military justice, honor, and chivalry. (Roman Mythology)


I


• Inanna- A powerful Sumerian goddess of warfare, fertility and sexuality. (Mesopotamian Mythology)
• Indra- God of storm, rainfall and war (Hindu Mythology)
• Irmin- Ancient Teutonic war god (Teutonic)
• Ishtar- Babylonian/Assyrian goddess of sex, love, fertility and war. (Mesopotamian Mythology)
• Ictinike- A war god skilled at deception, lies, and treachery. (Native American)


J


• Jarilo- God of fertility, spring and vegetation, also associated with war. (Slavic Mythology)


K


• Keres- Female sprits of death associated with death
by murder, death in battle, cruel death and death by spreading disease.
(Greek Mythology)
• Kratos- A god that personifies power and strength. (Greek Mythology)
• Kydoimos- Is a personification of uproar and confusion, din of battle. (Greek Mythology)
• Ku/ Ku-ka-ili-moku- A god of war often depicted wearing a helmet an blood-red feathers.- (Hawaiian Mythology)
• Kali- A powerful goddess associated with empowerment, time, (Hindu Mythology)
• Katyayini- War goddess of victory and vengeance (Hindu Mythology)


L


• Laran- A god of war depicted naked wearing a helmet and holding a spear. (Etruscan Mythology)
• Lua- A war goddess that soldiers sacrificed weapons of the enemy. (Roman Mythology)


M


• Maher- A god of war. (African Mythology)
• Mixcoatl- Is the god of hunting and war. In
Mesoamerican culture he is associated with the Milky Way, heavens and
stars. (Aztec Mythology)
• Menhit- A war goddess with warrior status, her name means ‘she who massacres’. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Matrikas- Group of goddesses that are associated with emancipation, children and war. (Hindu Mythology)
• Macha- An Irish goddess associated with sovereignty, horses and war. (Celtic Mythology)
• Maahes- A lion-headed war god. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Monthu- A war god depicted with a falcons head, associated with sun, valor and war. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Mars- God of war, and also an agricultural guardian. (Roman Mythology)
• Makhai- Personified as male spirits of combat and fighting. (Greek Mythology)
• Mangala- A god of war. (Hindu Mythology)
• Minerva- Goddess of war and wisdom. Is also sponsor of defense, trade, and arts. (Roman Mythology)
• Maru- Maori/Polynesian war-god who is in charge heavenly bodies and also known to be Co-creator of man. (Polynesian/Maori)
• Menthu- A war god often portrayed with a hawk-head (Egyptian Mythology)
• Murugan- A god of hunting and war. He is often portrayed riding a peacock and sometimes an elephant. (Hindu Mythology)


N


• Ninurta- A Babylonian god of war associated with thunderstorms, fertility, and floods. (Mesopotamian Mythology)
• Nacon- A god of war (Ancient Mayan)
• Neith- A powerful war goddess associated with hunting, creation and the dead. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Neit- A war god. (Irish Mythology)
• Nemain- Personification of a fairy spirit associated with war and havoc. (Celtic Mythology)
• Nike- Though not considered a war goddess, she is goddess associated with the spirit of Victory in war. (Greek Mythology)
• Neto- A sun god associated with war. (Lusitanian Mythology)
• Nergal- God of war associated with pestilence, underworld, and fire. (Mesopotamian Mythology)
• Nerio- Warrior goddess associated with valor. (Roman Mythology)
• Nanaja- Goddess associated with war and sex. (Akkadian/ Sumerian)


O


• Ogoun- A powerful deity associated with politics, hunting, metal work and war. (African Mythology)
• Oya- Warrior goddess associated with magic, fire, lightning fertility, and wind. (African Mythology)
• Ogoun- God of war associated with voodoo, politics, fire and thunderbolts. (Haitian/Vodou)
• Odin- A powerful god associated with battle, death,
 victory and war and also with wisdom, prophecy, hunting and music.
(Norse Mythology)
• ‘Oro- A war god (Polynesian Mythology)


P


• Palioxis- Personification of a spirit associated with retreat and backrush. (Greek Mythology)
• Pele- Goddess of war associated with wind, lightning, volcanoes and fire. (Hawaiian Mythology)
• Pallas- A Titan God associated with war. (Greek Mythology)
• Perun- God of war associated with lightning and thunder (Slavic Mythology)
• Proioxis- Pursuer of battle and onrush. (Greek Mythology)
• Pap-nign-gara- A war God (Mesopotamian Mythology)
• Polemos- Associated with the spirit of war. (Greek Mythology)


Q


• Qamatis- A warrior goddess. (Native American Mythology)


R


• Rudianos- A war god in Gaulish tradition. (Celtic Mythology)
• Resheph- Depicted with a gazelle’s head, a God associated with war, pestilence and plague. (Semitic Mythology)
• Rugiviet- A war god portrayed with seven head and a held sword. (Slavic Mythology)
• Radegast- God of hospitality, crops and fertility also associated with war. (Slavic Mythology)
• Resef- God of pestilence and lightning in Ugartic culture. Often depicted with club, shield and lightning bolt. (Phoenician)


S


• Segomo- A Gaulish god of war associated with eagle or hawk. (Celtic Mythology)
• Satet- An early war deity that was associated with hunting and war and was later on associated with floods. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Shaushka- Goddess of healing, fertility and war. (Hittite Mythology)
• Sekhmet- A war goddess and healing goddess associated with the desert, pestilence and warfare. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Samulayo- A war god associated with death in battle. (Figi)
• Set- A war god associated with storms and the
desert. He is also considered as the god of darkness and chaos according
 to ancient Egyptian beliefs. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Shulmanu- A war god associated with the underworld and fertility.(Mesopotamian Mythology)
• Sopdu- a war god associated with sky and summer sun. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Svetovid- A war god associated with divination and fertility. (Slavic Mythology)


T


• Tohil- A war god associated with mountains, fire, rain, and sun. (Maya Mythology)
• Tlaloc- A patron of war associated with earthquakes, rain and thunder. (Aztec Mythology)
• Tu- A war god. (Polynesian)
• Tumatauenga- A god of war to whom war parties were dedicated. (Maori Mythology)
• Tyr- A god of law, justice, honor, victory and war heroics. (Norse Mythology)
• Teutates- A god of war, fertility and wealth. (Celtic Mythology)
• Tanit- Punic war goddess. (Semitic Mythology)
• Triglav- A three-headed war god, with each head being a representation of the underworld, earth and heaven. (Slavic Mythology)
• Thor- A powerful god associated with warfare,
lighting, defense, protection, weather, courage, revenge, trust,
battles, and strength. Often depicted wielding a large hammer.
• Turris- A god of war in ancient Finnish tradition (Ancient Finnish)


U


• Ullr- A war god associated with single combat, archery, and male beauty. (Norse Mythology)


V


• Virtus- A god associated with military strength and bravery. (Roman Mythology)


W


• Woden- A god associated with war, death, battle, wisdom, poetry, hunt, prophecy and victory. (Continental Germanic Polytheism)
• Wepwawet- A war wolf-god. (Egyptian Mythology)
• Wurrukatte- a god of war. (Hittite Mythology)
• Winalagalis- A war god of Kwakwaka’wakw native. (Native American Mythology)


X


• Xipe Totec- A patron of war associated with disease, hunting, rebirth, spring and trade, also a god of force. (Aztec Mythology)


Z


• Zabba- An ancient god of war in Akkadian tradition. (Ancient Akkadian)
• Zorya- Guardian goddesses known to protect in battle (Slavic Mythology)
Any easier and I'm gonna have to break out the crayons ...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Cerberus Black > J. P.  • 6 days ago 




Ha, ha, ha, ha! Might as well get out your crayons!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Cerberus Black > Cerberus Black  • 11 days ago 




And as for your so-called "accurate answers" you haven't provided any.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 

























Avatar
MagicGALAXY > Secular Advocate  • 2 months ago 




I am Christian. I personally hate it when Atheists and Christians argue. I don't choose sides in either case what so ever.
I don't like it when Atheists or other religious believers argue or attempted to prove me wrong of my religion. It always hurts my feelings and I don't like talking about it too much with others in public at all unless there Christian as well or are interested and open minded on the subject (not trying to prove me wrong or change my mind).
Although I feel this way, I don't believe ALL Atheists and other religious believers do this. I personally can care less about what a person's religion/belief is than a person's trait or personality. I have many friends who are Atheists or believe in a other religion than I do. I don't mind it and I think it's okay to not believe the same thing as I do. Everyone believes in different things right?
I think I mostly hate it though when Christians try to force or talk others into joining there religion. I think it's wrong to force others to believe something they choose not to believe in. I just allow those interested ask me with open arms and I am okay with them choosing no.
I hope no one gets on my case about being Christian and talking on a site that has, "Atheist" in it's name :-/
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Michael D. Barton  • 4 months ago 




If people can watch a movie like Clash of the Titans, know its mythology, and enjoy it, why not Noah?
 
12 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Wallace Morrison > Michael D. Barton  • 4 months ago 




Because most of the people know why it's a myth and are taught that in schools, but when you have millions of backwards hicks and uneducated fools that keep this Christian-Jew fable at the right side of their cafeteria lunch line, they fail to find common sense. understand the term Greek and Roman Mythology. they don't teach christian Mythology in schools and it is about time they did
 
40 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Huh? > Wallace Morrison  • 4 months ago 




Yeah, because people who disagree with you are only doing so because they are dumb hicks. There is zero nuance and scale of understanding in between believing a 100% inerrant Bible and believing in a 100% natural and material world. Strong take, friend.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Wallace Morrison > Huh?  • 4 months ago 




Nope. You read everything wrong. I never said people who disagree with me are dumb hicks. I was referring to people that are shoving the Christian - Jew God down people's throats in schools are 'Backwards' hicks and uneducated fools. I never called anyone dumb. In fact i know many intelligent hicks. I called the ones who are forcing this shit in people's heads backwards and uneducated fools. There is a difference.
 
12 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Ruben Ramalho  • 4 months ago 




If other fellow atheists are so insecure as to fear whether people will be converted by a movie then they are just as bad as Christians zealots;who immediately get the same reaction to any secularism and criticism of religion depicted in any media.So what,I can't like The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur(not a biblical story but still)?What about The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars can I like those even though I don't believe in Elves,magic or the Force?Who cares if other people think it's true what matters is if it's an entertaining story well told.If you demand reality then you might as well add Horror,Sci-fi,even Comedy to the same list you put the Biblical genre.
P.S: Pope John Paul II's favourite movie was The Gospel according to Saint Matthew,that was directed by an open Atheist,Homosexual,Communist director named Pier Paolo Pasolini.If he could enjoy that movie we can this one(if it is any good) seeing as it is also done by an Atheist(oh yes,Darren Aronofsky is an atheist)
 
8 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Solfernus > Ruben Ramalho  • 4 months ago 




Atheists are not insecure. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Clash of the Titans, Elves, Warcraft, Star Trek, and Dora the Explorer do not guide policy making decisions in Washington and local state governments. The contents of the bible do... and this fable in particular is pushed as scientific fact in America. I am unaware of any state government who is demanding we throw out the book on physics and evolution because of the story of Thor, and has a renewed sense of faith because Marvel made a movie... Until the Bible is thrown on the graveyard of belief, movies such as this can have damaging effects on our world, and do nothing but further fuel the belief of the delusional and deceived, the very people who reject science, hate gays, promote illegal wars, and call the ACA 'socialist'.
Do you really want this very powerful group of people to have even more ammunition?
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Laura Murray > Solfernus  • 4 months ago 




I'm an atheist, and I'm extremely excited about this movie coming out. From personal experience and from stories overheard on the interwebs, most people seem to find a pathway to reason and logic from stories filled with illogical and unreasonable bull. This may serve as ammunition in some areas in the world, however if religious groups and people claim the events in this movie really happened, I'd hope most people will watch it going, 'riiiiight...' The fact that Darren Aronofsky is an atheist doesn't surprise me. I'd wager he is a highly intelligent man.
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ruben Ramalho > Solfernus  • 4 months ago 




Really,what kind of tangible ammunition is a movie?It's not evidence,they can't present it and say :"hey this hollywood movie Noah proves The Flood" anymore than we can say:"hey,2001:A Space Odyssey proves evolution".And even if it did so what,being threatened by a movie does indeed scream "insecure" and one should always be aware that depiction does not mean condonation or approval. Proselytizing does not seem the goal here but art,and it has always been involved with religiosity to varying degrees;must I throw my Bach,Mozart;Beethoven collection out the window or despise the works of Da Vinci and other Renaissance painters...Must I also throw out Ghostbusters and It's a Wonderful Life seeing as almost half of Americans(U.S)still believe in angels?

P.S:The world does not revolve around the U.S and what their people think so we shouldn't be deprived of art on the basis that its people will take it literally.And there are still people who believe in Thor and Odin they are called Neo-Pagans
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Huh? > Ruben Ramalho  • 4 months ago 




Well said Ruben.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Kat Johnson  • 4 months ago 




As long as Russell Crowe doesn't sing in this one.
 
8 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
R T > Kat Johnson  • 4 months ago 




"Makin' movies, singin' songs, and Fightin' 'round the world!"
 
12 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Sarah  • 4 months ago 




Because Hollywood blockbusters are usually based in reality?
 
8 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
August Rode > Sarah  • 4 months ago 




What's this? Thor: The Dark World isn't a documentary? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.
 
8 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Peter Thurston > August Rode  • 4 months ago 




I am SURE Clash of the Titans really happened!
 
7 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Bahaha > Peter Thurston  • 4 months ago 




but of course! Medusa was totally real, as well as the Kraken.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
j9clements > Bahaha  • 3 months ago 




I like the Kraken's rum!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Odin47 > August Rode  • 4 months ago 




Thor is still alive and well, or did you never experience thunderstorms?...:)
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Stevercc  • 4 months ago 




Cast, effects, CGI, and box office aside, this is no more a confirmation of the Biblical fairy tale than "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" is confirmation of the existence of Santa Claus.
 
7 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Hector Rodz  • 4 months ago 




I'm a hardcore atheist, so I agree with your points here. I'd still love to see it. Compared to that other old as shit version (was it with Charlton Heston as Moses? It covered several bible stories), this should be epic. The effects, the music - it should make for quite a movie. Of course, it's just as fictional as Spider-Man or Thor, but still epic.
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Mr.FloppyShoes > Hector Rodz  • 4 months ago 




You're not a hardcore Atheist, because Atheism doesn't have levels. You either are or you aren't an Atheist. You may be a hardcore skeptic or hardcore internet ninja, but that's another trait.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Huh? > Mr.FloppyShoes  • 4 months ago 




GOD MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT EXIST! DEAL WITH IT! EXPLETIVES!
That's about the best I could do. That's pretty hard core though.
 
7 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Leslie  • 4 months ago 




Taking your question about omniscience one step further....Wouldn't an omniscient God have been able to see that destroying the earth with a flood wasn't going to destroy evil? So he basically killed all those people for NOTHING??
If
 God is truly omniscient and sees all, wouldn't he have seen the
corruption of humankind before he ever created the world, avoiding the
whole charade by implementing a better plan? Or does he have a blind
spot? - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist....
If
 God is truly omniscient and sees all, wouldn't he have seen the
corruption of humankind before he ever created the world, avoiding the
whole charade by implementing a better plan? Or does he have a blind
spot? - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist....
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Huh? > Leslie  • 4 months ago 




Or, he has an ideal mode of existence for us, knows that we will struggle to reach it, but decided to allow us a choice in the matter instead of creating glorified extensions of his own will. You know, maybe there is something more to the possibility spectrum then vapidly false dichotomies...
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
wvernon1981  • 4 months ago 




Eh, Let Ham and Comfort play it up. The only people that are swayed by Ham and Comfort are those who agree with them already.
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Romi  • 4 months ago 




I wonder if they will show how Noah ended up: drunk and naked! That would be fun to watch.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Peter Thurston  • 4 months ago 




Hey, it's labbled fantasy and has outspoken atheists like Emma Watson in it, so if it comes down to it just point out how the same woman acted in Harry Potter and see the Christians become enraged.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Huh? > Peter Thurston  • 4 months ago 




I know more Christians that like Harry Potter then non-Christians. But stereotyping is cheeky and fun when atheists do it!
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Matt Ranson > Peter Thurston  • 4 months ago 




Oh my, Emma is in it? That makes me want to see it just for her.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
R T  • 4 months ago 




My first time questioning this was in 9th grade Earth Sciences class. I'd asked the teacher "Where did all the rain come from? There doesn't seem to be enough water vapor in the atmosphere to precipitate that much water." His answer was, "Yes there is." I also began to wonder, where did all that water go afterwards?
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Oliver Umrel > R T  • 4 months ago 




They taught you at school that this story was true? WTF? f(O.o)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Odin47 > R T  • 4 months ago 




Covering mount Everest in 40 days and 40 nights...Hydraulic rain.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Strongpot  • 4 months ago 




I read about a year ago Darren Aronofsky said he wanted to show the outrageousness of how this could never have happened. I'm paraphrasing but its something along those lines
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Raj > Strongpot  • 4 months ago 




I love darren aronofsky. I was wondering why a guy with his talents would do a movie on noah
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Wallace Morrison > Raj  • 4 months ago 




to make a crap load of money off of idiots
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Brian T Hall > Wallace Morrison  • 4 months ago 




I don't know... about making a lot of money... will see...
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Wallace Morrison > Brian T Hall  • 4 months ago 




Oh they'll come...they'll come. Passion of the Christ was huge, so we get to see more heathens go see another Christian Myth created by those who care nothing of the faith. I love the irony.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Wallace Morrison  • 4 months ago 




F'n love this. Proud to be Atheist, GodDamnit (seriously, it's ok for me to say that)!
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Heather > Wallace Morrison  • 4 months ago 




Is it really? Demanding someone non-existent to damn people, places or things? Sounds more like sophomoric rebellion than atheism to me. Or you could just be an idiot....
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Wallace Morrison > Heather  • 4 months ago 




Its called irony. Look it up. There's also a little nod to satire. You can look that up too. Maybe you're being funny or you could just possibly be an idiot.
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Mike De Fleuriot  • 4 months ago 




This might make a good teaching aid for our side, get out in public talking about how full of nonsense the story is. After all, we do own the internet. Maybe even a few Occupy Noah things.
But if we do nothing about it, when it happens, then we only have ourselves to blame.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Huh? > Mike De Fleuriot  • 4 months ago 




Atheists advocacy groups. Because the poor, starving, and needy will only be taken care of when there is enough people with fully rational materialistic world views, AMRITE?!?!
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Laura Murray > Mike De Fleuriot  • 4 months ago 




Occupy Noah. Sounds very r18.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ally  • 4 months ago 




Yep, more syfi with special effects. I hope Moses has some super-powers, that would be worth watching! lol
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Hector Rodz > Ally  • 4 months ago 




I don't think Moses will be a part of this at all. You meant Noah, right? Moses and Noah never really overlap in the bible, to my knowledge. They're a long time apart.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Ally > Hector Rodz  • 4 months ago 




LOL, that's right.. I was drowning in water at the time, and wasn't thinking! Either way, I'm gone!
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Huh? > Ally  • 4 months ago 




Whoa. Hey there. Maybe there isn't a God after all....
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Mike De Fleuriot  • 4 months ago 




Everything in the bible makes sense if you realise that gods do not exist.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Huh?  • 4 months ago 




It must be awesome to be so benevolently cognizant of your own intelligence that it supersaturates you with hubris and the inability to appreciate myth and its myriad of implications. Keep fighting the good fight, brosephs. The last thing we need on earth is a bunch of people running around recognizing something bigger then their own ego. Right guys?
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nyarthalotep  • 4 months ago 




So, they finally made Russell Almighty.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Wallace Morrison > Nyarthalotep  • 4 months ago 




lmao
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Better Off Damned  • 4 months ago 




Honest Tagline Version: http://on.fb.me/1aHkS0v

 

 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John  • 4 months ago 




Your questions are easy to answer
Yup
God helped
God helped
God helped
God helped
God helped
God helped
The Bible
God helped
Not real, just planted to mislead us and test our faith
Cause God
Yup
Cause God
Why not
Free Will
Read your Bible
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Mr.FloppyShoes > John  • 4 months ago 




You are literally too stupid to insult.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Avantyr > Mr.FloppyShoes  • 4 months ago 




Either that or he's being sarcastic...
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jacqueline Laine > Mr.FloppyShoes  • 4 months ago 




Especially when you missed the sarcasm.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Huh? > Mr.FloppyShoes  • 4 months ago 




^^ Irony.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Jake > John  • 4 months ago 




And you wonder why no one takes you Christians seriously.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Huh? > Jake  • 4 months ago 




^^ More Irony.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
lofimonk  • 4 months ago 




I don't worry about this too much. Its just a movie, whether or not it "helps" Christians in their fight to convert the "faithless". They're gonna believe what they believe whether this movie exists or doesn't. And they're gonna proselytize whether the movie comes out or not. This movie will come and go, just like Prince of Egypt, just like Passion of the Christ, and just like the hit TV mini-series The Bible. I wouldn't sweat it! I'm gonna see it because I like Aronofsky's work and that cast looks amazing! Star Wars isn't real either ;)
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joh  • 4 months ago 




At least this initiates some discussion. It's already happening in the comments on youtube and in other places and I enjoy reading those at the moment :D I hope we see close-ups of scared kids drowning in the floods and all the suffering this "benevolent" god had caused with his genocide in this story!
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
John David Bryce Hughes  • 4 months ago 




Noah? Really? Out of all the awesome Bible stories, they choose the guy who builds a boat?
There is so much Hollywood material in the Bible, but Noah?
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Wallace Morrison > John David Bryce Hughes  • 4 months ago 




I would rather see a story about jonah living, lol, in the belly of a mudda fuddin whale,lmao.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Sean > Wallace Morrison  • 4 months ago 




"mudda fuddin"....just spit my vino all over my fuddin monitor laughing...
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Lucias  • 4 months ago 




If they really wanted the original story they should have called the movie Gilgamesh and not Noah.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Chris  • 4 months ago 




How is it that a 600 year old man only has three sons? Even if he only had one child every twenty years, he would have 30 children. Or maybe, the three sons where the only ones living with him at the time.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Wallace Morrison > Chris  • 4 months ago 




Or possibly he may have swung the other way;). Maybe Noah and Jonah got together in some sort of freak accident like after awhile the whale spit Jonah out of it's butt and he landed on the Ark in Noah's arms. The important lesson to learn here that they don't tell you is that in 600 years and only 3 kids, Noah be getting down with a new kind of meat.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
demi  • 4 months ago 




you realize that if God exists, and holds the power that he supposed to hold, he can do whatever he wants..even brake the law of physics, because he created it, and create things from scratch.. and about the blind spot? free will (for us) and experimentation (by him). but otherwise smart observations
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
demi > demi  • 4 months ago 




and another thing...god told Noah, that during the time he was building the ark,he should tell to as many people as possible, what god was planning in order to save other people as well.. but they were mocking him... therefor God gave a chance to people
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Chas > demi  • 4 months ago 




God drowns innocent children, but since he gave their parents a warning then it's okay. I don't think there is any excuse. It's a good it's just mythology and not fact. I say that because there is no scientific evidence of a flood.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Wallace Morrison > Chas  • 4 months ago 




The Greeks and Romans did it best, IMO.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Wallace Morrison > demi  • 4 months ago 




you do realize that if you do exist and aren't just being funny (in another words you're serious) then you're diluted and need to get off the crazy pills. Not saying you're crazy, but if you're acting crazy it's because of those pills. Cow bell won't help in this case. You'll just need to stop for a minute, put down the pills or the juice you're drinking, look to reality and not anymore J.R Tolkien books, Asops Fables, or Waffle House pamplets, and breathe...breathe hard. open your eyes and smile. You'll come too sooner or later. If not, you'll need to kindly dismiss yourself from The Thinking Atheists area, because you're not really an Atheist and you're definitely not thinking:)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Timmah  • 4 months ago 




I am def going to see this. Looks entertaining on the same level of Clash of the Titans (The ORIGINAL one :-p) with the added fun of laughing at people walking out of the theater who think this is a true story.
Also Emma Watson.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Richard Carlson  • 4 months ago 




I suspect Hollywood feels that if it is ok for mega churches and tv evangelists to fleece the flock, then they will get some too.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
DakkaDen  • 4 months ago 




We should all watch this. Looks cool. I love disaster movies. Obviously no one should PAY for it though...I mean...surely God's message is free?
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Wallace Morrison > DakkaDen  • 4 months ago 




Sweet
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Rhett J D.  • 4 months ago 




I never saw the passion and i wont be seeing this joke either.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Noemi Ferguson  • 4 months ago 




you mean stark industries doesn't exist? you mean s.h.i.e.l.d isn't patroling the skys? and capt steve rogers ain't president? (laughs)
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eddie Vroom  • 4 months ago 




...So when does "Bob" get the Hollywood treatment?
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stephen Jones  • 4 months ago 




I've thought long and hard about this problem, and I've come up with a cheap, easy, and useful solution.
Face forward, eyes on the screen.
I sort of doubt that a comic book adaptation (not being snarky about the bible, either. Look it up. Comic book adaptation) by a Jew is going to severely affect mega church income. And if someone's seriously shouting "true!" then they probably have some kind if disorder (again, lack of snark, I don't consider religion a disorder), because I don't think I've ever heard anybody just randomly shout "TRUE!" "Yes" or "yeah!" maybe, but if they're shouting anything, get an usher. And that's not a religious thing, it's just poor manners.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jim Hoerst  • 4 months ago 




Why did God kill all the animals? Were the animals evil?
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Isaac42 > Jim Hoerst  • 4 months ago 




Yup. Evil animals.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Alex Shuffell  • 4 months ago 




I can't see this being anything like the Genesis story, there wasn't much there anyway. From the trailer we've already seen huge battles and Ray Winstone's king character. Anyway it's Darren Aronosfky, he does dark and moody, sometimes quite violent, always brilliant. The story isn't going to be expected, there wont be an uplifting message (other than this 'god character is quite a violent bastard, good thing he's just a fantasy') because of that it's more likely to piss off a lot of creationists. And Clint Mansell is composing, it will be worth watching just for his music, that's the reason why I keep watching The Fountain. I'm quite excited to see this. Has anyone read the French comic book this is based on?
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Oliver Schauer  • 4 months ago 




Just watched the trailer on youtube and it looks more like a "Clash of the Titans" movie than "The Passion".
In fact it looks almost like a Marvel movie with all the pseudo-dramatic dialogues and there is even the superhero flame-special effect when he tosses his stick into the ground. Made me laugh out loud.
I doubt that it will have big success at the box office.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Morva Ádám  • 4 months ago 




I love the title of this post :)
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
August Rode  • 4 months ago 




Could I recommend that you drop the point about the "toxic mix of fresh rainwater and salty seawater"? A mix of fresh water and salt water is called brackish water and there are a great many fish that can tolerate it just fine. Indeed, salmon move from fresh to salt water and back again during their lives. There isn't anything toxic about brackish water. I'm not saying that all fish would be able to tolerate it for great lengths of time, but it's such a weak argument and there are far, far better arguments to be made.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Arild Madsen > August Rode  • 4 months ago 




There are fish that tolerate brackish water, but a lot of fish would not tolerate it.
A sudden change in the salinity of the water should trigger a massive death of fish.
Even the plants would have problem to grow afterwards if there are a lot of salt in the soil.
But I have to agree that it is not correct to call the water toxic.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Brian Schaffer  • 3 months ago 




Scientifically; taking continental drift, plate tectonics, and earthquakes into account; Noah makes perfect sense. I believe use of a computer program would show all continents and islands fitting together like a giant puzzle. The weight and pressure of all that water from the world-wide flood in Noah's time broke up the thinner parts of what used to be a super continent. The weight and thinness of California (breaking off from the continental U.S.) is what causes earthquakes. One day California will be an island state like Hawaii. Noah's flood, earthquakes, and continent plate tectonics is where faith and science coincide.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bahaha  • 4 months ago 




http://www.answersingenesis.or...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Brian Schaffer  • 3 months ago 




The flood was pre-grace, before God became flesh and realized it was impossible for man to live up to His standards. God created the rainbow as a sign that He would never flood the Earth again.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
J. P. > Brian Schaffer  • a month ago 




Where are the conceptualizations "God in the flesh" or "God-incarnate" taught in the Bible?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RowanVT > Brian Schaffer  • 2 months ago 




So God is not omniscient then? A perfect being was too ... well... stupid to realise that non-perfect beings can't be perfect?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
J. P. > RowanVT  • a month ago 




It seems apparent that you misapprehend exactly how free will operates . To borrow from the brainchild of Harry Frankfurt , "so long as a person’s choice is causally undetermined, it is a free choice even if he is unable to choose the opposite of that choice.
Imagine a man with electrodes secretly implanted in his brain who is presented with the choice of doing A or B. The electrodes are inactive so long as the man chooses A; but if he were going to choose B, then the electrodes would switch on and force him to choose A. If the electrodes fire, causing him to choose A, his choice of A is clearly not a free choice. But suppose that the man really wants to do A and chooses of his own volition. In that case his choosing A is entirely free, even though the man is literally unable to choose B, since the electrodes do not function at all and so have no effect on his choice of A. What makes his choice free is the absence of any causally determining factors of his choosing A.
In other words, a limitation in the range of choices is not the same as having no choice at all. If A, B, and C are good choices, and D, E, and F are evil choices, one’s inability to choose D, E, or F does not negate the fact that he can choose A, B, or C.”
If you happen to visit an Italian restaurant , for instance , they could only just serve 12 from 150 possible Italian delicacies . The fact that you are unable to pick 138 of these dishes fails to negate the reality that you can actually choose any of the 12 alternatives in front of you . In the same manner , God’s expectation that his human creation be godly is not to mean man does not have independence of will . This means that , God Almighty is justified in expecting mankind to do good as well as punishing those who abuse their modicum of free will to be evil , ungodly .
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
MagicGALAXY  • 2 months ago 




It's interesting finding that there is this whole line of Christian movies coming out at around the same time. That just seems a little off to me. I am still excited for them; Noah, Son of God, and the last I believe it's called,"Heaven is Real"? Something like that (for more detail: a boy gets has to go to the hospital and is figured to die. The boy, surprisingly, survives, talks about him seeing heaven, dead family members, and other odd things. The movie is based off a true story).
I also think it would be cool if movies expanded on other cultures and/or religions as well. It's weird to me that there isn't many films of stuff like this that are filmed for the American public.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Brian Schaffer  • 3 months ago 




The flood was before the dispensation of grace, and God sent Noah a rainbow as a sign that He would never flood the earth again. The pounding on the ground and differing thicknesses of the land masses under all that water caused the thinner, weaker land to start breaking away from the thicker stronger masses of land (plate tectonics/continental drift).
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Brian Schaffer  • 3 months ago 




There are two words that validate Noah-plate tectonics. Hills and valleys are the results of differing thicknesses of land masses. The heavy rain, weight, and pressure from all of that water caused the thinner, weaker land masses to start breaking away from the thicker, stronger ones. Earthquakes in California are the result of the state breaking away from our continent. One day California will be an island state, like Hawaii. From a certain point of view, this is a rare occasion where science and religion go hand-in-hand.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
RowanVT > Brian Schaffer  • 2 months ago 




You'll note though that california is taking millions of years, not 100 days.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mr Seo  • 3 months ago 




nice move i advise you to watch it
 Elysium Full Movie

 

 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Greg  • 4 months ago 




There are so many problems with the text of the Bible it is hard to know where to begin
http://voices.yahoo.com/textua...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Brian Edmond  • 4 months ago 




Quote from my 15yo son: "That looks a lot cooler than it did in Sunday School, at least."
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
spoon  • 4 months ago 




Seth you forgot to mention that according to the Noah story, no rainbows were visible before the flood.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
DJ Crowe  • 4 months ago 




I wonder if the CGI dinosaurs will look as good as the ones in Jurassic Park???
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Daf  • 4 months ago 




I was laughing in agreement all the way! It's always fun to watch them desperately attribute all logical flaws to "It was God."
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RunasSudo  • 4 months ago 




Unfortunately, logic and/or common sense cannot be applied to Biblical stories.
TEH ANS-WER? GOD HELPT HIM WID THE STUFF.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
rasungod0  • 4 months ago 




I like epic mythology movies. I'll probably enjoy this fiction.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jim T  • 4 months ago 




they should Let JJ Abrams direct it.....that way is would be epic......and ruin the whole bible franchise....:)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
evilcucaracha  • 4 months ago 




Admittedly, this studio's plan to make a quick buck from the Christians is both devious and brilliant. Religious films like this bring a guaranteed audience. It sucks though; I really like the starring actors/actresses.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Noah's brudder  • 4 months ago 




I love Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Myths and all around fun. I'll see it when it gets to cable (not before)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Odin47  • 4 months ago 




I wonder why people really believe in this religious bullshit.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Huh? > Odin47  • 4 months ago 




Clearly because they are not as smart as you.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
DJ Crowe > Odin47  • 4 months ago 




Obviously, they're afraid NOT to... hell, burning, and all that BS...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Paul Gloor  • 4 months ago 




Theres a more realistic analysis from BBChttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

 


Theres a few others that throw a toolbox full of wrenches into the global flood idea.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Wrightly Subverted  • 4 months ago 




Given all the facts Evolution sounds easy.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Marc Fitkin  • 4 months ago 




I'll probably see it for the poops and giggles..
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Shoebutton  • 4 months ago 




They will have a lot of time to fill between the rain , and then the landing. Will we finally find out how Noah got rid of all the poop? Inquiring minds want to know lol
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Chris LeDoux  • 4 months ago 




I feel we should embrace this movie as much as we would embrace the Clash of the Titans. If anything a movie like this will look just as absurd as any other movie about mythology.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
Russ  • 4 months ago 




How did the dove find an olive branch if everything was destroyed. Olive trees take years to grow. What did they eat when they debarked? The earth would have been ruined by salt water so planting is out of the question. Maybe they ate some of those animals they had on board. The beginning of extinction?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
R T > Russ  • 4 months ago 




Two of each, plus maybe a few extras of the tasty ones for the diner table?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
geoff t   • 4 months ago 




my thoughts exactly Seth. well said and thank you.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














 
 





What's this? 


Around The Web



 Don't Buy a Home Alarm System Until You Read These Tips   A Secure Life 
 



 Living Here is a Bad Idea: 5 Awful Cities   Cities Journal 
 



 Revealed: The SECRET To This Body?   Smart Health Magazine 
 


Also on The Thinking Atheist Community

 Mail Call   2 comments 
 

 "I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"   90 comments 
 

 The "Son of God" Survey   49 comments 
 

 Did Jesus Exist? (with Dr. Richard Carrier)   1 comment 
 

Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 















 The Thinking Atheist
Videos

Podcasts

Forum

Editor’s Blog

Shop

Events

Resources












 

Home » Blog » Why &quot;Noah&quot; Doesn&#039;t Hold Water
 

Why "Noah" Doesn't Hold Water
 Seth
 Nov 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM
 2 Months Ago
   Comments

   
 
      

 
I've been dreading this, on several levels.  The problem isn't the stellar cast, the talented director, the elaborate visuals or the Resurrection-Of-The-70s-Disaster-Film premise.
The problem is that, if the movie holds closely enough to the scriptural account (and that remains to be seen), we'll quite likely see the film propped up by the likes of Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, a hundred megapastors and thousands of evangelical churches.  This happens every decade or so.
When "The Prince of Egypt" came out, my Christian radio station hosted a special live broadcast and premiere, rallying the community to support the film.
When Mel Gibson released his torture-porn classic, "The Passion of the Christ," churches organized special in-church screenings and field trips to local theaters, and the vacuous film became one of the highest-grossing films of the year. 
And here we stand again, awaiting the faithful's misty-eyed embrace of their beloved Noah story and the emotion-based preaching, pleas and proselytizing that will follow. 
And while so many audience members surrender to the screenwriter(s), the moody cinematography, the Oscar-bait cast, the squillion-dollar CGI effects, the pounding choral score and the goosebumps preceding the closing credits, the rest of us will find ourselves, again, attempting to snap the fingers of reason to awake them from their stupor.
Uh.  Hey.  Hello?  Yeah.  This story still fails to meet any logical, evidential or moral standard.  And if you want to hold to the biblical account, try to picture Russell Crowe after the flood...naked, drunk and in disgrace.
(sigh)
http://io9.com/the-first-noah-trailer-is-full-of-biblical-disaster-por-1464397957?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
The "Noah" film is set to release in March.  The trailer just released.
russell crowe as Noah
I've been dreading this, on several levels.  The problem isn't the stellar cast, the talented director, the elaborate visuals or the Resurrection-Of-The-70s-Disaster-Film premise.
The problem is that, if the movie holds closely enough to the scriptural account (and that remains to be seen), we'll quite likely see the film propped up by the likes of Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, a hundred megapastors and thousands of evangelical churches.  This happens every decade or so.
In my religious days as a Christian radio host, we hosted a live broadcast and special promotion for another biblical film, "The Prince of Egypt," rallying the community to support the movie and even use it as an evangelical tool.
When Mel Gibson released his torture-porn classic, "The Passion of the Christ," churches organized special screenings and field trips to local theaters, and the vacuous bloodbath became one of the highest-grossing films of the year. 
Noah movie poster
And here we stand again, awaiting the faithful's misty-eyed embrace of their beloved Noah story and the emotion-based preaching, pleas and proselytizing that will follow. 
And while so many audience members surrender to the screenwriter(s), the moody cinematography, the Oscar-bait cast, the squillion-dollar CGI effects, the pounding choral score and the goosebumps preceding the closing credits, the rest of us will find ourselves, again, attempting to snap the fingers of reason to awake them from their stupor.
It's amazing that the story has been taught as fact for so long.  After all, it fails to meet any logical, evidential or moral standard.  For example:

•Everyone was evil?  Even newborn babies?  The unborn?  The deaf/mute?  The mentally ill?  The sick and afflicted? 
•How did a 600-year-old guy build a football-stadium-sized boat using only trees and pitch?
•What about specialized diets for the animals?  Bamboo for the giant pandas?  Eucalyptus for the koalas?  Meat for the carnivores?  Plants for the herbivores? 
•Where was the food stored?  How did it keep from spoiling?
•How did penguins, polar bears and other arctic animals travel thousands of miles and then survive in the middle east heat?
•How did eight people over 500 years in age shovel thousands of tons of animal waste out of a 450-foot-long boat with a single window?
•Why didn't the toxic mix of fresh rainwater and salty seawater kill all of the lake and ocean creatures?
•Why did Noah have to send a dove to find land when Noah and God were on speaking terms a few verses before?  
•If the ark had no rudder, no motor and no sail, what difference did the dove make?  Seeing land would have had no bearing on the ark's final resting place.
•Dinosaurs? 
•When the ark landed, with all animal and plant life on earth dead, what did the humans and animals eat?
•Was incest really part of God's plan for repopulation?  And how did we end up with thousands of various ethnic groups in only 4,000 years?
•Why did the worthy protagonist of this story spend his latter years naked, drunk and in disgrace?
•Why the elaborate flood?  Why not just vaporize the evil humans and skip the flood? 
•If God is truly omniscient and sees all, wouldn't he have seen the corruption of humankind before he ever created the world, avoiding the whole charade by implementing a better plan?  Or does he have a blind spot?
•Why is there no geological evidence (none, nada, zip) for a global flood? 
Now, if you're interested in the film as entertaining fiction and big-screen bombast, wonderful.  But we skeptics in the audience who decide to attend will undoubtedly be sitting mere feet from devout Christians parents who brought their children to a blockbuster bible lesson, and for many of the swooning faithful, there will be teary-eyed rejoicing and shouts of "True!" over this boat full of bull.
-Seth Andrews
 
 
 
 
Tags: Seth Andrews The Thinking Atheist bible noah Noah's Ark
 
  


 
 
   
 
Advertisement
Advertise Here 

Hot Dogs Saved My Life - Learn everything you need to know from A-Z to run a successful Hot Dog Vendor business
 


Latest from the Editor
MAR
03
"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts...

FEB
27
The "Son of God" Survey
The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-...

FEB
07
A Random Act of Kindness
I was informed by a Facebook friend that she had picked up a stranger's breakfast tab at McDonald's yesterday. When Tonya shared the experience on ...
 
Latest on Facebook
 
The Thinking Atheist
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.
Copyright © 2013 The Thinking Atheist. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Yii Framework.
Community Site Developed by
Web Evolved, LLC.

Back to top
© 2013 The Thinking Atheist · Contact · Privacy · Log in
     
ShareThis Copy and Paste

 - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/68/Why-Noah-Doesnt-Hold-Water#sthash.4rwbbTmx.dpuf











  

 
 






34 comments

The Thinking Atheist Community

 Login  













d



Sort by Best









 
Favorite ★ 

Share ⤤














Join the discussion…



























































 







Avatar
MikeInOhio  • 2 months ago  




I have said this a million times on any number of different social forums, and I'll say it again here.
If, as a Christian, he truly feels the way he does about blacks and gays, then he is free to take his Bible and soap box to any street corner in this country and stand there telling anyone who will listen just how abominable and evil those gays are, how much he hates their icky lifestyle and all that gross sexy time stuff. And along with that, he can tell all the black people who pass pass his soapbox about how happy those black friends of his in the field with him were when they had no right to vote or marry outside their race or aspire to attend a top tier college in the South that admitted only whites. He can do this as often and for as long as he wishes. There is probably not a day goes by, somewhere in this country, that there isn't someone exercising this very right in this way. No one is restricting his right to do this every day from now until his savior returns. That is what is protected with his right to free speech.
What is happening here is very simple. He is a product. A product that has been marketed in a certain way, to a certain audience and within a certain venue. He has now damaged that product through his own stupidity and arrogance. Somehow, he thought that because his product was so successful within his own little bubble, that he could speak freely a view that is strongly embraced by much of his audience, but is viewed as quite offensive by a much larger majority of people. And this includes those who pay money to advertise and support his product. He stepped outside the "safe zone". Apparently no one told him that, outside his Christian right wing world, there is a huge country that really doesn't give a damn about how "special" or "endearing" his followers find him. It is simply a repeat of what we have seen so many times over the last five, or so, years; with anyone who is embraced and loved by any faction of the religious right. So now, he has taken big dump in his own bowl of cereal. And, for some really non-obvious reason, it is everyone else's fault that he has to eat the crap-filled bowl. And somehow, this is supposed to be persecution of his faith.
I don't buy it. I call B.S.
 
42 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
hdr21  • 2 months ago  




This is bigotry covered in the sweet candy shell called religion. The myth is that if someone says or does something bigoted or intolerant in the name of religion it is somehow O.K. It is still bigotry and it doesn't matter where it comes from.
 
10 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
brian > hdr21  • 2 months ago  




This is not bigotry in the lease bit. The man. Fake or not. Christian or atheist.. simply read straight fromwhat he believes. Then offered a very blunt straight to the point version of such for people who might associate with the material he read from could understand. For that he is punished!
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Izzy  • 2 months ago  




First, I just want to clarify that I am not specifically defending Duck Dynasty or anyone on the show; I am just stating that "physical appearances aren't everything." I've also never seen the show, and the majority of what I knew about them came from a magazine article about them I read a couple months ago. The article included photos of the family looking clean-cut. Also, I'm not a Christian, and I think Phil's comments are ignorant.
A video I watched a couple days ago calls out the family as being "completely fake" because of the clean-cut photo. While the show is scripted, just like ALL "reality" shows, their long beards and hair are (I'm assuming) not makeup. So, just because they were clean-cut for what is a posed family photo, doesn't mean that they were not then authentic outdoorsmen. (I've got a friend who is immaculately groomed and very OCD in his day to day life, but if you dropped him into the woods with just a knife, he would survive and thrive.) Sure, they are cultivating their brand and image-- just like Ralph Lauren is not a disco star and Coco Channel wasn't a tomboy. Their whole brand and brand identity with a duck call for hunters. How likely is it that someone who is NOT a hunter would decide to build a better duck call?
These guys aren't the Sons of Anarchy cast-- hum-drum actors pretending to be unshaven bikers (nothing against the actors on the SoA cast-- I say "hum-drum" because I hope those guys don't shoot up rival gangs in their daily lives.) So, just because they posed clean-cut 12 years ago, doesn't mean that their camo-clad lives were nothing but a front even before A&E came along.
 
9 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Johnny Cash > Izzy  • 2 months ago  




You lost me at "I'm not a Christian".
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Izzy > Johnny Cash  • 2 months ago  




Johnny, you've come to an atheist blog just to denounce those who aren't Christians? Do you really have nothing better to do?
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
ironical > Johnny Cash  • 2 months ago  




And you lost everyone with a brain when you proudly announced your refusal to hear any opinions not echoing your own.
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Lacey Wesson > Johnny Cash  • 2 months ago  




What does that have to do with anything? So, because that person doesn't hold the same religious belief as you, you assume that what he has to say isn't valid, logical, and worthy? What's wrong with you?
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Budhag Rizzo  • 2 months ago  




I think now that we're kind of coming around the corner of
this "Free Speech issue" (it was NEVER a free speech issue –
everybody knows it!), in sort of a backlash, emphasis is now being placed on
how "real" the Robertsons actually are. Let's face it -- it's a
Reality Show (oh, the irony of the term!) They're playing caricatures of
themselves, and the beards and camo sell it. There is no doubt in my mind that
they really do hunt, fish, ride their ATVs in the mud, etc. Most people growing
up in that area, rich or poor, tend to do that stuff.
I'm an Atheist and I support gay marriage. I don’t agree
with Phil’s views. But even more so, I don’t like all this ill reaction to it
on both sides. I think A&E could have handled this a little more discretely,
behind closed doors, where it wouldn’t look like they were calling Phil out
simply to protect part of their demographic. They could have simply made an
announcement that they have met with Phil and have asked him to keep his
opinions to himself when doing interviews, and he has agreed. I think that,
while they might have lost some of the audience, it would have doused this
ever-growing flame. Unfortunately, the
genie’s out of the bottle and the stigma will have some damage to the appeal of
the show.


Aside from having this unpopular religious view, the
Robertsons seem like very nice people. They are far from being part of the
Westboro Baptist Church! The show is very entertaining. I even like the dinner
gathering at the end of each show where they say grace. The grace part never really bothered me. I
liked the fact that it showed an obviously close-niched family. The beards are
just a bonus!
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Dena > Budhag Rizzo  • 2 months ago  




Handing it discreetly would not result in the amount of publicity both the family and the network have received. I would not be shocked if that were the plant from the start.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Budhag Rizzo > Dena  • 2 months ago  




A definite possibility too.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Mark  • 2 months ago  





I don’t see any of the “cast members” of Duck Dynasty living
a life of Christian piety and redirecting all that merchandising money to
charity. The eye of the needle must be
going through mammoth contractions worthy of both a camel and an immaculately
conceived pregnant Jewish baby mama with an anatomical pedigree the envy of any
teenaged daughter’s over-protective father
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
RedneckCryonicist  • 2 months ago  




Setting aside the fact that Phil Robertson has constructed a persona for his "reality" series, I wonder how much of the backlash against him derives from envy. Imagine the effrontery of a poor white kid from the swamps of Louisiana who now looks like a character from Deliverance, yet he becomes a self-made multimillionaire businessman - and that happened before the reality series. Oh, and he professes the traditional christian view on homosexuality. Considering that he has stayed married to the same woman since 1966 and has reared five children with her, he has done his share in the War of the Cradle and has contributed to the demography of America's future.
Robertson might not belong to the one percent, but he probably falls into the top ten percent somewhere, which shows that he has more of his act together than most Americans. We need more people like Robertson in the U.S. and a lot fewer of the ones who need some level of zoo-keeping because they can't or won't take care of themselves.
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Seth Andrews Mod > RedneckCryonicist  • 2 months ago  




Do people detest his bigoted remarks because he's wealthy? Well, some will always moan about those more successful than they are.
But Phil's story isn't really about his portfolio. It's about his bigoted views, publicly stated, and the fact that A&E's decision to suspend him has been incorrectly played as an Assault On Religious Freedoms and the Constitution.
Victims. Nobody plays 'em like the religious.
Phil's not a victim. He said something ignorant and bigoted, and the television network he's featured on wanted to distance themselves from those remarks.
Phil has a right to speak his mind. A&E has a right to say, "You're suspended." The Robertsons have a right to take their show elsewhere. And the viewing public has a right to decide whether or not they'll tune in, regardless.
Sounds to me like freedom is a live and kickin'.
 
44 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JacobBe5 > RedneckCryonicist  • 2 months ago  




A fair question. How much envy is behind condemning ideas such as:
 "They are full of murder, envy, strife, hatred, they are insolent, arrogant, god haters, they are
heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless, they invent ways of doing evil!"
I believe I can best address it by speaking to condemnation of other ideas. I condemn some of the historical doctrines of the Mormon church, In particular we can point out their views on why people are black and how they can make amends to become "a white and a delightsome people". When I condemned those views exactly none of my motivation to do so was Mitt Romney's wealth.
You see, I don't judge the merits of idea of how to treat people by the financial wealth people who adhere to those ideas. Because I understand financial wealth can be achieved by people regardless of their morality.
"Robertson might not belong to the one percent, but he probably falls into the top ten percent somewhere, which shows that he has more of his act together than most Americans"
No, it shows he has money. And that is all it shows.
 
28 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Winston > RedneckCryonicist  • 2 months ago  




Joe Shmoe is no more envious of any given rich person than his neighbor across the street, or at least I'm not. People hate these Duck Dynasty assholes for the same reason they hate Justin Bieber, they're untalented scum that manage to pull in the lowest common denominator and get rich off of them.
If anything, it's hard not despise these cultural scam artists flooding modern entertainment with their crap.
 
21 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
DubyaW > RedneckCryonicist  • 2 months ago  




What we need more of is people who are honest and tolerant of others and If you think that wealth is a sign of success then we need far less of your type in this country.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
XCellKen > RedneckCryonicist  • 2 months ago  




Didn't you post the exact same post, word for word, on an article on Alternet? Gawd, how pathetic. I think i tore you a new one there, so i feel no need to repeat myself
http://www.alternet.org/commen...
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bbinIndy  • 2 months ago  




The intolerance of an atheist is among the strongest forces of negativism in the world. You all are free to spout your views just as Christians are. The problem you have is trying to convince millions of people who will never leave their faith to do just that. You can say that isn't what you are doing, but in reality it is. You oppose every thing Christians do, but I never see you oppose Islam. I wonder if it is because you are all cowards? Maybe you aren't really atheists or agnostic at all, maybe you are Satanists, and this is all part of your plan to spread hatred. Your world is void of tolerance for others, yet you demand it from Christians. You are hypocrites. Turn or Burn. Prayers for you and love and joy at this wonderful time of year. Merry CHRIST-mas.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Seth Andrews Mod > bbinIndy  • 2 months ago  




Skeptic: "Hey. What you said? It isn't supported by the evidence."
Religious Person: "YOU'RE INTOLERANT!"
Skeptic: "Can you provide some evidence?"
Religious Person: "AND A BIGOT!"
Skeptic: "So you don't have any."
Religious Person: "HATE! NEGATIVITY! HITLER!!!"
Skeptic: (sigh)
 
20 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MikeInOhio > bbinIndy  • 2 months ago  




I can only assume, from the tenor of your comment, that you are a Christian. And while your comments are rife with hyperbole, I think they serve to demonstrate the complete lack of understanding within much of the Christian community as to what the feelings, motivations and desires are within the non-believing community; and exactly what the "end game" is for we non-believers.
First of all, let me say that I am a former Christian. I spent much of my youth and early adulthood heavily involved in a fundamentalist Christian church. So I am fully aware of all the arguments which Christians present for their points of view, and the scriptural basis that is used to defend those arguments. I made these same arguments myself, countless times, when I was a Christian. So telling me to "go read my Bible" will just not be a persuasive point to me.
You mention that atheists are "intolerant". Yet here in the U.S,, we live and work, every day, in the most Christian nation on the face of the earth. We are surrounded and confronted by every manner and sort of Christian message, iconography and ideology, every day. It is not something we necessarily enjoy, yet we know that it is part of what makes up life here in the United States. It is a given. And somehow we manage to raise families, be involved in school and community functions, support all myriad of causes with goals to help improve the lives of fellow human beings and work to live our lives in such a way that, when we are gone, we have left something positive on this earth. That is really nothing any different than most Christians aspire to achieve. And we do it all while simply not believing in a god. How we can achieve all of these things in this type of daily environment, and be considered "intolerant" is hard to fathom. Yet you make this tired claim. I would be interested in exactly how you would rationally defend your statement.
You claim that we non-believers are "trying to convince millions of people who will never leave their faith to do just that". I wonder if you, as a Christian, see the irony in that statement? I would guess not. Well, as for me, there has not been single time that I have tried to talk someone out of leaving their faith. And while I cannot speak for all atheists, none that I know have actually tried this either. If someone is perfectly happy living their life of faith, and they wish to keep it a personal matter, I am must fine with that. Atheists, as a rule, do not proselytize. How can one proselytize a lack of belief? I have, however, asked many a believer to defend their own claims of faith. See, that is how things work. Those who make claims have to provide the evidence for them. If that troubles you or makes you uncomfortable, then I would suggest that you take a hard look at how secure you are in your faith, and if the certainty that you claim to have in your beliefs might be built on a foundation of sand, and not on a foundation of rock.
You claim that we "oppose everything Christians do". Again, I would be interested in knowing some examples to substantiate this claim. I can only speak for myself. And I oppose very little that Christians do. Almost everyone I know are Christians of one stripe or another. Some are very involved in their faith life, others simply hold to the label of Christian. How they live their daily lives and deal with their faith neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If they wish to personally spread the "Good News" they think they have, then I say "Go for it"! I do strongly oppose the effort to impose religious doctrine into public schools and in our government. I oppose the fact that Christian prayer seems to be the default when prayer is used in public places. I view this national effort that seems to be taking place to force the "Christian Nation" moniker on a tremendously diverse nation as one of the most authoritarian and undemocratic actions that has taken place in my lifetime. If, in your mind, these things are "opposing everything Christians do"; then I guess I would plead GUILTY. Yet I doubt that any reasonable person would agree with your contention.
You claim we "never oppose Islam". If they have a god, then we don't believe in it any more than any other god. We oppose the same kinds of efforts by Islam that I outline concerning Christianity. We don't discriminate in that regard. Your claim is simply rubbish.
You ponder whether we might not all be closet Satanists. I suspect you don't have a clue what an avowed Satanist really believes. I suggest you take some time to find that out. Then maybe we can talk. Until then, we'll just label this claim as desperation on your part.
And so, we come to the end of my reply to your comment. You take one last chance to throw the "intolerant" label out there. And for that, I will simply refer you back to the beginning of my comment, where I address the daily circumstances in the life of we American non-believers. Again, that is my refutation to that claim of intolerance.
Oh, and I have one more comment to toss in here that throws some water on that whole "atheists are intolerant" argument................From one atheist, to one apparently angry Christian, Merry Christmas to you and your family!!
 
7 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
DanHendu > MikeInOhio  • 2 months ago  




Well done Mike. I too grew up a fundamentalist, however, no longer profess Christianity. I am a creationist, by choice of course, because there is just simply not enough evidence to prove otherwise. I'm not sure why so many Christians become so angry, but it's likely out of ignorance. Intellectuals as a whole find it difficult I would think to be creationists. Maybe not. Anyway, just wanted you to know that I thought your response was well mannered and well written. Good on you.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
MikeInOhio > DanHendu  • 2 months ago  




Thanks, Dan. So you no longer profess Christianity, but are a creationist??? That's quite an odd dichotomy, isn't it? Obviously, then, your creationist views aren't rooted in Christianity. Or are they? I'm sure I'm missing something here.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
robinottawa > MikeInOhio  • 2 months ago  




Seems like he still thinks there must be a god of some sort since we don't yet know all the reasons for everything.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
WingsThree > bbinIndy  • 2 months ago  




Troll alert.
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JacobBe5 > bbinIndy  • 2 months ago  




No, we don't have to convince anyone to leave their faith.
We work towards opening eyes, and minds. We want you to actually think about what you've read and actively decide what to internalize and why you should or should not.
After all, Christianity has been a pick-and-choose religion for sometime. The Christina who would still endorse slavery as permissible is a rare bird indeed. The bible endorses it, but Christians have abandoned it and denounce it as immoral.
Christians may dress up the reasons they are against it, including making up stuff they imagine Jesus must have meant, but never got around to saying. Yet the simple fact is they have abandoned something the bible teaches is permitted because they came to the realization that slavery was a wrong.
Christians, at least in the US, have abandoned the pretty solid women-as-second-class-citizens sentiments of the bible. Sure they hang on to a few bits and pieces, but over all they have come a long way baby.
Now we keep working on their views on homosexuals, more and more are realizing that there is nothing wrong with a homosexual, they are simply different. Just like they've come to understand there is nothing wrong with being black, or with being female.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
KnowYourFarce > bbinIndy  • 2 months ago  




Just as you are free to continue carelessly commenting on things and misrepresenting people you know nothing about. I suggest you read your bible for a change. Find out what it commands of you rather than bandwagoning because it feels good. Read it, if youre not afraid of you will find. HINT: The main themes of the book are intolerance, violence, rape, and subjugation.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
fimeilleur > bbinIndy  • 2 months ago  




Happy MOON-day, Happy WODEN'S-day, Happy THOR'S-day, Happy FREYA'S-day, Happy SATURN'S-day, Happy SUN-day... wow... that IS fun... random CAPS LOCK... LOL.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Varg i Veum > bbinIndy  • 2 months ago  




Jeez, ever heard of the word "islamophobia"? The very word was invented to show how "sick" all the people who oppeses Islam is. Of course atheist slams the equally silly fairytale Islam. Just because old mainstream media is ass lickers doesnt mean everybody else is. Just talk to your nearest muslim and ask him if his brand of fairytale is not "opposed" by atheists..
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Brian Schaffer  • 2 months ago  




As a Christian I can't offer anyone tangible, physical, scientific proof that the god of the torah/bible exists; any more than atheists can offer me tangible, physical, scientific proof that he doesn't http://dictionary.reference.co...
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. [the atheist religion]
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions [the atheist religion].
4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. All 5 of these definitions describe atheism (making it a religion).
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
j9clements > Brian Schaffer  • a month ago  




Your last sentence is utter and complete bullshit, and I think you already know that. Atheism is a religion like:
1. Off is a television station
2. Bald is a hair color
3. Green is a sound
Etc.
Atheism says nothing about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheism has no "set of beliefs", it has ONE...just one belief shared by all atheist. There is no god...that's what we believe. Period. We have no set of practices or ritual observances. We have no monks, nuns, priests, or figure heads. No holy books, doctrine, or dogma.
Try again
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 


−
⚑ 


Avatar
DanHendu > j9clements  • a month ago  




*Regards,*
*Dan Henderson | President*
*21 Waterway Ave | Ste. 300*
*The Woodlands, TX 77380*
*832-209-8847 Direct*
*832-289-5975 Mobile*
*HendersonOilfield.com <http: hendersonoilfield.com=""> | "It's not what we do, it's how we do it."*</http:>
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Varg i Veum  • 2 months ago  




It is quite obvious that most, if not all, "reality" shows are scripted and edited. The cast is not much more than puppets in the hand of producers. I cant believe that anyone actually them for real.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Guest  • 2 months ago  




I think now that we're kind of coming around the corner of this "Free Speech issue" (it was NEVER a free speech issue), in sort of a backlash, emphasis is now being placed on how "real" the Robertsons actually are. Let's face -- it's a Reality Show (oh, the irony of the term!) They're playing caricatures of themselves, and the beards and camo sell it. There is no doubt in my mind that they really do hunt, fish, ride their ATVs in the mud, etc. Most people in that area, rich or poor, tend to do that stuff.
I'm an Atheist an
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














 
 





What's this? 


Around The Web



 Invest Today in Penny Stocks and Watch Them Soar   Invests.com 
 



 7 Items That Sell Like Hot Cakes on eBay. Easy Money!   Stay At Home 
 



 Warren Buffett Issues Harsh Warning   Money Morning 
 


Also on The Thinking Atheist Community

 Psychoanalyzing God: with Dr. Valerie Tarico   1 comment 
 

 A Random Act of Kindness   2 comments 
 

 "I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"   90 comments 
 

 Bill Nye and the Creationist Guy   5 comments 
 

Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 















 The Thinking Atheist
Videos

Podcasts

Forum

Editor’s Blog

Shop

Events

Resources












 

Home » Blog » If It Walks Like A Duck...
 

If It Walks Like A Duck...
 Seth
 Dec 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM
 2 Months Ago
   Comments

   
 
      

Recognize these folks?
duck dynasty without beards
You're looking at the Duck Dynasty family in 2001. ("Today" did a feature on this awhile back.)
Now, while everyone's wailing about the controversy in regard to Phil Robertson's recent comments in GQ Magazine, it might behoove the adoring DD fans to look beyond this controversy to ask themselves whether they've bought hook, line and sinker into this "real life" Beverly Hillbillies story.
Sure, the show has its charms. Sy makes me laugh out loud on occasion. And congrats to the family for their personal and professional success. But as much as any Christmas gift, the Robertsons have been packaged and marketed and sold and bought.
Underneath the camo and wading boots is a group of savvy businesspeople who found a marketable gimmick and ran with it. They're probably not wearing clothes as much as costumes, and at $400 million in worth (half of that coming outside of the Duck Commander line), it sounds like they played this hand quite well.
duck dynasty in camo
The plots are setups. The characters are scripted. And the end-of-show prayers are staged and carefully blocked and lit for the cameras. The placid scenes are those of a happy-go-lucky band of rednecks who share a family bond and extract as much joy as possible out of this crazy life. It's a Happy Happy Happy Ending every single week.
And even as the shows are different in content, they follow a standard and obvious template, branding Duck Dynasty as a blue collar Neverland.
And that's fine. Branding is part of commercial success, and unique brands are required to stick out.
phil robertson
But if the frothing public is going to prop Phil Robertson up as a first amendment martyr (he ain't) and a moral standard-bearer for Americans (he ain't), they might take a moment to look behind the duck blind and into the faces and lives of once-clean-cut, tanned, vanilla yuppies and ask themselves who the quacks truly are.
-Seth Andrews
Tags: Seth Andrews duck dynasty phil robertson
 
  


 
 
   
 
Advertisement
Advertise Here 

Hot Dogs Saved My Life - Learn everything you need to know from A-Z to run a successful Hot Dog Vendor business
 


Latest from the Editor
MAR
03
"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts...

FEB
27
The "Son of God" Survey
The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-...

FEB
07
A Random Act of Kindness
I was informed by a Facebook friend that she had picked up a stranger's breakfast tab at McDonald's yesterday. When Tonya shared the experience on ...
 
Latest on Facebook
 
The Thinking Atheist
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.
Copyright © 2013 The Thinking Atheist. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Yii Framework.
Community Site Developed by
Web Evolved, LLC.

Back to top
© 2013 The Thinking Atheist · Contact · Privacy · Log in
     
ShareThis Copy and Paste

 - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/71/EverybodyDuck#sthash.wqNKFlOs.dpuf














  

 
 






34 comments

The Thinking Atheist Community

 Login  













d



Sort by Best









 
Favorite ★ 

Share ⤤














Join the discussion…



























































 







Avatar
Crama  • 2 months ago  




Well, I guess Jesus used his magic guiding hand to get Stanhope to create his "stick it to the Christians" shtick. Personally I'm fine with what he did and why. I gave to the campaign. I got the tee shirt "Actually, I'm an Atheist". And, it makes my blood boil whenever I see these types of "news" reports, especially on CNN, where their god is invoked. Here they are standing in a field of rubble, praising their lord for what? As Stanhope said, killing their neighbor and not them. Outrageous! It is time to stand up against such lunacy! Call a spade a spade. They make claims for the "good" their deity supposedly does, but never attribute all the bad it does. I guess a delusional mindset allows one to say and claim anything.
 
20 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joe Slatter  • 2 months ago  




Just to give some context - this was part of Newswipe - a British satirical show that pokes fun at the media. All the contributors are caricatures so I think his remarks should be seen in that light. In short, I think it's part of his schtick.
 
17 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Jon Michael Reynolds > Joe Slatter  • 2 months ago  




Very well said! I don't think seth looked into the show, or stanhope's comedy. Check him out Seth! He's hilarious!
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Joe Slatter > Jon Michael Reynolds  • 2 months ago  




I'm not sure if the show is aired in the US so he may only have seen Stanhope's bit in isolation.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eeltauy Magnus  • 2 months ago  




what's wrong with doing something nice out of hate?! is it better to do something nasty out of it?! nobility and peacefulness is overrated! we all experience hate, much more than love, it's a evolutionary phenomenon and we can't really help it, so why not use it for a rather "good" purpose?!
personally I couldn't agree with him more! I live in Iran and I've seen the true face of religion and though I don't necessarily "hate" all religious people, I do wanna stick it to some of 'em!
 
8 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
HTTP404  • 2 months ago  




get a sense of humor & a thicker skin.
seriously.
if you don't want Doug Stanhope on your 'Atheism' team, i'm sure he'd be more than happy to oblige you. the "overall fight for reason" is probably not going to be won by the opinions & actions of acerbic comedians, nor should it be something that said comedians keep foremost in mind when hatching ingenious schemes like this one.
Stanhope makes people laugh for a living & he's been at it for more than 20 years. for all its pungency, his comedy probably comes from a place of "goodwill, joy and a desire to help people" -- or at least a desire to elevate cheer over suffering. does his comedy go over the top sometimes? absolutely! did it go over the top in this case? probably. does this set back 'the movement' or, as you put it, 'the overall fight'? are you f**king kidding me?
Stanhope -- like Rebecca Vitsmun -- has the courage to openly state his convictions in genuinely hostile territory. in this case, he's probably playing up the vitriol some (the bit was shot for a satirical BBC end-of-year show). still, he's never anything less than honest.
if he's not light & fluffy enough for your 'Atheism' team, i'm happy to have him on mine.
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Sajiocity > HTTP404  • 2 months ago  




I believe this is part of a left-wing guilt trip for having possibly offended someone by being somehow politically incorrect.
Look at the brouhaha over the talking head's comment about the Romney's (black) grandchild. Where's the outrage? Oh, why hasn't there been more from the left over her terrible comments?
And now, this.
If it's ok for the RWNJs to make stuff up, deliberately lie and look for ways to attack those they don't understand, with little or no consequence, why must rational, thinking people feel they need to beat themselves up every time they perceive a faux pas?
Go Team!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mortis Rex  • 2 months ago  




Although I agree with a substantial amount of what is posted on the TTA forums and FB site, I do have some issues with how this Doug Stanhope story is being addressed. First of all, isn't one of the things we all proclaim to support the right to say what we want? So why is he being criticized for saying what he wants and believes? But my biggest issue with criticizing how he proclaims his atheist views is that I don't believe that The Thinking Atheist or any other atheist group asked Doug Stanhope to be a spokesperson or representative for their organization. We all know religious people who say things which are on the fringe and that they often don't represent their religion as a whole. But Stanhope has a long history of saying exactly what is on his mind and he is definitely not going to soften his words for anyone or anything. Having been a fan of his comedy for a long time now, I fully understand what he might say at any given moment, and also that he could apparently not care in the slightest about joining, representing, or offending any particular group or person. As a group, TTA doesn't have to endorse or even acknowledge what he has to say about either atheists or believers, but to criticize him for saying whatever he wants seems to be counterproductive to our own arguments about having the ability to say whatever we choose.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Nathan  • 2 months ago  




Perhaps he doesn't hate the people only the religion, which is something we hear all the time.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Budhag Rizzo  • 2 months ago  




Part of Stanhope's stand up is raking Christians across the coals, so this fits right in with the theme of his comedy. It's meant to offend the hell out of Christians. It's meant to push buttons. He probably had the best of intentions to raise this money, but just couldn't resist stoking the fire a little more.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ken Nardone  • 2 months ago  




Atheists, freethinkers, non-theists, humanists, naturalists, and a myriad of others that reject the idea of deities are just as diverse as everyone, including believers. It would be absurd and categorized as wishful thinking to agree with someone's methods, motivations, creativity (or lack thereof) just because they also claim deities are imaginary.
The virus of religious mind poison takes hold on people in different ways and strengths. US media, politicians and local governments proselytize this mind poison relentlessly. Since Doug Stanhope is a comedian, he simply marketed is persona to mock religious nonsense, and that, as Christopher Hitchens frequently declared, is a core value of our freedom and a right we can claim.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Seth Andrews Mod > Ken Nardone  • 2 months ago  




Hitchens actually provided an example of someone who could be strong, fearless and even razor-edged about religious insanity while still being gracious and compassionate toward people, even religious ones. He was often ruthless with the charlatans (like Jerry Falwell and Mother Theresa), but with everyday folk, Hitchens engaged with good humor and compassion. I can't imagine Hitch dancing on the graves of religious tornado victims. He might draw attention to their misdirected pleas to God, but he wouldn't celebrate the death of their children.
What's strange is to see so many people eager to champion such an unpleasant voice. ("He has free speech. Woo.") Or the earlier post about why hate is a great way to get things done (I think this person is confusing hate with anger, which can be a great motivator).
These are small defenses borne of small ideas, often by people who think that atheism should be the sole domain of the rebel hipster and his/her superiority complex. After all, those "religitards" don't deserve us, so screw 'em.
With attitudes like those, we won't soon see the battle against superstition won. We'll simply enjoy our cocoon of self-satisfaction as the faith virus continues to infect.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Ken Nardone > Seth Andrews  • 2 months ago  




My comments served to illustrate Doug's intentions of mocking religious nonsense and the fact that we all express ourselves differently. I purposely did not affirm or criticize the style or method used. We have and should cherish our free speech, even though it applies to what some may consider hate speech. We also have the right to criticize or simply disagree with those expressing that speech.
How this speech turned into "dancing on the graves of religious tornado victims", I complete fail to see. However, I do see how some survivors that lost loved ones may feel frustrated, hurt or even outraged when the media deliberately features people praising God and Jesus for the miracles that saved them and their babies.
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jchip > Seth Andrews  • 2 months ago  




i love Hitch but there were some rare moments when he was as offensive as Stanhope.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Ken Nardone > Jchip  • 2 months ago  




I often read or heard statements that most definitely can be categorized as offensive from Christopher Hitchens, yet fail to find when such statements were not provoked or justified by reason. I am convinced his critical examination and relevant questions relating to the validity of religious belief offended others because they failed to offer reasonable justification or answers.
Religious belief, by design, divides people. It declares, promotes and condones irrational, offensive, hurtful, misogynistic and bigoted ideologies and speech as truthful claims from a superior, supernatural power that anyone is capable to prove or know. Religious ideologies are the soul source of hate because it conditions the value of life on deplorable morals that justify damnation for those that question, offend, or refuse to accept this superior, supernatural power or entity.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Jchip > Ken Nardone  • 2 months ago  




very well said Ken, i wish i had your writing skills!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Rod Haney  • 2 months ago  




Whatever his motivations may be, he does make a good point.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Sam Bonello  • 2 months ago  




Don't need to comment because you said it perfectly.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Dave Dingler > Sam Bonello  • 2 months ago  




And yet you commented anyway?
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
robinottawa > Dave Dingler  • 2 months ago  




Hey, are you really Doug Stanhope? That's just what he would say.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Dena  • 2 months ago  




My husband had me listen to a bit of this and I too found it off putting. However, I wasn't aware that the guy is a comedian.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Carnage2K4  • 2 months ago  




This is typical Stanhope, he has no silence about being an asshole... I'd have to question if he did not say something like this.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jchip  • 2 months ago  




i love Doug and there are times when his "F##k You" attitude is the right one, (when you're dealing with bigots and homophobes etc.) but i feel our message will be received quicker with a respectful patient approach
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
artfulnotes  • 2 months ago  




Probably my commentary addition will prove to be unnecessary, but, just to reinforce this notion that hate is a wrongheaded response to religion. Even if a comedian is doing his "shtick", everyone needs to be watchful that the "thinking community", atheist or not, doesn't imitate the unthinking. Sometimes, it's just hard to avoid letting loose, but mostly it's counterproductive. People who have been devastated need compassion. Full stop.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
scott  • 2 months ago  




I was a bit startled myself when I saw the video, but I just chalked it up to his schtick as you put it. On the other hand, I agree, it's just as hateful and mean-spirited as some on the far right who seem to advocate ideas and policies just to "piss off the libtards" (cf. Steve Stockman's recent tweet about guns ). http://www.politico.com/story/...
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
exgodchaser  • 2 months ago  




Hey Seth, sometimes the "middle finger" is part of the helping hand. I don't agree with the reasons why he did it but I am (and I know Rebecca Vitsmun is) grateful that he did, none the less. I, like you, would always try to take the high road but we can't all be loving atheist. Some of us are just ass holes... with a giving heart. : )
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
robinottawa  • 2 months ago  




Well, although no one could disagree with your argument about the boorishness of the guy, his schtick is to be a jerk. What can you do. It's a teacup in a storm.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
MikeInOhio  • 2 months ago  




Well, at first glance, I was a little conflicted, too. But rather than weighing in based on those initial feelings and impressions, I decided to wait. And I allowed myself to watch Stanhope’s video a few times over the course of the last couple of days. And I have to say, that after pondering everything in this video, I am now a little less conflicted. But I do have to parse out my feeling about this video in several different ways.
I get the point that he is trying to make; about the absurdity of holding to the belief that some all-powerful and loving being is watching over you and protecting you and your little dog, while your equally faithful Christian neighbor is being impaled by a 2x4 flying through the air at 250 mph. This could be happening while his wife dies a
slow, agonizing death by suffocation due to the pile of debris crushing down on her and their kids are bleeding out their last precious drops of life from all the shards of flying glass that have eviscerated them. Yes, talking about the blessings and good will of your god at a time like that does seem to be pretty trite, not to mention heartless, when looked at with the cold, hard stare of rationality. This is especially true with the benefit of hindsight. I think the
vast majority of people here would concur with his points on that.
I think the thing which frustrates many, and I hear it in Seth’s comment, is that Stanhope’s commentary is likely to be used as an object lesson by Christians, and others, to perpetuate the “angry and hateful atheist” meme that we are all trying very hard to hard to erase, by living lives that exude compassion, empathy and concern for the well-being of all sentient beings on the planet, and especially our fellow humans. Commentaries like Stanhope’s do nothing to further that effort or aid the cause. While we might share with Stanhope the commonality of non-belief, I
doubt that very many of us would wish ill of our own neighbors or family during some kind of tragedy, should they wish to express some sort of theistic sentiment after the fact or related to the circumstances of their tragedy. This kind of binary categorization of people simply perpetuates another of those US-vs-THEM dichotomies which almost never serves any useful purpose or advances any larger goal of acceptance.
This is a familiar debate within historically marginalized groups. What is the best way to turn the tide of the larger cultural opinion to gain acceptance and the ability to assimilate without judgment and discrimination? And it is a discussion that is going on right now within the atheist community, with the so-called “New Atheists” introducing a more vocal and visible side of atheism around the world. This new dynamic has invigorated a lot of formerly closeted non-believers, while at the same time frustrating others who feel like their tactics are simply too confrontational.
Generally speaking, my personal experience with using the type of mockery and verbal barbs which Stanhope employed in his video is that it only angers and alienates people, and does nothing to help penetrate the wall of
superstition that is built around the believer’s life. There are a myriad of motivations which people have for clinging to their religious and faith lives. And almost none of these can begin to be dismantled, or even addressed, with derision and scorn. The instinctive walls of defense will automatically go up when a person senses confrontation of this sort. This scorched earth tactic, to me, is just completely counterproductive to the “long game” which will be necessary to turn the tide for us in the atheist community. There are certainly battles to be fought where a more aggressive and forceful strategy will be required. But these need to carefully chosen and well-thought-out on the part of those venturing down that road. Simply employing some sort of reflexive scorn in response to every theist’s prayerful public display would seem to be a largely counterproductive effort.
There is no one-size-fits-all equation for winning this battle we are waging. But like every civil rights battle that has ever been waged, and that is what this battle is, it is going to primarily be won at the grass roots level, within our own communities, among our own families and on a face-to face-basis every day. The face of atheism is what our friends and family see in us every day; by the way we live, the way we treat people and how we deal with the circumstances in our own lives, without relying on the purported grace of some amorphous deity.
Rants such as Stanhope’s might seem cathartic to a lot of us, especially in the face of so much daily hostility that we see. But we have to weigh whether or not we want things like this to be the symbols that people employ against us to maintain the marginalization and unjust demonization of a large swath of this country. I, for one, am tired of being painted as something which I am not. And what Stanhope did with his video did not help me one bit in that regard.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Glenn Boyce  • 2 months ago  




Hard to argue with that, Seth. Well said.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Crama  • 2 months ago  




Here's a better link of Doug Stanhope telling why he did the fundraiser. http://www.vice.com/read/the-p...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
Paul Gloor  • 2 months ago  




Dougs antics are certainly a kick in the teeth, but probably the wrong message.
I like the double lung transplant bit. What better way to round up proof of morals without God than to extend charity from an Atheist organization to a believer in God. Pray all you want, God didn't answer this call.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
vulpix  • 2 months ago  




Agreed.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dutch550  • 2 months ago  




I'm not familiar with this man, but he couldn't put his "shtick" aside during his campaign to show his fans that he's a good person, his "shtick" is not his real persona, and that he is not really prejudiced against people who believe differently than he does.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Allan Simpson  • 2 months ago  




Well said.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














 
 





What's this? 


Around The Web



 Top 10 Wealthiest Pro Wrestlers of All Time   TheRichest 
 



 50 Best Pizzas in America: One from Every State   Zagat 
 



 Americans "Ready To Kill" Over Obamacare   Money Morning 
 


Also on The Thinking Atheist Community

 A Scary Dilemma   11 comments 
 

 Why Evolution is True (with Dr. Jerry Coyne)   1 comment 
 

 The "Son of God" Survey   49 comments 
 

 How Atheism Changed Me   1 comment 
 

Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 
















 The Thinking Atheist
Videos

Podcasts

Forum

Editor’s Blog

Shop

Events

Resources












 

Home » Blog » Hate Can Make You Do Nice Things?
 

Hate Can Make You Do Nice Things?
 Seth
 Jan 1, 2014 at 11:54 AM
 2 Months Ago
   Comments

   
 
      

I'm in conflict over this one.
Doug Stanhope did something amazing by spearheading a campaign which raised over $126,000 to benefit Rebecca Vitsmun in the wake of her "I'm actually an atheist" interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. His proactive effort is one of the main reasons Rebecca and her family have a new home and a bright new chapter.
For this, Stanhope has my admiration.
doug stanhope
What grates on me is the acidic attitude (which may be part of his shtick, but still). In a recent video on his channel, Doug Stanhope essentially declared that he wasn't motivated by compassion but simply wanted to goad the religious victims of the Moore twister.  The headline on Gawker even read, "Comedian Raised $126K for Atheist Tornado Victim to Piss Off Christians."
Seriously?
Factually, he's correct about the insanity of the religious response to the tornado which killed 24 on May 20, 2013. The battered bride of Christ continued to offer pleadings and praises to the sky after their deity allowed the horrific deaths of their most cherished loved ones, and as they cried (and tweeted) "Pray For Oklahoma," the answers came not from the sky, but from the hard-working hands and compassionate hearts of fellow human beings.
Yeah, I get it. But for Stanhope to gleefully say, "It's funny how hate can make you do real nice things every now and then"...who is he hating? Religious people?
If so, the statement is ugly, wrong-headed and hugely counterproductive in our fight against superstition. 
Wait.  He's off the hook because he's a comedian and is supposed to come off like a douche in the wake of a life-taking tragedy?  And the more cruel he is to those who lost loved ones, homes and possessions, the more slack we give him?
Uh, no.  Being an entertainer, even one who pushes buttons, isn't a Get Out Of Responsibility Free card.  And (as much as many hate to acknowledge this), public figures aren't islands unto themselves.  What they do and say matters.
As an activist, I often hate the ill effects of superstition in this crazy world, but I don't hate the superstitious simply because they hold to religion. Many are wonderful people, often living an inherited belief system and doing their best to live good lives, even in those times when their motives and actions are misguided.
Moore tornado victims
The victims were/are human beings. The tragic deaths of their spouses, children and friends are no less horrific because they go to church on Sunday. And in my opinion, the damage Doug's barbed, mocking declaration of hate does to the overall fight for reason is lamentable.
In the 3rd week of December, this community raised tens of thousands of dollars for worthy charities, and we did it with goodwill, joy and a desire to help people. In fact, one of our recipients was a young Christian lady in need of a double lung transplant.
Yeah, she was like one of the religious victims referenced in Doug's video. Yet her religious belief didn't bring our hate or venom, our sarcasm or scorn. It brought $17,000+ in contributions generously and joyfully given by people who believe that human solutions must be presented to solve human problems.
That's humanism.  That's real compassion. That's a message worth sending. And I lament that Stanhope is apparently more interested in giving the middle finger than a heartfelt helping hand. 
When we lead with hate...everybody loses.
Seth Andrews
Tags: Seth Andrews The Thinking Atheist atheist atheism Doug Stanhope Rebecca Vitsmun
 
  


 
 
   
 
Advertisement
Advertise Here 

Hot Dogs Saved My Life - Learn everything you need to know from A-Z to run a successful Hot Dog Vendor business
 


Latest from the Editor
MAR
03
"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts...

FEB
27
The "Son of God" Survey
The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-...

FEB
07
A Random Act of Kindness
I was informed by a Facebook friend that she had picked up a stranger's breakfast tab at McDonald's yesterday. When Tonya shared the experience on ...
 
Latest on Facebook
 
The Thinking Atheist
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.
Copyright © 2013 The Thinking Atheist. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Yii Framework.
Community Site Developed by
Web Evolved, LLC.

Back to top
© 2013 The Thinking Atheist · Contact · Privacy · Log in
     
ShareThis Copy and Paste

 - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/72/Hate-Can-Make-You-Do-Nice-Things#sthash.9HvAPtf6.dpuf












  

 
 






12 comments

The Thinking Atheist Community

 Login  













d



Sort by Best









 
Favorite ★ 

Share ⤤














Join the discussion…



























































 







Avatar
Matt Ranson  • 2 months ago  




Does anyone find it hilarious that Ham can't build an ark with millions of dollars and modern construction building methods? I wonder how Noah did it 4000 years ago or whatever date they claim this happened.
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
MikeInOhio > Matt Ranson  • 2 months ago  




I not only find it hilarious, but I wonder if it has occurred to Ham that it just might not be god's will that he build that damn thing??? After all, Noah was over 500 years old when he started making chips for his little boat. And he was close to 600 when it was finally done. But he did have some strapping young sons who were only about 100 years old when they finished. Maybe Ham needs go back into his prayer closet and rethink this thing. Maybe god wants him to troll the local rest homes looking for some retired octogenarian carpenters to tackle this project. Now that would bring forth and multiply all those seeds of faith, if they managed to pull it off. That's a miracle that might even convince skeptical little me.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Thorne  • 2 months ago  




Except that, from what I've read, the only ones actually able to watch will be those packed in by Ham. And with him having sole editorial rights over any video, don't look for anything even remotely resembling the truth to be shown outside of his domain. Nye lost this debate as soon as he acceded to Ham's demands for location and editorial control.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Anidominus  • a month ago  




That logic works both ways buddy. (e.g. who ever controls the editing and the audience)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
exgodchaser  • 2 months ago  




If Bill can pull just one believer to the *thinking side of life... It would have been worth it.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mark Leggett  • 2 months ago  




I guess it's been said before: Why would a Scientist debate with a Creationist? Why would a Chemist debate with an Alchemist? Why would an Astronomer debate with an Astrologer? Why would Mathematician debate with a numerologist? Why would an epidemiologist / diagnostician debate with a witch doctor? And the list goes on...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mark Leggett (NZ)  • 2 months ago  




Just watched the video about Seth's visit in 2012 to the 'Creation Museum'. Disturbing at a range of levels. Question: Has anyone modelled the population growth and generations required to reach 7 billion population in 6,000 years? Is this even achievable from a 2 person starting point - balanced as well against the need for global distribution in that time which may / may not further constrain generations and population growth. No doubt there will an an anthropologist / mathematician / statistician out there somewhere who can lend some objectivity to this.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Mark Leggett > Mark Leggett (NZ)  • 2 months ago  




Whoops. While I guess no-one is actually reading this, I need to correct myself. The population modeling would need to be based on only around 4,000 years given the Flood scenario...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Heph  • 2 months ago  




I wouldnt make much of a fuss about the video. There are 800+ people in the audience and we live in the World of the Smartphone. I expect the "official" version and atleast 20 inofficial but complete ones from as much angles. A week Later a complete mashup of the official and the best Smartphone shots.
I wonder why Bill Nye discusses on the terms of Ken Ham. I mean a neutral place with a mixed audience would be much better for this discussion so one wonders if Ham is ready to discuss at all without homefield advantage.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mario Strada  • 2 months ago  




Unfortunately, debates are a blood sport that have nothing to do with truth. In Nye position, I would refuse debates based on that alone.
There is no need of a debate to seek truth: display your evidence in writing with clear primary sources.
That's how to get to the truth or at least close to it.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
Phill  • 2 months ago  




Though I understand the arguments against debating creationists and I can appreciate why Biologists and other Scientists don't want to give them any credence. I do have a concern about the average person in the street who see the creationists grandstanding but do not see a response from Science. Is there a possibility that they may then wonder if there is not something in what the creationists say? Of course most of these debates are preaching to the converted. But it would be nice to reach out to the fence sitters. Perhaps a dedicated corps of skeptical lay debaters who could target the creationists at their own game.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bob  • 2 months ago  




The few I know like myself who logged on at the specified time (9am EST last Monday) found that the 800 tickets were already sold out. Elsewhere on the page for ticket sales was a special number that Creation Museum members could call to get tickets ahead of time. I doubt there will be on skeptic in that entire audience. I would have expected nothing more from that coward Ham.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














 
 





What's this? 


Around The Web



 9 Huge Celebrities Who Are Surprisingly Small   Celeb Zen 
 



 Make $1000's Per Day with Penny Stocks   Invests.com 
 



 Schiff: Public Ignoring This Horrific Obamacare Detail   Money Morning 
 


Also on The Thinking Atheist Community

 Bill Nye and the Creationist Guy   5 comments 
 

 Divine Protection   3 comments 
 

 How Atheism Changed Me   1 comment 
 

 The Best And Worst of 2013   1 comment 
 

Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 













 The Thinking Atheist
Videos

Podcasts

Forum

Editor’s Blog

Shop

Events

Resources












 

Home » Blog » Bill Nye and the Creationist Guy
 

Bill Nye and the Creationist Guy
 Seth
 Jan 10, 2014 at 6:46 AM
 1 Month Ago
   Comments

   
 
      

ken ham bill nye debate poster
In the matter of the upcoming debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, my friend AronRa has absolutely nailed it in his short clip on the subject, stating:
____
"...debating Bill Nye lends him {Ken Ham} credibility, no matter what happens.
"Whoever wins or loses in public debates is decided by audience response, and Ham has the home field advantage. As long as he has control of censorship and editing, it doesn't matter how well “the science guy” does against him. The faithful flock will still cheer and jeer on cue and chant Ham’s praises afterward.
“This isn’t the forum for a scientist. This is the venue of a strategist.”
_____
Ken Ham actually re-posted Aron's short video commentary about the debate on his own FB page, declaring it "ridiculous propaganda these atheists disseminate about biblical creationists...but then again, atheists don't have the same absolute moral basis as Christians do so that's understandable."
That right, folks. You promote science, evidence, reason and an honest examination of the facts because you have no moral compass.
Bill Nye is so much better than this circus. He has given Ken Ham tons of free press, ticket sales and attention in a time when Ham has been drowning in his own irrelevance, struggling to keep the Creation Museum solvent and begging people to cover the tens of millions he lacks on construction of The Ark Encounter.

ken ham poster
Yesterday, Ham was a footnote. Today, he's a headline. And for people like him, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
I can only hope that Nye elevates the exchange as Ham seeks to capitalize on it, and the watching public will see the charlatan's wild claims of magic as the nonsense it is.
-Seth Andrews
 
  


 
 
   
 
Advertisement
Advertise Here 

Hot Dogs Saved My Life - Learn everything you need to know from A-Z to run a successful Hot Dog Vendor business
 


Latest from the Editor
MAR
03
"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts...

FEB
27
The "Son of God" Survey
The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-...

FEB
07
A Random Act of Kindness
I was informed by a Facebook friend that she had picked up a stranger's breakfast tab at McDonald's yesterday. When Tonya shared the experience on ...
 
Latest on Facebook
 
The Thinking Atheist
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.
Copyright © 2013 The Thinking Atheist. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Yii Framework.
Community Site Developed by
Web Evolved, LLC.

Back to top
© 2013 The Thinking Atheist · Contact · Privacy · Log in
     
ShareThis Copy and Paste

 - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/73/Bill-Nye#sthash.Fqg0GtVI.dpuf








  

 
 






8 comments

The Thinking Atheist Community

 Login  













d



Sort by Best









 
Favorite ★ 

Share ⤤














Join the discussion…



























































 







Avatar
ecolt  • a month ago  




I have three stepkids (twins, a boy and a girl who are 13 and an 8 year-old boy) and on the whole we're pretty permissive with what they watch.
Swearing doesn't really bother us, because we both swear in front of the kids so it's not like they don't know those words exist. We've taught them that words are just words, but that you should speak to people with respect. The older boy once dropped an f-bomb in front of us because of a video game and almost died of shame, but we were OK. There's a difference between that and cussing people out for no reason, and they know that.
Violence we watch a bit, but again the kids know the difference between real and fake. The 8-year old loves horror movies and shooter games, and that's OK. Again, as long as we emphasize the difference between real life and a game I think we're on pretty good footing. Besides, if his mom can take him to Sunday school and teach him about god smiting people and crucifixion, is shooting pixellated bad guys really any much worse?
Sex isn't a huge thing in our house. The youngest still thinks it's icky so he doesn't want anything to do with sex and the older ones turn bright red and pretty much run from the room to avoid the awkwardness of even seeing their dad kiss me, let alone a whole sex scene. I like to counteract their mother's church, so I want to encourage a healthy self-respecting attitude toward sex. How is that served by hiding its existence from teenagers? In fact, I've talked to my stepdaughter (and her twin brother) about how unfair it is that movies have such a double standard about male and female sexuality. I want them to go through their teen years with a healthy and empowered view of sex, which means I can't shield them from every depiction of the human body.
If something is overly gratuitous, or shows sex as violent, we'll turn it off. If the little guy's been playing nothing but shooting games all night we'll tell him to take a break for something more cartoonish or a puzzle game. Otherwise, we don't try to shield the kids from every little thing. They're people living in a world were certain things exist. Trying to pretend otherwise doesn't do them any favors in the long run. As long as they know the difference between reality and fiction and have a healthy respect for themselves and others I'm OK with a bit of gore or an occasional nipple.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
EmilyK  • a month ago  




I don't think those dubs you linked to are something a "youngster" would realize were dubs. If you don't already know what's being said - and most younger people watching a movie for the first time really wouldn't - then what's the big deal? :P You act as if it's obvious, but really, I don't think it is. The younger you are, the less you'll realize anything is out of place/not quite natural.
I think language is something that in some ways, makes the MOST sense to censor, and in other ways the LEAST sense. "Explicit" language doesn't hurt anyone. But it's easily adopted into someone's vocabulary, so if you hear the words a lot you're going to say them a lot. A young child using terms that are "inappropriate" while in school could get them EXPELLED in some places. So keeping the child safe from that kind of risk by not exposing them to the language at all might make sense. I don't know.
I got nightmares as a little kid by watching the cartoon Disney version of Pinnochio and Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol - scary things happen in those films. The puppetmaster literally controlling everything Pinnochio did and being evil/having cruel intentions scared me. I saw the really old Planet of the Apes that was rated "G" back when it came out and the image of a taxidermy'd human being, complete with a little stitch mark on their head implying the only thing inside was stuffing? That also gave me a recurring nightmare. Kids are "scared" more easily, in ways that reason can't just cancel out. I never was shown a PG-13 movie until I was 12, but I never really was dying to see them either. I never felt like I was missing anything.
I remember being 8 years old or so, in third grade, and Titanic had come out. People in my class had gone to see that PG-13 film and were obsessing over how there is a brief moment of a woman's nudity as a portrait is being painted. I think the PG-13 rating probably just made sense because the film's whole theme is on the scary side. So many people die in that movie. It's not exactly a "happy ending" type film. I don't know. Were 8-year-olds mature enough to see it? Maybe. I don't think a tiny bit of nudity the way there is in that film is too much for an 8-year-old to "handle" though.
My mother realized when I was reading the 4th Harry Potter book in 4th grade (so I was like 9 or 10 reading Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) that some scary stuff like murder and whatnot happened near the end of the book. She worried I wouldn't be able to handle it but I laughed at how ludicrous the idea of Harry Potter being inappropriate for me was. There was nothing too scary in those books. They were just compelling and good. I also watched my uncle being overprotective of my cousin as the fairly young boy, who had already read the second Harry Potter book, was now watching the film for Chamber of Secrets and the "Scary" basilisk (snake) sequence comes on. He worried the movie was too scary but my cousin wasn't scared in the slightest.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mumsy  • a month ago  




We always used the ratings as more of a guide, while showing our two boys overt sex and violence when they were young we were happy to sit through movies with them as they got older and use the swearing, sex and violence as discussion starters. I always wonder about the parents that get over excited about their 12 year olds watching a pg-13 movie because it has a little sex or nudity in it.
As a result both my boys, now grown up, had a healthy attitude as to what to expect from sex, that horror movies are not real and that really if you're one person in a fight against 20 you really are not going to win (unlike the movies) so run.
Censorship should come the parents first and foremost, you should know what's best for your own child/children
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Mumsy > Mumsy  • a month ago  




Sorry that should have been NOT showing them overt sex and violence.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Tedward  • a month ago  




LOLhttp://arstechnica.com/uncateg...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
C Sorge  • a month ago  




This has long been a source of frustration in our
household. I could care less if my teen
kids see a nipple (Othello was R for this) or consensual sex of any kind
between adults. I do still monitor non-
consensual sex in films for my 14 year old, but mostly because this is really
violence and not sex. And for my husband
and I, violence is the issue. I do
object to my kids seeing people raped, chopped up, attacked, bayonetted, shot,
stabbed, or their heads cut off, especially when the reason seems to simply generate
more blood. Heads chopped off in a movie
about revolutionary France, fine. Heads
chopped off by helicopter blades just to look cool, no. While someday I hope for sex to be part of
their lives, I would hope that this level of violence will never be. My daughter told me one night that we were SO
the opposite of her all friends parents, they are banned from movies with sex,
while we carefully screen the violence. My sister lives in Europe, and it is funny
how the ratings are so different. It is
considered fine for there to be nudity in a movie for teens, but not extreme
violence. I have found that IMBD is
really useful, they have a section about parent warnings so we can check if the
R rating is for sex (who cares) or violence (in which case I can check out the
level).
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rebecca Butler  • 2 months ago  




I'm sorry, I have to say, I'm an agnostic mother of a 4-yr-old daughter. I relate to growing up with parents who very much monitored what I watch - they were fundamental Christians. And while I don't believe as they do, I still do feel like there are many things I just don't want my daughter to see or hear yet. It's very easy to simply say "Well, I don't actually HAVE any children of my own, but IF I DID... well, I wouldn't care at ALL what they saw or heard." But be careful what you say - because it will come back to haunt you someday, I believe that. I'm not trying to be threatening, I am merely pointing out that the fact remains that you DON'T have children, so you can't speak on this particular subject as though you do. Believe me - a LOT of the ideas that you have now - whatever picture you have in your mind of how things will go once you do have children (if you even plan on it) - it will not go that way. I'm sorry - you should probably accept that now.
But now, I am she who digresses... I actually appreciate the fact that someone out there is putting ratings on all the movies so that I don't have to watch every single thing she watches before she watches it - I don't have time for that shit.
I consider myself to be liberal, an environmentalist, I'm vegan and I study Biology. I usually agree with the lefties on most things... but sorry, not on this.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 


−
⚑ 


Avatar
Mario Strada > Rebecca Butler  • 2 months ago  




Well, I DO have children and I agree with Seth (whom, last I checked, was quite conservative outside of social issue -- and that too is a recent development :)
My job as a parent is to act as a filter and a mentor to what my child may encounter growing up in our society. We have the same problem they have in strict muslim societies, except that for them it may be a bit too much skin above the ankle of an actress and to us could be full nudity.
How would you and I react to the ankle flashing on screen? Derision probably. Yet, your parents (and you apparently) would freak out if more acreage was shown. To a child, and someone that was not brought up in a puritanical household, the difference would be just as mysterious as the ankle hang up.
For a child that's only "scandalous" if we teach them it is so. Especially if we make a big deal of the situation and show them how uncomfortable it makes us. I prefer an approach where, as much as possible I explain to my child that society has some weird attitudes toward violence and nudity. Irrational attitudes at that. Where a victoria secret model is "sexy" and scandalous while the same woman photographed at a beach, displaying the same exact amount of skin (or more if wearing a tong) is perfectly normal and acceptable.
I want to give my child the tools to navigate the hypocrisy of the society we live in, but I would never want to tell him/her that there is something wrong with her body.
I'd tell her that just like one would not go to a museum in a bikini, one does not undress in a department store in front of everyone. BUt I would also explain that this is just a societal custom and not some absolute given to us from a deity.
Sure, when dealing with a very young child it is more difficult. Thankfully, networks are usually pretty good about not showing full nudity at 3pm so a parent should have the opportunity to pick and choose the time and place for dealing with this issues.
But getting back to the topic of the blog: I certainly do not want some anonymous arbiters of what is acceptable or not to tell me how to raise my child and what he/she can/cannot watch. That's my job, thank you very much.
Experience tells me that when they are very young, they hardly notice. And when they start noticing the best policy is one of nonchalance paired with light hearted parental input.
The very worse one can do is act as if an alligator was plucked in the middle of the living room and was about to eat everyone present.
(I know I rambled a bit. I was interrupted 10K times. My apologies)
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 















 
 





What's this? 


Around The Web



 Look What Obamacare Just Did To Your Tax Return   Money Morning 
 



 Learn How to Make Money Investing in Penny Stocks   Invests.com 
 



 Top 10 Items You're Too Old to Wear   Lifescript 
 


Also on The Thinking Atheist Community

 "I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"   90 comments 
 

 Why Evolution is True (with Dr. Jerry Coyne)   1 comment 
 

 Put the Cronus Back In Christmas!   23 comments 
 

 Atheism Around The World   4 comments 
 

Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 









 The Thinking Atheist
Videos

Podcasts

Forum

Editor’s Blog

Shop

Events

Resources












 

Home » Blog » Morality and the MPAA
 

Morality and the MPAA
 Seth
 Jan 14, 2014 at 9:55 AM
 1 Month Ago
   Comments

   
 
      

I saw an eye-opening documentary on Netflix recently called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," which (finally!) asked the question: Who are those anonymous and unaccountable censors at the Motion Picture Association of America?
Well, according to the findings of a tenacious private investigator, they're largely religious, and the MPAA appeals board includes 2 members of the clergy. {Sigh.}
So essentially, we have a dozen unaccountable mystery men/women potentially basing a film's rating and release options on a religious definition of morality.
film ratings
It was also interesting to note how often hard violence earned the "R" and nudity/sex required re-edits to avoid the dreaded "NC-17." A chainsaw in the mouth is fine. A same-sex couple making love for too many on-screen seconds requires MPAA intervention.
I also found myself wondering if the more puritan elements within the MPAA secretly enjoyed "previewing" films loaded with the very "perversions" they're required to lambaste at Sunday church.
censorship
It has often been said that "obscenity" is one of the most ill-defined terms in terms of culture, and in terms of law, as it bends wildly based on the subjective interpretations of individuals. One person's grotesque display of bare skin is another's artistic celebration of the human experience. What one parent deems unacceptable for any person to view (both minor and adult), another parent sees as a healthy reflection of the real world.
I have no children (a couple of soon-to-be stepchildren, though), and having emerged from the insular cocoon of Christianity into the larger "real" world, I wonder how I'd approach the issue. Would I do what my parents did whenever skin appeared on screen, squirming uncomfortably and blurting, "Don't look!" Would I blanch when a protagonist yelled "goddammit" during a tense sequence?
I'll spare you the suspense. The answer is no. In fact, the knee-jerk protests of my theologian parents actually created a "forbidden fruit" atmosphere, making me even more interested in what lay behind the curtain. The more restricted it was, the more intriguing it became. And almost every teenager knows how to circumvent the system.
family guy nude
But I also don't think that young minds should have unrestricted and unsupervised access to material that they might not be mature enough to process. So how would I decide how much film-related violence, sexuality and language was "acceptable" for a 9-year-old? And would the stamps of censorship by the MPAA and/or the FCC (Federal Communicatons Commission) have helped or hindered in this matter?
And one last thing. Does anyone else think that the clumsy television overdubs of obvious swear words actually draw MORE attention to the profanity? When Die Hard 2's John McClane says, "Yippie-ki-yay, Mister Falcon," who (including youngsters) doesn't know what he actually said in the original film version?
My favorite example of laughable TV censorship is Samuel L. Jackson's now-famous line in "Snakes On A Plane." (Actually, the bad overdubs finally made the film watchable, but I digress.)
How do you approach the introduction to violence, sexuality and "adult" language to the young and impressionable eyes/ears/minds in your own life, especially as your views aren't bound by holy books and pulpit preachers? (I may have to ask Darrel Ray about all of this when he does the January 28th podcast with me.)
One thing I do know.  I'd like any media ratings board to be diverse enough to reflect the whole of a population and not just the Jerry Falwell crowd, I think there should be more than a dozen seats at the table, and I think the identities of America's morality police should be public information.
And get the {CENSORED} clergy off of the payroll!
-Seth Andrews
Tags: Seth Andrews The Thinking Atheist atheist atheism religion morality MPAA
 
  


 
 
   
 
Advertisement
Advertise Here 

Hot Dogs Saved My Life - Learn everything you need to know from A-Z to run a successful Hot Dog Vendor business
 


Latest from the Editor
MAR
03
"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts...

FEB
27
The "Son of God" Survey
The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-...

FEB
07
A Random Act of Kindness
I was informed by a Facebook friend that she had picked up a stranger's breakfast tab at McDonald's yesterday. When Tonya shared the experience on ...
 
Latest on Facebook
 
The Thinking Atheist
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.
Copyright © 2013 The Thinking Atheist. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Yii Framework.
Community Site Developed by
Web Evolved, LLC.

Back to top
© 2013 The Thinking Atheist · Contact · Privacy · Log in
     
ShareThis Copy and Paste

 - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/74/Morality-and-the-MPAA#sthash.RDM8ddOt.dpuf










  

 
 






13 comments

The Thinking Atheist Community

 Login  













d



Sort by Best









 
Favorite ★ 

Share ⤤














Join the discussion…



























































 







Avatar
Chris  • 2 months ago  




Great piece. I am in a community of like minded people some are atheists and some are religious, both Christian or Muslim. We are global and share common interests there are no borders or boundaries and we all share joy in our interests, help and support each other which is a real border crosser.. It's is a motor vehicle thing. No need to go into it.
I'd never really thought there was a problem with being a non believer until religion came knocking on the door, kidnapped my wife's mind and caused division in our own household. In fact it caused a such a great rift which ended up in myself, an atheist being isolated angry at religion and seeking some answered Which the Atheist community answered quickly. No I am not condemned, No I am not alone or cursed. Now, with a refreshed identity labeled by the religious I have found more people who have the same thoughts and opinions as myself which is great. It has expanded the friendships and connections. Religious fanatics don't realise what separation they cause. One can say that with the atheist community when god rears his ugly head it is swiftly cut off.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
madredezoe05  • 2 months ago  




Thank you for this... I am one who has been actively seeking a family friendly atheist community for my daughter and I to involve ourselves in. We do have an atheist community in my town, but it is geared for adults. I'm trying to work with them to involve children, by possibly creating a children's program where we teach critical thinking, science and reason.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Stan Kossen  • 2 months ago  




Seth, I completely agree with your well-stated position. I would add that any group guard against the natural tendency to employ groupthink, and--instead--encourage critical thinking, as you do. Groupthink is like a virus and thus can easily and quickly spread.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Adrian  • a month ago  




Seth, may I suggest a meetup section in the forum, so that those who wish can set up local meetup groups? I know there are a lot of ways to create local groups (Facebook, Meetup, etc), but I think there would be value in TTA community meetup groups.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robin Hager  • a month ago  




I would love to join a group of like minded people. It is very lonely when you see your religious friends getting together for activities and you have no one to socialize with.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robin Kinney Westbrook  • 2 months ago  




Oh yeah! You said what I have been trying to say. Loners usually get a lot said and little done.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Lithopaedion  • a month ago  




A number of years ago I got in touch with the emerging atheist organizations in Russia. The atheists wanted to get a few popular names into their membership so they could use those names to advertize and make atheism seem more acceptable. One reasonably prominent personality - a well-known sci-fi author - was known by some to be an atheist, but refused to join an atheist organization. I interviewed him and asked him why. He ansered, "What do we do, get together and not pray?" (That reminds me of the scene from "Best in Show" where the woman says that she and her husband "...could talk or not talk forever and still find things to not talk about.")
So even among atheists there can be a sense that atheism as such is not a reason to form a special community.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
slave2six  • a month ago  




Hey Seth - I agree with everything you say but I find that for myself, I have a really hard time joining any group. For me it's a trust issue. After 43 years as a Christian and four years as an agnostic/atheist, I find that they thought of group gatherings implies a sheeple mindset.
Do you have any advice for overcoming this? For the most part, I kick it with Ex-Christians and atheists online but the idea of getting together in a group setting really weirds me out.
(BTW, Typo in "A single solder tossing stones.." above.)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Alin Enache  • 2 months ago  




http://waltherpragerandphiloso...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rayn Roberts  • 2 months ago  




"The church doesn't have a monopoly on community. The church didn't invent
community. It just happens to do community really, really well." That's right! And Seth, I agree with everything you wrote in your article. Thanks.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
qanik  • 2 months ago  




I agree. wish I saw more discussion about Unitarian universalism. a "religion" without the dogma. all congregations are different but ours is comprised of many atheists. we get a sense of community without being told what to believe. furthermore, my children are taught to value science and think critically. they learn about all the worlds' religions (how are they supposed to evaluate what they don't know about otherwise?).
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 


−
⚑ 


Avatar
Rayn Roberts > qanik  • 2 months ago  




Hmmmm, no dogma? Can you be a Trinitarian in the UU Church? I don't think so. Like all religions, you have to accept certain tenets or you're not "in". You might be tolerated, but you're not accepted. If you don't agree with the UU Church's so called "all embracing inclusiveness", you're "out". I see that as true of all religions.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Francesca  • 2 months ago  




Well said Seth. I feel that I do more reading, listening, and researching about atheist activism than actually participating. Gatherings of other atheists would probably help me (and others in the same situation) get more involved in the community. I don't understand why so many atheists are upset about this.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














 
 





What's this? 


Also on The Thinking Atheist Community

 Hate Can Make You Do Nice Things?   34 comments 
 

 Atheism: Just Another Religion?   2 comments 
 

 The Best And Worst of 2013   1 comment 
 

 Mail Call   2 comments 
 

Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 















 The Thinking Atheist
Videos

Podcasts

Forum

Editor’s Blog

Shop

Events

Resources












 

Home » Blog » Why Should Atheists Want &quot;Community?&quot;
 

Why Should Atheists Want "Community?"
 Seth
 Jan 18, 2014 at 9:24 AM
 1 Month Ago
   Comments

   
 
      

A question/comment emerged on the Facebook page, and I hear it echoed so often that I wanted to formally address it here.
Why do we need community, as atheists? Why would we mirror the hideous gatherings of the fundementalist "thinkers"?
The answer is simple: Human beings are relational creatures.
The church doesn't have a monopoly on community. The church didn't invent community. It just happens to do community really, really well.
Gathering to share common interests and pursue common goals isn't the sole domain or proprietary property of religion, and by eschewing opportunities to join together for fear of looking "religious," I fear we've surrendered ground to the church that doesn't belong to the church.
Community is a human experience, not a religious one.
atheist assembly
If community isn't your thing personally, that's more than fine. But many of us thrive on the connection we have with others. We enjoy relating, sharing, being challenged and drawing encouragement. We benefit from coming together as friends, and in a sense, being a family.
There's also the fact that the freethought movement is stronger with numbers. A single solder tossing stones against the religious castle wall will usually accomplish very little. An army of like-minded, focused soldiers working together can crush the barriers and win the day.
Here's a great pic of the billboard campaign promoted by Atheists of Utah.  Undoubtedly a diverse group, they got national headlines as they worked together to spread a message of support to those (in and out of the closet) who don't believe in gods.  (How much would they have accomplished if each had decided to reject the community and attempt this alone?)
atheist of utah billboard
Atheist and freethought groups around the country are seeing their numbers rising, and the amazing 2012 Reason Rally (promoting reason, not religion) was a hugely positive celebration of rational thought, science and humanism.  Are communal events like these to be condemned because you can't fit all of the participants in a Volkswagon?
There will always be the malcontents and hipsters who automatically think that any atheist movement or group means that we've surrendered to conformity, a herd mentality and the tactics of religion. "Oh...you're having an atheist meeting? Might as well be church."
By this logic, your local chess club is a church. Your gathering at a friend's house for the Super Bowl is church. Attending a concert with friends is church. Mingling at Comic-Con is church. Hosting a craft fair table is church.  A political rally is church.  The line at the new "Star Wars" premiere is church.
Uh...no.
angry hipster
C'mon. Are we really so desperate to keep rationalism in our back pocket? Are we like the indie band groupie who swears he'll reject the band if it ever has a hit song? Do we really lament the idea that others might make us feel less "special" as they join the freethought party and work alongside us to promote rationalism, skepticism and a superstition-free world?
As romantic as it might sound to be some kind of loner hero character paddling against the tide, I'd rather we join our forces and push forward together.
In my opinion, it's better to battle the waves united, well-organized and strong, to be there in support of each other, to find opportunities large and small to create community, and to provide a constant reminder that none of us are alone.
Seth Andrews
Tags: Seth Andrews The Thinking Atheist atheist atheism community freethought movement
 
  


 
 
   
 
Advertisement
Advertise Here 

Hot Dogs Saved My Life - Learn everything you need to know from A-Z to run a successful Hot Dog Vendor business
 


Latest from the Editor
MAR
03
"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts...

FEB
27
The "Son of God" Survey
The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-...

FEB
07
A Random Act of Kindness
I was informed by a Facebook friend that she had picked up a stranger's breakfast tab at McDonald's yesterday. When Tonya shared the experience on ...
 
Latest on Facebook
 
The Thinking Atheist
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.
Copyright © 2013 The Thinking Atheist. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Yii Framework.
Community Site Developed by
Web Evolved, LLC.

Back to top
© 2013 The Thinking Atheist · Contact · Privacy · Log in
     
ShareThis Copy and Paste

 - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/75/Why-Should-Atheists-Want-Community#sthash.ULSUKDPI.dpuf











  

 
 






11 comments

The Thinking Atheist Community

 Login  













d



Sort by Best









 
Favorite ★ 

Share ⤤














Join the discussion…



























































 







Avatar
Mel  • a month ago  




Kat-
I agree with Seth, entirely.
You will have a much more positive relationship with those who love and respect you for who you truly are, rather than a relationship where you fear someone's response to who you are.
I don't know any atheists who walk around holding up signs and announcing to all who can possibly hear their loud voice, "I am an atheist." But, I cannot say the same for some religious folks I've encountered.
I too was raised very religiously. It took me over a year, after much research & reading & struggling over what I knew and what I could no longer believe (sometimes in the very book that I was taught to base my morals on (the "holy" bible)), & many tears to say the words, "I am an atheist."
But, I have never in my 35 years of life felt more freedom, and sense of being honest with myself and those I love.
I no longer live in fear of punishment of an angry god or in hope of a star studded crown. I do good simply because it feels good.
All of my best,
Melody
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mithras Revisited  • a month ago  




A few people have answered this in various blogs. What they usually say is to be safe first until you are independent or of age to be on your own. There are now atheist groups that you can join for support. Until then take the time to critique the religion, take notes at church or religious gatherings to show how wrong they are. Question religious leaders, after a while your parents may be too embarrassed to take you to them. You do not have to say you are an atheist as yet but instead just curious. I would drive my parents nutty showing how silly the bible is.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Shakatany  • a month ago  




There's also a book coming out this spring titled Coming Out Atheist: How to Do It, How to Help Each Other, And Why by Greta Christina that might be of help.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Calvin Armstrong  • a month ago  




When i was younger, i was terrified if my parents found out what i was like, i used to drink every saterday and get really drunk from the ages of 13-15 and id be able to hide it quite well id sit in my room and entertain myself untill i sobered up. At the age of about 15 my gcses started, me being semi intelligent and loving science, i grew out of my rebellious stage, where i resented religion and anything acosiated, i still beleived but i hated it. It wasnt untill my interest into astronomy that really made me question religion and ultimately completely reject it, it was for me almost a "eureka" moment. I continued hating church and a good freind of mine within the denomination came out as an atheist and that was unuasual, as i was part of a church plant at the time, and his pastor became my pastor and although hes a real cool guy, he just told me to be a witness to him. It was at that point i couldnt hide anymore, so i started to ask questions to my dad, mostly about noahs ark and how it was impossible for 2 of each species to go in at once and 7 in total for the clean animals, in just a week it requires something like 20 animals per second. He lost his temper. I. Was never beat or hit for not beleiving or questioning but there was some harsh words. I still went to church for some time untill i was 18 (last year) but i just said id had enough and im not going. There was many rows but since i had a job (i made a point of working sundays but id have been murdered of my parents found that out lol) i got out of it and now that im at uni im very glad to say its neraly been a year. My parents are members of the reformed presbyterian church which is a very strict hyper calvinistic church, who idolise the "great reformation" in scotland and england where they rebelled agains the king as the head of the church. Very strict. My advice for anyone who doesnt beleive and wants to come out, start out small, question a contradiction or two, then leave it a while, every so often question more and more, this eases people into it, and it builds your knowledge of rebuttals and the bible itselfqnd really boosts your confidance, it will require some balls but you just gotta dig your heels in. If you think youll be out of a home, just wait untill you go to colledge/uni tthen you can do what you want.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Henk Karssenberg  • a month ago  




Dear Kat and Seth,
When you are an ex-christian there must have been a time that you believed or at least knew that being a believer or not is not similar to being a Democrat or Conservative. The christian faith means among other things that there is only one way to (eternal) life which is accepting Jesus Christ. Even when you don't believe this (any longer) your parents and other who love you do. So try to imagine how shocking it must be for parents to hear that their child is rejecting the only way to salvation. Try for a moment to see it from their viewpoint. Would you be hapy when your parents, still believing, would say: Well, Kat, never mind, just friends for ever, you your way and we ours? Like changing from the one grocery shop to another. They are worried about your final destination, Kat.
My five years younger sister died two years ago from cancer. I loved het very much and she understood me like a friend, more then most of my christian brother. She had broken with God, I'm still a believer. I miss her a lot and often I think: where is she now? I have prayed to God that He will have mercy with her.
Dear Kat, I'm not trying to make a believer of you again. But try to imigine the worry of parents or brothers and sisters, when their dearest leave the merciful God, in which they still believe.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Seth Andrews Mod > Henk Karssenberg  • a month ago  




I think I addressed the natural reaction of a parent in my letter. But you're not speaking about truth, facts, evidence or meeting any burden of proof. You're talking about comfort.
Many of us would rather live a harder truth than an easy lie.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Vernon Choin > Seth Andrews  • a month ago  




Seth, theirs living a harder truth... and there's making things harder than they have to be. What Hank is saying is this... That Kat should remember that her parents are acting out of concern and love for her. Atheism after all is a metaphysical assent, as much as any religion. He's trying to be comforting. Not talking about something that makes him comfortable. Atheism seems to be as much of a "Crutch" as any religion.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
fimeilleur > Henk Karssenberg  • a month ago  




Henk,
Are you praying that God will hear your prayer and change His mind? (is God granting access to Heaven based on how popular a person was? i.e. number of prayers in favour of a deceased person?) Or are you really just hoping that the belief in Jesus Christ isn't the only thing that would prevent your sister from spending eternity in Hell?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Henk Karssenberg > fimeilleur  • a month ago  




Well, I don't know what happened between my sister and God in the last hours when she couldn't speak any longer. I'm sure God is not granting access to eternal life based on how popular a person was. Granting to heaven is only on base of Jesus Christ, who is te Way, the Truth and Life. Nobody comes to the Father but by Him. But the grace of God is very great. When the Bible speaks about hell it is always for people who know the way and intentionally deny God. God can change His mind, I believe. It is in the Bible. But it is one-directional, so to say. His promises will never be undone, but His threatenings he sometimes doesn't execute.
Regarding my sister again: when beloved people, who are in Christ die, we can be sure that their soul is with God from the moment they pass away and thy will rise with their own body at the day Christ appears. For my sister, however I hope and pray so, I can not be sure and that is a great sadness for me.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 


−
⚑ 


Avatar
fimeilleur > Henk Karssenberg  • a month ago  




This is going to sound a bit crass, but I think you need to hear it.
IF something happened in the last hours between God and your sister, is it not a "just in case" scenario? Not true belief? Do you think God is stupid? Can he not see through that? Would that not piss him off even more? (guaranteeing her spot in Hell?)
If God doesn't grant access to heaven based on prayers... why do you continue to pray for her? Other than it gives YOU comfort? Seems like a waste of your time.
"When the Bible speaks about hell it is always for people who know the way and intentionally deny God." Looks like this describes your sister... What an awesome God you chose to believe in...
"God can change His mind"... OK, is your God omniscient? then he'd have known the outcome of his actions before they happened and had made the right decision in the first place. Yes, you are correct, it IS in the Bible... and it contradicts itself on this point many times.
Christians always claim their God is "unconditional love"... and that's just plain BS... "unconditional" means WITHOUT conditions... your sister will only get to heaven ON CONDITION that she accepted Jesus into her life...
Celebrate your sister's life... if you truly loved her (and I'm sure you did/do) honour the things she did, and don't dwell on the things that no one, ever, in the history of humanity, has ever been able to prove.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Vernon Choin  • a month ago  




I would ask, is there someone you trust, that you can speak what ever is on your mind... first about the reasons you don't believe... Is it really about honest questions of faith? Is it about not getting answers to your questions... or is it about being confrontational? There are good ways to bring up questions of faith... and appropriate manners in which to respond and allow others to respond to you. Sometimes, not always, what we fear will happen is much worse than the actuality... In every case we have to be honest with ourselves and be willing to admit when we aren't being fair to another person because of our feelings on the subject and guard ourselves accordingly. It's just as difficult to make your parents aware that you've become a Christian, as it is to tell them you've become an Atheist, Muslim... or countless other things...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














 
 





What's this? 


Around The Web



 11 Talented Celebrities Who Ruined Their Careers   Inside Celebs 
 



 Thomas Edison's Dying Secret Revealed   Money Morning 
 



 13 Celebrities with Awesome and REAL Bodies   POPnHOP 
 


Also on The Thinking Atheist Community

 The "Son of God" Survey   49 comments 
 

 Did Jesus Exist? (with Dr. Richard Carrier)   1 comment 
 

 "I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"   90 comments 
 

 Psychoanalyzing God: with Dr. Valerie Tarico   1 comment 
 

Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 














 The Thinking Atheist
Videos

Podcasts

Forum

Editor’s Blog

Shop

Events

Resources












 

Home » Blog » A Scary Dilemma
 

A Scary Dilemma
 Seth
 Jan 27, 2014 at 7:28 AM
 1 Month Ago
   Comments

   
 
      

I recently saw a heartbreaking article on Ex-Christian.net titled, "My Scary Dilemma."  And unfortunately, it echoed much of what I see in my inbox.
woman silhouette
A young woman calling herself "Scaredy Kat," a 17-year-old in a Christian home, came to the realization that she could no longer accept the religious teachings of her family and church.  Terrified that the announcement of her apostasy might devastate her parents and potentially derail her future, she asked the online community for advice.  Many people responded with wonderful words of support and encouragement. 
I added my own response, and I've posted my letter here so that it might provide encouragement to so many others who are in her shoes.  -Seth
___
Dear Kat,
I'm a former Christian, and my "coming out" to parents as an atheist resulted in various stages of grief...as if my mother and father had lost their son.  They displayed disbelief, confusion, anger, denial, and now an uncomfortable acceptance.  It's been over half a decade.
Ultimately, my decision to publicly declare my non-belief wasn't about them. 
Certainly, we must take the feelings of others into account whenever possible, and I'm convinced we must step forward with compassion and the desire to alleviate pain.  But we should also not allow ourselves to be emotionally blackmailed into walking a path, accepting a belief and swearing a religious allegiance fashioned by someone else.
No parent should ever say to a child, "Believe as I do...or else," which is exactly what so many parents do.
Your life isn't someone else's to live.  It belongs to you.  It is absolutely unique.  And it is too short and precious to waste.

flower standing out
I suspect you're not on a crusade to change your parents' minds, to alter their lifestyles or to push them out of the religious nest.  You simply want to live honestly, truthfully and rationally within sight of them without being pawed at, yelled at, guilt-tripped, cried over or branded the black sheep.  You want to be a family: a healthy unit where love and support isn't made conditional by agreement. 
You want peace, but not at the cost of surrender.
Ultimately, my encouragement is twofold.
1)  Take your time.  Don't let guilt or the pressures of any person or community push you to make the announcement before you're ready.  You can start slowly with questions, easing them into your circle of skepticism, or you can simply make the announcement outright, "I don't believe in God."  Only you can decide how to construct that particular discussion.
2)  No matter what happens, keep this single word in mind:  Boundaries.  It's assured that they'll be scared and hurt, and the months after your announcement will probably be intense.  They'll call.  They'll write.  They'll knock.  They'll pray.  They'll worry.  And (hopefully) they'll come to a point where they'll accept. 
But at no time is a parent, sibling, family member or friend allowed to cross into your personal boundary, to threaten you with familial, social, professional or eternal punishment.  At no time is anyone allowed to disrespect you.  At no time will someone be allowed to go after your life partner or children (if you have any). 
draw the line
Just as they proclaim their individual right to live their own lives, they must respect your right to do the same.  No double standards.  And if they cannot exist in your circle without bringing conflict, guilt, division and pain, they will have to be removed from your circle until they can. 
They can disagree all they wish, but they must also respect boundaries.
It's often extremely difficult for our parents' generation to understand non-belief.  To many, it's unthinkable.  And I believe it's important that we see their often panicked reaction for what it is: a desperation to keep a beloved child from pain. 
I also think it's healthy for them to see a beautiful child living a happy, productive, moral and truthful life without any holy books or chants to the sky.  It's healthy for others to see the caricature of the pathetic, sad, rudderless atheist shattered to pieces.  And I think it's healthy for them to discover that they don't live in a bubble, and that someone out there (even someone on their family tree) might disagree with them.
hand of friendship

Family isn't just lip service.  Family acts like family.  They hold you up in moments of crisis.  They listen.  They provide (productive and helpful) counsel.  They keep you honest, and they rely on you to keep them honest.  They demonstrate love through action and not merely talk.  They laugh with you.  They cry with you.  They take the journey with you.  And even in moments of great disagreement, they will not abandon you.
It's my hope that your family will see you living a rich, truthful, beautiful life, and even if they don't completely understand, they'll support you, and perhaps they'll begin to question why a god they so adore might eternally punish you for the crime of thinking for yourself.
All my best.
Seth Andrews

 
  


 
 
   
 
Advertisement
Advertise Here 

Hot Dogs Saved My Life - Learn everything you need to know from A-Z to run a successful Hot Dog Vendor business
 


Latest from the Editor
MAR
03
"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts...

FEB
27
The "Son of God" Survey
The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-...

FEB
07
A Random Act of Kindness
I was informed by a Facebook friend that she had picked up a stranger's breakfast tab at McDonald's yesterday. When Tonya shared the experience on ...
 
Latest on Facebook
 
The Thinking Atheist
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.
Copyright © 2013 The Thinking Atheist. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Yii Framework.
Community Site Developed by
Web Evolved, LLC.

Back to top
© 2013 The Thinking Atheist · Contact · Privacy · Log in
     
ShareThis Copy and Paste

 - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/76/A-Scary-Dilemma#sthash.YfT1VZE2.dpuf







  

 
 






49 comments

The Thinking Atheist Community

 Login  













d



Sort by Best









 
Favorite ★ 

Share ⤤














Join the discussion…



























































 







Avatar
DisentAgain  • 7 days ago  




I re-examine my atheism every time new evidence is presented. Yep... still an atheist.
 
24 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
CandyPerfumeGirl > DisentAgain  • 6 days ago  




but this is not evidence. it is a movie. I wish people would really make that distinction.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Yep > CandyPerfumeGirl  • 2 days ago  




I think that was the point....
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
DJ  • 7 days ago  




And why don't they cast an actor who actually looks like a first-century Palestinian Jew might look, rather than a Brad Pitt lookalike? Not as much box office draw?
 
12 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Jacqueline > DJ  • 7 days ago  




Once Upon A Time there was a handsome Prince. Classic faerie tale.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
sjreidhead > DJ  • 2 days ago  




From the research I'm doing on the history of fashion and costume for a book, we're basically looking at a group of people who, according to one historian, were Roman in costume. You could put a Roman, a Jew, or Palestinian on the same street at the same time and they would be dressed the same. You couldn't tell the difference in them.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
RedneckCryonicist  • 7 days ago  




Christians have gotten nervous because they know that the rapture has already started: More and more christians have "disappeared" though deconversion, and atheists with the same identities have replaced them.
 
9 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Victoria squires  • 7 days ago  




Isn't this the bible story they showed recently on TV, I watched that one and while I found it well done it was laughable because of the religious stories they choose were the ones you get a good feeling from and leaving out the ones that make you go 'WHAT, THE BIBLE SAYS WHAT?'.
What scared me more was that I watched it in England and the comments that were associated with the series were all praise Jesus and you don't see that over here that much any more and it did give those people a platform to say that those who don't believe are going to hell and that we are bad people.
As I said I watched the series and I did not revert back to the faith of my mother because the whole thing was laughable and the life of brain was better.
 
9 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mark  • 7 days ago  




The bible is being exposed for the myth it is. The fairy story books used to be hidden and cherry picked by the religious witch doctors but now they are on line to see how immoral and ridiculous they are. Science has proved Adam and Eve wrong, flood wrong, age of earth wrong, moses wrong, tamed camels wrong and the nonsense of genesis. The bible is a man made fairy story, pushed by the authorities at the time to control populations. The quran is a rip off of the bible for control again. Getting people to kill themselves for it and to control women like cattle for breeding.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Keith Jones > Mark  • 7 days ago  




I think it was Karl Marx who stated "Religion is the opiate of the masses!" And there are a lot out there who are hooked on it! And Some are getting off it slowly! Its only by asking the questions will others start to think for themselves!
One day people will look at these time and wonder what were we thinking!!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Romsy  • 7 days ago  




1. No
2. No
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
DJ Crowe  • 7 days ago  




SPOILER ALERT: Jesus dies, but comes back... So maybe there'll be a sequel???
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Susie Keller-McCain  • 7 days ago  




We're searching because we have never heard of Jesus before. What other reason could we possibly have for rejecting the perfectly plausible story of Jesus?
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Troy Alldaffer  • 7 days ago  




Compare these converts (alleged) to the countless numbers of former Christians (myself included) who are now atheists.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Old Uncle Bob  • 6 days ago  




Is this a make-out movie? Do you go out for Bloody Marys afterward?
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
todd  • 7 days ago  




I can't wait not to watch this. It is like remaking the same movie over and over. Like watching the 25th remake of the Titanic sinking. We get it. The movie is a guaranteed to make a fortune. They should donate the profits to the poor. Jesus will be mad. He wanted John Stamos to play him in the movie. Not a no name hack.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ben Beckwith  • 7 days ago  




"Bob's now a Christian!" is as relevant to the examination of the facts as the local casino billboard flashing, "Bob just won $10,000 on Wheel of Fortune Slots!"
Awesome, and very well put! See you in June here in San Antonio!
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Keith Jones  • 7 days ago  




And Breath!
This film does not interest me so if it was for free I would just skip it!
However, I would take my mum to see the knowers ark film.
Mum a JW and me a full blown card carrying atheist! That would be fun!!
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Johan Esqueda > Keith Jones  • 7 days ago  




Same scenario here Keith except in my area they don't really care for religious material outside of the organization. That does sound like fun though!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Keith Jones > Johan Esqueda  • 7 days ago  




Hi, You will find that in the UK, they tend to be a bit more laid back! However, I know my mum would not go! She has been in for almost 40++ years now. She has a blind spot when I ask questions and cannot follow the logic that information is available outside the books she has!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
madd potter  • 6 days ago  




What I want to know is... what happened to all of the human souls of those billions who died long before religion was ever thouht of?
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
CandyPerfumeGirl  • 6 days ago  




to think that by merely watching a stylized version of the fairy tale told in the bible, a book written by a bunch of charlatans about a bunch of charlatans, atheists would be swept off their feet and become religious tells me that religious people are fundamentally not understanding, or refusing to understand, what atheism is about.
It also tells me that apparently the only requirement they have for becoming believers (in the absurd) is a well edited and directed movie.
I am not going to pay to see this movie, I frankly couldnt give a shit, but if i were to see it and give it accolades for great story telling technique, script and cinematography, then that would not mean I became a believer. I was also impressed by The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, but that did not make me become someone who now believes in Hobbits. For this guy to think that and make such an assertion (based on anecdotal "evidence" basically) is not only ridiculous but it exemplifies precisely everything that is so fundamentally wrong and flawed with religion and its followers.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
NoSuicide4Me  • 6 days ago  




Its the same routine all over again. A theist makes a claim, provides no evidence, and expects everyone to believe them. This guys claims that he's getting feedback from the atheist community but doesn't say exactly which community.
"The 34-year-old actor says that many atheist have approached him with an urgency to tell him, " 'You know what I don't have a specific belief, I don't believe in anything but the truth is there is something in this story that touched me and made me search for something else.' "
Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of God. So Morgado is understandably stunned by the reception he is getting from that community. He goes on to say that he feels "privileged" to be a part of something that is impacting so many."
After reading this bulging strawman, it sounds like a pathetic attempt to increase ticket sales by hyping-up the same bullshit story so many people have heard a thousand times already. I guess he's expecting people to think that this movie must be good if it can emotionally appeal to these so called "atheists". Can't say I'm impressed.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
CandyPerfumeGirl > NoSuicide4Me  • 6 days ago  




not believing in anything and being apathetic doesnt make one an atheist. I doubt this guy was really talking to an atheist.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Mick Holcomb > CandyPerfumeGirl  • 5 days ago  




Yes. The individual that approached the actor did not identify himself as an atheist, he said he “did
not have a specific belief.” There is a difference.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
weryasfs serree  • 2 days ago  




Heyzeus died for us because that damn sexy Eve tricked Adam into eating a forbidden apple. So mankind is now cursed forever. Women will experience pain during childbirth, lions are no longer vegetarian (lol), and billions of people will suffer for eternity because of this one original sin.
Sounds like complete bullsh**t to me. Is there nothing too absurd to believe in?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
sjreidhead  • 2 days ago  




I happen to consider myself a very strong, believing Christian and I agree with you 100%. I'm not paying to see this sh^t.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mark Leggett  • 5 days ago  




Yep. Let's all practice evidence based religion (i.e. none). The world would be a better place just like it is with evidence based medicine and healthcare
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Graham Ash-Porter  • 6 days ago  




Why on earth would they expect a film (even if it is supposed to be based on a 2,000 year old story/myth) to change the mind of reality based thinkers?
They then stamp their feet, asking why we make fun of Religion and don't leave them alone? I think I can speak for most non religious, who take every opportunity to mock the afflicted, when I say that the moment ALL religions stop poking their noses in non believers business through trying to teach myth as science in public classrooms; vetoing politicians and interfering in peoples private lives. I would bet that if all this stopped, you wouldn't hear a peep from most of us.
If they enjoy the film, as it satisfies their myth based "realty", so be it. But don't expect the rest of us to get excited. We might enjoy a horror film, but we don't believe in ghosts, demons etc.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
mcbetsy  • 7 days ago  




Seth...I love your questions. I doubt, however, that many of them could answer them for all of the laughter they are unable to control.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Seh Cheng Liang  • 7 days ago  




CHILD OF GOD
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Scritty  • 7 days ago  




Part of being an atheist is re-examination. The willingness to change should evidence provide proof that change was sensible or required - whether in thinking, attitude or action. I see no reason to change after this. Nothing here challenges me. Saccharin sweet portrayal of the tale that , as atheists, we have already rejected.
Different news reader - same news.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
CandyPerfumeGirl > Scritty  • 6 days ago  




um....of course there is no reason to change your stance, this movie is not evidence of the veracity of the bible in any shape.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Scritty > CandyPerfumeGirl  • 5 days ago  




It is very actively being used as a tool for conversion/reaffirmation of religious faith. Schools in the UK and USA have apparently asked for permission to show it at some point in the future for example. In that sense it needs rebuttal. But I agree with you entirely. It really isn't evidence of anything - but since when has faith based belief relied on evidence? If it did, it wouldn't be faith, it'd be science.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Leper Messiah  • 7 days ago  




I wish they would make a big budget Jesus movie that was historically accurate, with Jesus being played by a middle eastern man, and everything from the bible, and I do mean everything, included within the film. After the screening I'd sit back as all the Christians would outright hate the movie. It's funny to think if Christianity is correct I'd be burning in hell next to 90% of these so called Christians.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
CandyPerfumeGirl > Leper Messiah  • 6 days ago  




well they did. Mel Gibson did and he was called names...and dismissed.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Carly Sturgeon > Leper Messiah  • 6 days ago  




Which of the Gospels would it come from, though? Even they contradict each other somewhat. If you want that, they should then make a separate Jesus movie from each Gospel.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Kristine Hayes  • 7 days ago  




Let me check, no change am still an atheist or better still anti-religion.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dwayne Muyuela  • 7 days ago  




-________-
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
cuthalion04  • 7 days ago  




This movie is nothing but deliberate money grubbing by the producers. They just took the new testament segment of the miniseries that the History Channel showed awhile back and are giving it a theatrical release. Even the damned trailers are exactly the same! I watched the whole thing and I'll admit I found it to be well produced and even beautiful at times, but it didn't convert me back to Christianity. In truth, I found the old testament segment to be far more compelling on screen, more like a fantasy film, whereas the new testament I found insufferably boring.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mike De Fleuriot  • 7 days ago  




I don't see why we should even talk about the Qur'an or Bible, when they have yet to show that gods can and do exist.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Moncher Iulian  • 7 days ago  




Another movie, same bullshit, sexy-er macho in the leading role. I think they didn't changed the lines, maybe some atheists could get it this time...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
wayneleone  • 7 days ago  




I'm atheist but I can't help thinking, as a group of like minded individuals, we're becoming a bit 'preachy' about non belief.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Seth Andrews Mod > wayneleone  • 7 days ago  




You're right. We should sit down and say nothing.
 
11 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
nogodsallowed > wayneleone  • 7 days ago  




What we are doing is asserting our right to not be trod upon by fundies and their agendas! We are tired of being pushed aside while those who have been brain-washed with millenia-old myths decide what's good for the rest of us. No more! All I see in religion is bigotry, misogyny, protection of pedophiles, constant attempts to derail all things scientific, etc. etc.... If we don't stand for ourselves, we might as well go back to the dark ages, which was their moment of glory! smh
 
6 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
wayneleone > nogodsallowed  • 7 days ago  




I'm lost as why we feel the need to say anything?? Atheism (to me at least) should have no agenda. I'm so confident that
 there's no god that it makes no difference what so ever to me what
belief system other people have. Religion however is far removed from belief in a god. Religion is human based and is therefore subject to human failings (bigotry, misogyny, protection of pedophiles etc.). These failings are not under the exclusive ownership of 'religion'. It seems we're mixing belief and religion as the same - they're not. Could atheism be seen as just another religion (albeit based on science and not blind belief)?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 


−
⚑ 


Avatar
Caleb Hendrich > wayneleone  • 7 days ago  




Religion is merely an organized set of beliefs. They are exactly the same, and to claim otherwise is simply to argue semantics.
Atheism isn't (and can't) be considered a religion because atheists don't operate on a set of beliefs. We don't "believe" in science, we observe and consider the facts of science. The only people that do think that Atheism is a religion are people who are trying to discredit Atheism for their own agenda, such as the people who try to claim that Evolution by Natural Selection constitutes a religious belief.
As to why we feel the need to say something... We need to let people know that we exist and that we don't agree with things that are being done. If we say nothing, then we let those that say anything have the run of everything from government to society. Sitting down and shutting up is a one way ticket to oppression, and make no mistake, Atheists will be oppressed if we say nothing.
I agree that we don't need an organizing agenda. We don't proselytize, after all. But we should all at least be willing to stand up and say "I'm here, I don't believe and you can't ignore me."
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Nilanka15 > wayneleone  • 7 days ago  




Yes, but it's almost always in response to some nonsensical "preaching".
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Spoodle > Nilanka15  • 7 days ago  




Have to agree. There are people out there deliberately sewing misinformation about science and lies about atheism, and it shouldn't go unchallenged.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 
















 
 





What's this? 


Around The Web



 Americans "Ready To Kill" Over Obamacare   Money Morning 
 



 Controversy Over New Steroid Alternative   Men's Life & Health 
 



 15 Cities To Never Live In   Cities Journal 
 


Also on The Thinking Atheist Community

 Divine Protection   3 comments 
 

 Morality and the MPAA   8 comments 
 

 Does Religion Poison Everything?   1 comment 
 

 A Scary Dilemma   11 comments 
 

Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 













 The Thinking Atheist
Videos

Podcasts

Forum

Editor’s Blog

Shop

Events

Resources












 

Home » Blog » The &quot;Son of God&quot; Survey
 

The "Son of God" Survey
 Seth
 Feb 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM
 1 Week Ago
   Comments

   
 
      

The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-screen version of the Christ tale has atheists feeling "touched" and even prompted to re-examine their non-belief.
son of god poster
Having seen the "Son of God" trailer (another misty rehash starring Sebastian Knapp's hairstylist and a host of constipated-looking Z actors), and knowing a bit about atheists, I'll just say it outright:
Either Diogo Morgado is lying when he asserts that an overwhelming amount of atheists say they've been "touched" by this film, or he stumbled upon a couple of random fence-sitters somewhere and just ran with it.
Nobody who's involved with atheists and atheist communities buys the story that this cinematic Holy Hallmark Moment would make a dent in the steamroller of scientific and historical evidence against the Jesus story and the whole of Christian scripture, or that non-believers would be melting like butter amid this film's longing gazes, sepia tones and swooning soundtrack.
jesus
Yo. We left religion because we rejected the idea of using emotion to determine truth.
You and I have seen this before. The God Squad giggles with glee as they prop some random convert up under the banner, "Former atheist finds God!" Yes, every once in awhile, somebody, somewhere will step from non-belief to belief, but even a cursory look at religion statistics reveals this as the exception, not the rule.
And most importantly, and it has nothing (zero, zip, nada) to do with the evidence. "Bob's now a Christian!" is as relevant to the examination of the facts as the local casino billboard flashing, "Bob just won $10,000 on Wheel of Fortune Slots!"
Religion cannot win on the facts. So it does what Ken Ham did at the Ham/Nye debate earlier this month. It trods out poster children and says, "Look who WE have!"
movie screening
I have an idea for Diogo Morgado and the "Son of God" producers. Hold a private screening (and make it free, 'cause I ain't payin' for this shit), and populate the entire audience with atheists. At the end credits, in front of live television cameras, survey each viewer with the following questions:
1) Has this film changed your opinion about Christianity?
2) Are you more interested in becoming a Christian?
Now that...would be a touching moment.
-Seth Andrews
 
 
Tags: atheist atheism Son of God Diogo Morgado Son of God movie
 
  


 
 
   
 
Advertisement
Advertise Here 

Hot Dogs Saved My Life - Learn everything you need to know from A-Z to run a successful Hot Dog Vendor business
 


Latest from the Editor
MAR
03
"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts...

FEB
27
The "Son of God" Survey
The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-...

FEB
07
A Random Act of Kindness
I was informed by a Facebook friend that she had picked up a stranger's breakfast tab at McDonald's yesterday. When Tonya shared the experience on ...
 
Latest on Facebook
 
The Thinking Atheist
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.
Copyright © 2013 The Thinking Atheist. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Yii Framework.
Community Site Developed by
Web Evolved, LLC.

Back to top
© 2013 The Thinking Atheist · Contact · Privacy · Log in
     
ShareThis Copy and Paste

 - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/78/The-Son-of-God-Survey#sthash.KcSJTlha.dpuf










  

 
 






90 comments

The Thinking Atheist Community

 Login  













d



Sort by Best









 
Favorite ★ 

Share ⤤














Join the discussion…



























































 







Avatar
Laura Murray  • 3 days ago  




What he did reminds me of how the parents of a child will thank god for curing cancer, and not the doctors.
 
32 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
jbove  • 3 days ago  




Very well said! I have huge respect for Matthew as an actor, but your article hits the needle right on the head. He should have thanked himself first and everyone who supported him to get him where he is now, not some invisible mystic energy that seems to have a detailed plan for every single one of us...
 
17 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
stoneyage > jbove  • 2 days ago  




He didn't have to thank himself either; he just needed to thank those humans who provided him support and encouragement.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Salisbury > jbove  • 3 days ago  




The invisible mystic energy that has a plan for the lucky ones but seems to be missing a plan for the unlucky ones.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Frida Nyberg  • 3 days ago  




While I'm not sure about Kathy Griffin, I like her Emmy Award acceptance speech:
"A lot of people come up here, and they thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus! He didn't help me a bit!"
 
12 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
JRNYE5C4P3  • 3 days ago  




Seth, you nailed it with 100 hammers, sir. As I work around cancer patients each year at Relay for Life events in Minneapolis, I find them adding God to their speeches, which too me is hypocritical to their own being, since, if there was a 'higher power', they wouldn't be in their situation. The recovering patients thank God over the doctors and nurses that administer their treatments, which is baffling at best.
 
11 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rob Coulter  • 3 days ago  




I'm fairly sure that when Charles Laughton said 'When you got God you got a friend and that friend is you,' he meant that once you have God in your life, your friends will desert you.
 
10 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Chris Hutchings > Rob Coulter  • 3 days ago  




Or perhaps he meant that God is in your head, or maybe in your heart, maybe even in your colon.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Shannon O'Neill  • 3 days ago  




Pretty frustrating to see it! Especially after his recent role in True Detective. I mean what was going through his head when reading the script for this scene?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

 

 
12 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Mike De Fleuriot > Shannon O'Neill  • 3 days ago  




People, there is a difference between real life and second life. TV/Movies are not real, but they do provide the money for real life and that is what he is doing, like every one of us would. All of us would play the most hard core South Baptist snake handling preacher/bigot for the right amount of money.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Shannon O'Neill > Mike De Fleuriot  • 3 days ago  




Agreed. Would still like to know what went through his head when reading it.
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
ArveKlarness > Shannon O'Neill  • 3 days ago  




I agree. Would be interesting to hear his thoughts on Rust's atheism/antitheism.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Robert Jory > Mike De Fleuriot  • 3 days ago  




I guess if god is real he'll welcome Matthew into heaven with open arms and applaud him for his great job pretending to be one of the heathen blasphemers.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Keith Jones > Shannon O'Neill  • 2 days ago  




Thanks for that clip I might watch the show now!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Frida Nyberg > Shannon O'Neill  • 3 days ago  




Very good actor then I guess.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
dromedaryhump  • 3 days ago  




HOW STUPID ARE RELIGIONISTS? McConaughey quoted Charles Laughton as saying 'When you
got God you got a friend and that friend is you.'" Think about that quote: If that sounds a little anti-god...you're right. LAUGHTON WAS AN ATHEIST!!! McConnaughey didn't even realize what he was saying by quoting him. What a dope.
 "Charles Laughton (1899–1962): English-born American actor. Atheism is mentioned in his wife's autobiography.[127]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rev. Cash Atheos  • 3 days ago  




Brilliant Seth, BRILLIANT!
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jim Allison Jr.  • 3 days ago  




BREAKING: God wants actors to win prestigious awards, but says "F**K you starving children around the globe, I'm not helping you no matter how hard you pray".
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Smiley Gladhands  • 3 days ago  




Though I understand where you're coming from with your opinion about McConaughey's speech, you still sort of come off as a jerk. So what if the guy believes? As long as he's not hurting anyone is any sort of way I say let him think what he wants.
 
8 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Seth Andrews Mod > Smiley Gladhands  • 3 days ago  




He has the right to invoke a deity. I have the right to challenge it. Easy enough.
 
78 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Smiley Gladhands > Seth Andrews  • 3 days ago  




True. I agree with that statement 100%. When I read your blog entry about McConaughey and how he thanked God, you came off pretty smarmy. I understand that a lot of believers do the same exact thing when nonbelievers like yourself and yours truly here say anything against their religion, but does that mean that we should do the same thing? If anything, we just come off looking like a bunch of pricks, and let's face it, in the end, both believers and nonbelievers are really just a bunch of loud mouth smarmy people.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
ArveKlarness > Smiley Gladhands  • 3 days ago  




How would you say it? Maybe you'd rather be silent about all of it?
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Smiley Gladhands > ArveKlarness  • 3 days ago  




Exactly. Though the urge would be there to point fingers and rattle off all the same points for why there's no such thing as a god and why anyone who thinks otherwise is just a complete fool, I would keep quiet and let the man say whatever he wanted.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Spoodle > Smiley Gladhands  • 3 days ago  




So a rational criticism earns you the title of 'smarmy jerk' regardless of the tone? The writer doesn't stoop to personal insults when others might. If you feel you've heard it all before, it is possible to say so without the insults.
 
8 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
ArveKlarness > Smiley Gladhands  • 3 days ago  




Being quiet is ok, but it doesn't make people think or reflect. But maybe you don't care about that? Keep quiet, and everyone will be friends forever in a perfect world of happiness and ignorance.... :)
 
5 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Tim > Smiley Gladhands  • 3 days ago  




You don't get it, do you? It's simply insulting to our humanity and society to put all the hard work and money and resulting popularity and fame into the hands of a fake deity, the same deity that causes the suffering and deaths of millions daily.
 
20 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Smiley Gladhands > Tim  • 3 days ago  




You're right, Tim. As a non believer just like yourself, I just don't get it.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Salisbury > Tim  • 3 days ago  




When Christians thank God, they are not giving credit where credit is due. It is hypocritical to thank God.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Captain Obvious > Smiley Gladhands  • 3 days ago  




Though I understand where you're coming from with your opinion about Seth's article, you still sort of come off as a jerk. So what if the guy doesn't believe? As long as he's not hurting anyone is any sort of way I say let him say what he wants.
Sound familiar? Sigh. The article isn't telling him to become an atheist, but it did do a good job explaining why it's daft to delegate the accolades you get from your hard work and that of others to the Big Guy.
 
4 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Steve Gray > Smiley Gladhands  • 3 days ago  




Christians do hurt people. They, who are certain that "God" is on their side, promote ignorance, intolerance, low standards for belief, and the more conservative ones favor war, violence, weapons, severe punishment, etc. more than others. There is no difference between religion and superstition.
 
3 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jennifer Giles > Smiley Gladhands  • 3 days ago  




I can understand practicing tolerance in regards to what one believes and allows others to believe. What I took away from Seth's opinion piece, however, is the unsettling disconnect between privilege and real-world problems. Thanking a God for talent and good fortune tends to portray a Higher Power whose priorities are skewed when He/She/It will be at the right hand of the kings of the earth, yet absent in the truly desperate cases elsewhere.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Lorna Markham  • 3 days ago  




iI also find the whole "thanking God for my Oscar "thing extremely irritating, (although i think it says more about the egotism of actors than the truth or otherwise of religious faith). However, I have to say that the smug, arrogant way in which some atheists denigrate religious believers is just as annoying. As I see it, the existence of the universe, life and human consciousness are still the great, unexplained mysteries...no one has all the answers and until they do, everyone should respect each others' right to believe whatever they feel is true for them.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Jennifer Giles > Lorna Markham  • 3 days ago  




I think the key word is respect. The Golden Rule still applies, whatever one's world view may be.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Bob > Jennifer Giles  • 2 days ago  




Do unto others as you would have them do unto you doesn't really work in a world full of sadomasochists and people who want to live in ways that horrify others.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
melray  • 3 days ago  




To say that he is not "hurting" anyone is assinign. Religion hurts people. To walk thru life, especially adulthood crediting imaginary friends and being on public display doing so, with such honory credentials, is influencincing generations to believe.. that is not only inconsiderate, it's also demeaning toward human understanding & capabilities.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ricardo Almeida  • 2 days ago  




Way to go Seth! You've put in words what I've been thinking since I heard that acceptance speech.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
tsimitpo  • 3 days ago  




Why do you guys care so much about the mention of a god you don't believe is real? I thought atheists were skeptics, but a true skeptic would allow for possibilities that are not yet understood - not stamping as false anything that couldn't be proven false. For example, some might think they can prove a cement wall is solid by every definition of the word - until they learn that it is actually made up of atoms and molecules that have a great deal of space inside them. Where's your open mind?
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Nate Chrysler > tsimitpo  • 3 days ago  




You could not have missed the point by much more. And before you reply, re-read the article.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
tsimitpo > Nate Chrysler  • 3 days ago  




Or - maybe I read the article and DIDN'T miss the point. Think about what claiming that "God" couldn't have had anything to do with MM's success really entails. The point is that nobody can prove anything other than that it doesn't "make sense".
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Nate Chrysler > tsimitpo  • 3 days ago  




Thinking about it too much will give me brain damage. I'll back away now and leave you to your fairy tales. Have fun with that :)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Jeremy Davidson  • 3 days ago  




It doesn't often get brought up how thanking god is a violation of one of the ten commandments, the one about taking the lord's name in vain. People mistake that bit to mean don't use the word when cursing, when it's really referring to things like this.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Richard Olson  • 3 days ago  




I didn't watch the program, so didn't hear the deity remarks or the 5 mentions of Texas. For the past few weeks I stayed with friends in Texas who kept their tv on quite a bit, so over that period of time I got to hear constant references to god and Texas whenever a GOP political ad aired. I've visited Muslim countries where experiencing the scheduled calls to prayer, and masses of people performing the ritual prayer prostration in the public square, swiftly becomes normal and unremarkable behavior. Exposure to multiple hourly theocratic campaign advertisements, apparently 24/7 for the better part of an entire calendar year, in what I thought prior to Feb 2014 was still a legally secular state in the USA, on the other hand, ...
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
XCellKen > Richard Olson  • 3 days ago  




The five remarks about Texas were made by Seth Andrews, not Matthew McConaughey. I mean, people that live in Oklahoma houses shouldn't throw stones, or some mixed metaphor like that
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Darwin Beagle  • 3 days ago  




Bravo, Seth. You articulated how I feel whenever the "influential" give free advertisement and endorsement to religion, and for no particular reason. You gave MC the benefit of the doubt when you say he did it out of "humility." I wouldn't have. My immediate assumption was that he advocated the very familiar sentiment of hatred, bigotry, and exclusion that we hear everyday day from the Tea Party and others that claim their faith is about love; like wolves in sheep's clothing. No apologies. Your reaction is valid and shared by others.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Rene Belloq 12 inch figure  • 3 days ago  




who gives a shit, he has done more for atheism by playing that cool ass Rust Cohle character than anybody on showbiz. He's also producing that series, which totally criticizes religious degenerates. He can thank all the gods he wants.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Nate Chrysler > Rene Belloq 12 inch figure  • 3 days ago  




You could warn them... If only you spoke Hovitos!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mo  • 3 days ago  




It's just a fucking speech. No need to over-analyze and write a blog on it. Get a life!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Nate Chrysler > Mo  • 3 days ago  




It's just a fucking personal opinion article. No need to go out of your way to criticize and write a snide comment about it. Get a grip!
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Brakes  • 3 days ago  




Lol, so many objective opinions when, in your atheistic world, objective moral values and duties don't exist.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Nate Chrysler > Brakes  • 3 days ago  




Haha... what? What bible tract did you read this nonsensical drivel from? Man, oh man. Yes, yes, we eat babies and all that good stuff... Really, what are they teaching you people about Atheists? I can quite assure you it is all self-serving propaganda, at best. Much more sinister, at worst.
 
2 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Chris Noneofyourconcern  • 2 days ago  




How is he still a christian after reading the script for True Detective?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Dennis A. Fletcher  • 2 days ago  




Well said, Seth.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Y Brynecho  • 2 days ago  




I agree. But, if he wants to show his ignorance on national TV, that's his problem. His first thank you should have been to the writer of the original story on which the movie was based because without him/her there would have been no movie so no Oscar.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Alek Samuel  • 2 days ago  




You win an Oscar and then you can thank who you want hater
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Bob > Alek Samuel  • 2 days ago  




And which emotion brought you to this site, hmm?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Y Brynecho > Alek Samuel  • 2 days ago  




Eh????????
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Brian Allen  • 2 days ago  




Generally spot on, I don't think he did this out of some need to deflect attention. I think he was on a mission. He wanted to proselytize plain and simple. He immediately took the moment away for, I suspect, most people watching. Stars - Baseball and Football players need to keep their invisible friend/religion fantasies to themselves. If they want to preach then start a church. The AHA wrote an article about McConaughey playing an Atheist cop and playing the role as a mean, unhappy person; his reaction at the Oscars's give insight as to why the Atheist has to be portrayed that way, at least by him.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Keith Jones  • 2 days ago  




He could be hiding is non belief behind all this religious retteric! You must have stated something from the bible to make your position harder to defeat during your time at the Christian Radio! And later you decided it was B/S! But you needed the work!!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Scott Gambling  • 3 days ago  




Just my two cents - yes, I'm a theist :
Personally, I don't think that thanking God negates or diminishes the hard work that he and others put in to his successes (Facts 1&2). I think that's a little unfair, because nobody draws that conclusion when people thank their parents or their partners.
The other (more generalised) objections to the notion of McConaughey's God (Facts 3&4) seem based on a particular fallacy: that if there is a God then He must adhere to and conduct Himself according to our standards, and if He doesn't then He either isn't really Good, or doesn't exist at all.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
David Greensmith  • 3 days ago  




I remember reading how when he was in Contact he refused to say the line "my god was too small". Pathetic.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Tom Savage  • 3 days ago  




All that I read into what he said was that "first off he'd like to thank himself," as he states "in the words of the late British actor Charlie Laughton 'When you've got god you've got a friend and that friend is yourself" well words to that effect, so you could call him arrogant for labeling himself as a god but what is a god if not nothing.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Zachory Nissenbaum  • 3 days ago  




FACT #2 is wrong. He first thanks the Academy, then the fellow nominees, then the director, co stars, and then starts the next part of the speech with god. No need to twist the facts to prove your point. Just give it as it is.
Interstellar (starring Matthew McConaughey) hopefully touches on the lack of god.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
EAY   • 3 days ago  




Brilliant analysis and assessment... Thank you!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Jim Allison Jr.  • 3 days ago  




:)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
ANGELA C  • 3 days ago  




Brilliant article, Seth. So true.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Pirjosa  • 3 days ago  




Mr. McConaughey, can't you believe in God quietly? I want to watch the Oscar Winners, not listen to a sermon! Have respect for non-Christians and non-believers.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Mick Holcomb  • 3 days ago  




I thought Dallas Buyers Club was an outstanding movie and I was really rooting for McConaughey to win Best Actor. But watching him morph into Tim Tebow during his acceptance speech made me sick to my stomach.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Betty Borrough  • 3 days ago  




Something interesting in this whole conversation... this movie is about a plague that many religionists at the time claimed was a plague sent by God... nary a HIV/AIDS reference in the speech.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Anne Marron > Betty Borrough  • 3 days ago  




That's the part that bothers me the most.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
ronn55  • 3 days ago  




Seth, It reminds me of when a tornado hits a school and ten children in a classroom are killed or severely injured, then one of the grown ups raises his palms to the heavens and declares "Thank GOD, it could have been so much worse". The words you wrote in this blog piece were so succinct, and well written. I just thank the Lord, Jesus, for having put those words in your head. Amen
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
mcbetsy  • 3 days ago  




Thank you, Seth, for putting this so eloquently. This is an age old tactic used by artists for as long as we have decided to place them on pedestals and give them pretty awards. I loved MM in Dallas Buyers Club. It was actually the first time I ever respected him in a role. He and Jared Leto knocked it out of the park with this movie and deserved to be acknowledged for their parts in it. We were shocked by the dedication he displayed with putting himself in such physical danger by losing so much weight. For him to be that committed to telling Ron Woodroof's story, it was admirable. A god didn't have anything to do with that...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Woodey  • 3 days ago  




Do you think they thank God when they give
their acceptance speech at the AVN awards? "I'd just like to thank God
for the blessings of having a really big dick so I can get paid to get
my balls sucked for a living."
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
rdvqc  • 3 days ago  




I had pretty close to the same reaction as I watched last night.
That "hammered in" reaction of "It couldn't possibly be just me and my colleagues - it must be God" is truly as tiresome from a skilled actor as it is from a sports player from the winning side. I wonder how they figure their god picks.
It never ceases to amaze me how, as their creator's accomplishments grow as we learn the true complexity and size of the universe we live in, they still think that they are being watched, listened to and aided. Gimme a break!
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
S Bartholemieux Andrews  • 3 days ago  




Seth,
I think you hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head lol.
Seriously, well written and stated.

 

 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
XCellKen  • 3 days ago  




had to mention Texas no less than five times. Wazzup wit dat ?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
gary  • 3 days ago  




Amen. With every irony intended.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Maggie Shaw  • 3 days ago  




I love how Matthew McConaughey has altered the trajectory of his career by making some interesting choices on controversial roles over the last few years. The Paperboy, Killer Joe, and Mudd, Magic Mike and Dallas Buyer's Club were all risks for an actor who appeared destined to forever play the handsome romantic comedy heart throb. His acceptance speech was eloquent and despite the fact he credited his imaginary friend I still thought it was one of the best acceptances of the program.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Adjel  • 3 days ago  




Question: Would it be as "offensive" if he said this (which I find much more preferable)? "I am grateful that god is in my life and I would like to believe that he has had a hand in guiding me in the choices I make in this life, including taking and preparing for this role, for which I am now being awarded. And I like to believe he had a hand in guiding the people who helped make it possible. Whether he did or didn't, I'd like to thank......" I could stomach that a lot better than just thanking god (like god had nothing better to do than help him win a shiny trophy), and an "oh, by the way, I guess these other people did a little something, too." Of course, I'd prefer he leave god out of it all together. But if I can't have that....
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
ArveKlarness > Adjel  • 3 days ago  




I would be very annoyed if I was the director and he said that about me on the stage. Like I was a puppet for god's will.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
AvonJohn  • 3 days ago  




So true.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
China  • 3 days ago  




Fantastic post.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
TinaD in Oregon  • 3 days ago  




The William sisters do this too; thanking god when they win tournaments. It's painfully stupid and, after seeing it once, I don't watch their trophy presentations anymore. Doesn't McConaughey play an atheist in True Detective?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
ArveKlarness > TinaD in Oregon  • 3 days ago  




More like an antitheist. Very good performance in a brilliant TV show.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Pan  • 3 days ago  




Love this post and definitely sharing. (Understand that this is coming from a loving place .... Seth, have you ever tried spell-check, buddy?)
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
DJ Crowe > Pan  • 3 days ago  




The spelling/grammar nazis are hard at work, I see...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Seth Andrews Mod > Pan  • 3 days ago  




What word (or words) are misspelled?
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Unkle Travlin Al > Seth Andrews  • 3 days ago  




I just noticed "emoti(o)nally", but no biggies. Your spelling is usually on point. The fact that you didn't use a spell-checker and only had one mini-error says a lot, but this is all very uninteresting in comparison with what is meant to be discussed here.
Well-written piece. No matter how much respect I have for someone in relation to their "craft", hearing the "god-thanking" always causes an automatic eye-roll and a sigh on my part - I can't help it. It frustrates me too. Perhaps not enough to create a blog about it, but yes, the frustration is there.
Your reasoning as to why it is said seems to be correct, although in addition, I often feel that maybe they feel a pressure to say it, even in cases where they don't really believe in it. I have no idea whether he believes that a deity really helped him win the award or not, but regardless, the boy did good, and on this occasion, I'm willing to give an eye-roll and a deep sigh in exchange for an entertaining movie...
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
Seth Andrews Mod > Unkle Travlin Al  • 3 days ago  




I'd missed it, and my blog doesn't alert me to my keyboard missteps. Thanks for the heads-up.
 
1 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 








Avatar
JFH > Seth Andrews  • 3 days ago  




And then there's "leukemia"
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 




−
⚑ 


Avatar
Samantha > Unkle Travlin Al  • 2 days ago  




I've always thought people who point out occasional misspellings/typos online are displaying the height of pretentiousness. If a post is chock-full of errors, that's one thing, (some people should be barred from commenting on anything in a public forum until they learn basic spelling/grammar!) but we all make mistakes here and there. I'm known for being a stickler about grammar and usage but I won't offer my opinion unless asked for it :)
That said - I am SO glad for this blog! Many of the exact same thoughts crossed my mind when I was watching the Oscars and while I really like McConaughey, I was put off by that speech big time. So thanks Seth, I felt better after reading this because I badly wanted to express my thoughts on the matter but they really wouldn't be well-received by anyone in my circle.
 
 △  ▽  
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 

















 
 





What's this? 


Around The Web



 Warren Buffett Issues Harsh Warning   Money Morning 
 



 13 Celebrities with Awesome and REAL Bodies   POPnHOP 
 



 How New iPads are Selling for Under $40   Lifefactopia 
 


Also on The Thinking Atheist Community

 Atheism: Just Another Religion?   2 comments 
 

 A Scary Dilemma   11 comments 
 

 Did Jesus Exist? (with Dr. Richard Carrier)   1 comment 
 

 Why Evolution is True (with Dr. Jerry Coyne)   1 comment 
 

Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site 












 The Thinking Atheist
Videos

Podcasts

Forum

Editor’s Blog

Shop

Events

Resources












 

Home » Blog » &quot;I&#039;d Like to Thank God (and the Academy)&quot;
 

"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
 Seth
 Mar 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM
 3 Days Ago
   Comments

   
 
      

I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts.  The pampered, millionare celebrities talking about their "craft."  The light show of sequins and bow ties and all manner of glamor.
oscar statues rec carpet u2 sings
Fine.  It's Hollywood.  And as a movie lover (like so many of you), I actually enjoy ticking off my laser-jet-printed ballot at home to test my own instincts about the Academy's biggest day.  And I actually enjoyed the Oscar broadcast.  Ellen DeGeneres is a joy.  Many of the films weren't just Academy fodder, but movies that the audience had seen and could take personally.  There were few awkward moments.  And the speeches were largely compelling for a change.
But when Matthew McConaughey received his (well deserved) Oscar and immediately thanked God, I had to once again lament that the celebration of movie magic was pushed aside in favor of actual magic.  Matthew's speech began:
"First off I want to thank God, because he's the one I look up to, he's graced my life with opportunities which I know are not of my hand or any other human kind," the 44-year-old Texas native said. "He has shown me that it's a scientific fact that gratitude reciprocates. In the words of the late (British actor) Charlie Laughton, who said, 'When you got God you got a friend and that friend is you.'"
  matthew mcconaughey
It's pretty apparent that McConaughey was actually working the humility angle, magnanimously deflecting praises away from himself, giving credit to a true Source of talent, will, opportunity and inspiration.  He's a handsome, charismatic, corn-fed Texas boy who loves his momma and loves his god.  And only a killjoy would rain on that parade...right?
Fine.  I guess I'm a killjoy.  (sigh)
Skeptics often moan audibly whenever a Hollywood celebrity invokes God. Why?  Because while many of us are indeed romantics, we also deal in facts. 
FACT #1:  Matthew...you did all of the work.  You lost 50 pounds to play the role, and you informed that role with decades of experience, honed talent and commitment.
FACT #2:  Placing your invisible friend at the top of the "thank you" list, above the director, co-stars, screenwriter, producer, crew, composer, financiers and even the catering staff, you've marginalized the hard work done by human hands which actually made your Oscar trophy possible. 
FACT #3:  As you're a Texas boy, I'm guessing you're invoking the Christian god?  (It would stand to reason that they're not worshiping Xenu in Uvalde, Texas.)  As you have accepted the Oscar for playing a man who befriended a transgender woman, perhaps a fresh examination of the bible and its ideas about sexuality is in order.  It ain't pretty.
FACT #4:  On the day of your acceptance speech, 30,000 human beings starved to death across the planet. People were shot in home burglaries, kidnapped by thugs, physically and emotionally devastated by rapists. Children died horribly of lukemia. Loved ones received news that their mothers, fathers, siblings and closest friends were killed in accidents. Natural disasters wiped out cities, communities, homes, families, precious lives. So the assertion that God above ignored the needs of the genuinely needy and the cries of the afflicted so that he could focus his power on making you pretty and talented? That isn't humble. In fact, upon examination, the mere notion is offensive to our deepest integrity.
natural disasters
It's unpopular to make statements like these, because we as a culture have been conditioned to see all deflections toward God as a sign of graciousness and deference.  Thanking God is often our way of saying, "No no no...please don't fawn over me.  I couldn't possibly deserve all of this attention.  My power comes from a source much bigger and better than me.  You're very kind.  Thanks, anyway."  And I'm guessing Matthew McConaughey, a product of the bible belt, was probably operating from that same position. 
But it has to be said that the whole thing just doesn't wash.  Any deity who would focus on the good looks, bank accounts and celebrity of bow-tied, sequin-gowned movie stars while remaining invisible, inaudible and intangible to the rest of humanity either has a serious problem with priorities or is the universe's biggest deadbeat parent.  Either way, we aren't dealing with an entity that deserves respect, allegiance or praise.
To Matthew McConaughey, I remain a fan, and I congratulate you on your award and achivements.  I simply insist that those achievements belong to you and those who supported you, and not to The Great Wizard Who Loves Movie Stars. 
And now that you've restored those 50 pounds you lost for the film role, perhaps it's time to lose the superstitious baggage you carried with you out of Texas.  Trust me...you won't miss the extra weight.
-Seth Andrews
 
Tags: seth andrews the thinking atheist atheist atheism God religion faith Oscars Academy Awards Matthew McConaughey
 
  


 
 
   
 
Advertisement
Advertise Here 

Hot Dogs Saved My Life - Learn everything you need to know from A-Z to run a successful Hot Dog Vendor business
 


Latest from the Editor
MAR
03
"I'd Like to Thank God (and the Academy)"
I realize last night's Academy Awards telecast often fell into the same cliched rythyms that countless others have.  The swooning red carpet hosts...

FEB
27
The "Son of God" Survey
The religious website BreatheCast has an article about Diogo Morgado, an actor in the new film "Son of God," and his assertion that this latest on-...

FEB
07
A Random Act of Kindness
I was informed by a Facebook friend that she had picked up a stranger's breakfast tab at McDonald's yesterday. When Tonya shared the experience on ...
 
Latest on Facebook
 
The Thinking Atheist
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.
Copyright © 2013 The Thinking Atheist. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Yii Framework.
Community Site Developed by
Web Evolved, LLC.

Back to top
© 2013 The Thinking Atheist · Contact · Privacy · Log in
     
ShareThis Copy and Paste

 - See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/79/Id-Like-to-Thank-God-and-the-Academy#sthash.DiVdNq2e.dpuf