I recently read an article that was way too long to make the point it intended.  It went from the question of “Does Atheism Require Faith“, the title of the article, to a defensive view against atheism in 520 words.  It was in American Spectator’s “The Spectacle Blog“.  I knew little of the magazine, and have drawn the conclusion that there is a conservative bias to the articles (perhaps I am understating this bias).

Sarah Palin’s Rack? Pandering to lowest common denominator? Hmm?

The headline of the article seems to be irrelevant, but I did learn that Boston College apparently has a course called “God or Atheism“.  Hmmmm … at least THAT is interesting?

The author (R.J. MOELLER … the author of such wisdom as “As Iron Sharpens Iron, So Jeremy Irons Sharpens Hollywood”) voiced more concerns (I’ll go so far as to call it whining) about “condescension” that atheists apparently have to theists.  I now yawn when I hear about “a war on” xyz (pick the term) by atheists or “attacks” from atheists, etc.  It’s become all too common for the following reason:

Theism is a belief system that cannot be supported rationally.

A rational individual, when questioned about their beliefs, knows that their views are not defensible and therefore will either;

1. Give up rational debate and fall back on the “faith card” (ie. belief without evidence) or
2. Get defensive and complain about “thoughtless or condescending or vicious” atheists.

An irrational individual will try to defend it through reason (I’m talking to you William Lane Craig).

This uneventful article illustrates number 2 above … AND did not address the title of the article:

“Does Atheism Require Faith”?

Related posts:

1. WWCHD? How would Hitch handle Facebook?
2. Why are atheists so angry? … Or, “Why THIS atheist IS angry.”
3. The truth about faith

Jerry DeWitt is awesome.  AND … AND … AND an AMAZING PREACHER!!!  BEAUTIFUL.

No related posts.

Really a fascinating story where a teacher had religious sayings on posters in her classroom.  Her husband happens to be the principal.  I cannot do the full story justice, however the superintendent of the schools responds to FFRF Staff Lawyer Andrew Siedel voicing opinions on religion (not clever ones either).  Leading to a BRILLIANT response from Seidel:

“Please understand that my personal beliefs have no bearing on the illegality of the Carters’ actions. But since you asked, I believe in the First Amendment. I believe in protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I believe that religion is the single most divisive force on this planet and that it has no place in our public schools. I believe that ideas should be subjected to reason, debate, and inquiry, not blindly accepted.” Seidel also added, “I believe in love, in family, and in making the most of this life because it’s the only one we have. In short, I am an atheist.”

http://ffrf.org/news/action/item/16707-ffrf-school-complaint-uncovers-creationist-okla-superintendent

The FFRF truly does amazing legal work protecting the First Amendment and everyone’s rights (not the least of which Atheists). I’d recommend considering a donation to their legal fund HERE

Related posts:

1. Farewell To Faith

No, it’s not because of proselytizing (at all … I tend to like those that try).

Why this atheist is angry

Our society has progressed and evolved in positive ways by acting according to a set of rules. mores, or guidelines.  The rules are mostly unwritten, but are generally simple.

• An important “rule” of society involves our beliefs. We (society) accepts something as true when it has been proven or validated.

FOR EXAMPLE:

• A food is safe when our predecessors would eat it and not get sick.  However, now that science has progressed, the FDA will scientifically test it (in the US) (via the scientific method) to be free from dangerous chemicals or other carcinogens.
• Industry develops around advances in science (again proven through the scientific method).  Our economy revolves around logic.  Business decisions are made based on logical considerations of cause and effect based on data.

LOGIC and RATIONALITY drive our economy.

As a side note, arts and culture diverge from logic, but art is an “escape” from reality.  For example, fictional stories, movies, songs, and paintings let the viewer immerse their imagination in the art.

Religion and spirituality has NO basis in logic or science.

And yet, many seemingly intelligent people, guide their life through religious dogma.  This is either due to intellectual laziness or in direct opposition of societal norms around intelligent decision making.  Then, they have the nerve suggest that I accept that belief system that is an affront to societal norms or they will be offended when it is challenged?  I find that offensive and upsetting.

 

Related posts:

1. The truth about faith
2. Stephen Hawking – God is unecessary

Yeah.  Nothing?

No related posts.