lunaradvent:

1. If I (atheist) deny Jesus yet don’t go to hell, then Jesus is a liar.
2. If Jesus is honest and you (progressive Xian) don’t think that I deserve hell, then Jesus is unjust.
3. If Jesus is both honest and just, then you believe that I deserve to spend eternity in hell.”

• SciencePundit

This conundrum is easily solved either by assuming that Jesus never existed or that if he did exist he wasn’t a god and didn’t know what the hell he was talking about.  (Get it?  What the “hell”?  I just crack me up sometimes.)

deconversionmovement:

nikosnature:

Well, if you define religion as belief in a deity, true, you couldn’t claim atheism as a religion.  However, if we were to claim a religion was any systematic pattern of beliefs for which there may or may not be evidence but for which there is no definite proof, (which is a cumbersome definition I’ll admit,) then atheism would definitely be a religion.  Here’s what an atheist would have to be able to believe.

1.  There is a mechanism which would allow for the ‘creation’ (development?) of a universe which would exclude supernatural phenomena.

This is a “god of gaps” argument.  This “tenet” is made under the assumption that there must be a creator.  Most Atheists do not cancel out the possibility of a creator.  However, most Atheists cancel out your god as creator.  That doesn’t constitute a religious belief; it demonstrates a belief based on facts.  The evidence against your god is greater and solid when compared to the circumstantial evidence for the mere existence of Christ — there’s no good evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god.

2.  This mechanism occurred in order to explain our universe.

I suggest you read this article as it explains the possibility of a universe from nothing or alternatively, the universe without a creator.  For the record, a universe without a creator isn’t an Atheistic endeavor; it is a scientific endeavor and thus, this tenet falls short.  Saying “god did it” explains nothing even if it’s true; moreover, if it were true, there’s no way to prove that amongst the pantheon of gods, your god is designated as the creator.

3.  All people who claim to have had ‘religious experiences’ are either liars or crazy.

They are neither.  According to Psychology, they have created a simulacrum that operates separate from actual reality.  That is why religious experience is general.  Speaking in tongues or more accurately, glossolalia, isn’t exclusive to Christianity.  Miracle claims and faith healing aren’t exclusive to Christianity.  Divine revelation isn’t exclusive to Christianity either.  All of those “divine” experiences are shared by people of other faiths.  Nevertheless, this wouldn’t be a tenet because it is based on a rash assumption.  While some Atheists may make such claims, all Atheists do not.  Furthermore, while there is delusion and deception amongst the religious, there is a better explanation.  Further still, if I were to grant your tenet, a disbelief in ghosts would constitute a religion for the same would apply:  all people who claim to have had experiences with ghosts are either liars or crazy.

4.  There are scientific explanations for stigmatists, incorruptibles, eucharistic miracles, and other such 1st degree miraculous occurrences.  (You could also believe that occurrences are all faked.  This would require that you believe that there is a conspiracy theory that lasted 2000 years, or that there are a remarkable amount of independent con artists using similar methods to achieve incredible results operating over diverse areas of the globe and time.)

Scientific explanations aren’t necessary to explain all of the above.  Natural explanations would be required and natural explanations have been presented.  Once upon a time, the church considered epileptic seizures to be demonic possession.  In our modern day, that is far from true.  If there were any good evidence for what you’ve named, Atheists who left the Catholic church would be few, if any.  Unfortunately, that is far from the case.  That implies that the evidence against the above is greater than the evidence for them.  Furthermore, I suspect a great deal of indoctrination in this section.  Have you considered alternative explanations?  Have you considered the evidence against the above?  I leave nothing to assumption, but it does seem doubtful. 

5.  Historical records of Jesus Christ are either false, OR Jesus Christ was a liar or a lunatic as were his disciples, and that billions of people were naive enough to follow him even billions of years after his death.

The historical records for a divine Jesus are extremely circumstantial.  Richard Carrier has written at length about this topic.  Some historians posit that Jesus the man may have existed; however, few if any posit that the divine son of god existed.  Once again, the evidence is strongly against it.  Moreover, your “tenet” isn’t intellectually sound and would apply to other matters of disbelief and thus, you yourself would be a “religious Atheist.”  Really?

Xenu was a liar or a lunatic and so was L. Ron Hubbard.  Millions were naive enough to follow him even billions of years after his departure or whatever the case may be.  The same would apply to all other religions.  Moreover, it hasn’t been anywhere close to billions of years since the establishment of the Christian religion.  Once again, this is a rash assumption — one that is extremely exaggerated.

6.  Free will is either an illusion OR there is a mechanism to allow free will in what appears to be an otherwise totally deterministic universe.

I’m not going to go through this again.  You are stubbornly blind to the evidence against Libertarian free will.  Read Sam Harris’ “Free Will” and come back to me.  You’ll either become a determinist or a compatibilist.  Either way, you will no longer believe in the free will taught by the church.  Let us not forget:  if your god existed, free will would be absolutely impossible.  Consider the evidence or stick to your delusions; this intransigent disregard of evidence will bring any educated individual to ignore your advocacy of the illusion that is free will.  Therefore, given that this “tenet” is simple opinion, there’s no good reason to further entertain it.

7.  Humanity is doomed to frustration in our search for a ‘meaning of life’ and our happiness is dependent on our ability to distract ourselves from this truth.

This isn’t Atheism.  This is a philosophical idea known as Absurdism and one does not lead to the other.  Thus, this “tenet” is also cancelled out and therefore, there are no applicable tenets left.  You are welcome to try again, but any attempt is futile.  You are no longer debating with Atheists; you are debating with the English language.  I’ll get to that below.

I’d say that belief in these 7 tenets constitutes a religion.

Also, I don’t believe raising a child without religion will make them unreligious. Religion does a good enough jobturning enough people away.

I wouldn’t say religion turns people away.  I would say bad practitioners of a religion turn people away.  Or people turn away themselves because they are not ready to accept the tenets of that religion.

Atheism is defined as disbelief in gods.  Further, there is strong Atheism and weak Atheism or alternatively, Gnostic Atheism and Agnostic Atheism.  You either live like there’s no god and are absolutely sure that there’s no god or you live as if there’s no god, but you aren’t absolutely sure of his/her/its existence.  Don’t bother debating the Atheist; your qualms are with Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and the like.  By the way, religions may not turn people away, but they should be the impetus behind Atheism.  No one should be an Atheist because of bad Christians, bad Catholics, and/or bad Muslims.  An Atheist should be well-versed in the truth value of religions and come to a conclusion consistent with their exposure to the evidence for and against a given religion, its claims, and most importantly, its god(s).  That is why I’m an Atheist. 

A word of advice to my peers:  if you aren’t an Atheist for good reason, it is better to weigh the truth value of religion for yourself; depending on the conclusions of others is no way to draw your own conclusion.  If that is the best way to draw a conclusion, then why are the religious wrong for drawing the popular conclusion and choosing to believe?  Thus, depending on the majority or on what’s popular to base a decision is the wrong approach in any case.

Reblogging for relevance.

atheismfuckyeah:

At least one boy under the age of 16 was castrated to ‘help’ his homosexual feelings while in Catholic church care in the 1950s, the NRC reported on Saturday.

But there are indications at least 10 other boys were also castrated, the paper said. The claims were not included in the Deetman report on sexual abuse within the Catholic church published at the end of last year.

The paper says the one confirmed case concerned a boy - Henk Heithuis - who reported being sexually abused by priests to the police in 1956. After giving evidence, he was placed in a Catholic-run psychiatric institution where he was then castrated because of his ‘homosexual behaviour’.

Evidence

The paper says the Deetman committee was informed about the castrations in writing but did not include mention of them in its report because ‘there were few leads for further research’.

The Deetman committee was set up by the church itself in 2010 after the sexual abuse scandal broke. It reported in December having identified some 800 priests and monks who abused children in their care between 1945 and 1985.

In addition, church officials, bishops and lay people were aware of what was going on but failed to take action to protect children, the report  said.

Politician

The NRC also said on Saturday the final Deetman report did not mention that a leading politician with the Catholic people’s party KVP had tried to have prison sentences dropped against several priests accused of abusing children in 1958.

Vic Marijnen, who went on to become prime minister in 1963, was chairman of the children’s home where Henk Heithuis and dozens of other children were abused until 1959.

MPs are now calling for a full parliamentary investigation into the abuse scandal because of concerns about the neutrality of the Deetman inquiry. MPs are due to question Deetman at a hearing next week.

Dutch News

I sincerely hope by ‘castration’ they mean ‘chemical castration’ because good fucking god, let’s punish a child for being raped by men!

Also, some of the comments on this article disgust me, at least one of them equates homosexuality to pedophilia. Because that’s true. Obviously.

Jesus fucking christ.

~Mooglets

Ummm…I’m almost certain that they didn’t have chemical castration back in the 50s.  Just sayn’  O.o

I’ll get some of the Catholic Church’s screwed up policies fixed!  Where do I apply?  Is it really in the RULES that the Pope has to be Catholic?  If so, wouldn’t that be discrimination for religious reasons?  Would you guys stuff the ballot box for me?

~ Steve

atheismfuckyeah:

Former Metropolitan Police officer Brian Paddick has hit back at Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s comments on homosexuality.

The London Mayoral candidate has asserted that there is “no intellectual argument” against same-sex marriages.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien,  leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, accused the Government of arrogance ahead of a consultation on the issue this month. 

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, he claimed that plans for gay marriage were a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.”

He added: “The Government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant.

“No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.”

But Paddick – who is gay – has hit back.

“Same-sex marriage should simply be a universally accepted human right for everyone,” he said.  

“If we really believe in equality, there is no sound intellectual argument against gay marriage. There may be religious objections, as there are religious objections to equality for women, but that does not mean we should be ruled by them.”

Meanwhile, the UK gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust has also slammed O’Brian’s condemnation.

George Broadhead, the PTT’s secretary and veteran gay activist, said: “Given the Roman Catholic Church’s well-known views and policy on gay sexual relationships and rights, including Civil Partnership, not to mention Cardinal O’Brian’s previous homophobic outbursts, his latest are totally predictable. His contention that gay marriage would shame the UK in the eyes of the world is also bizarre. 

“Has the cardinal not heard that gay marriage has already been legalised in no fewer than ten countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and The Netherlands? I am not aware that any of these countries have suffered shame or any sort of pariah status as a result. This just shows how out of touch with reality the Roman Catholic Church has become.”

Pink Paper