stephnrice: glassmountain: stfuconservatives: nextyearsgirl: This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this: The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin. According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus. When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you. So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think. /An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do. ^ (mic drop) boom whoa. yup
Zoom Info
stephnrice: glassmountain: stfuconservatives: nextyearsgirl: This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this: The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin. According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus. When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you. So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think. /An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do. ^ (mic drop) boom whoa. yup
Zoom Info

stephnrice:

glassmountain:

stfuconservatives:

nextyearsgirl:

This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:

The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.

According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.

When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

/An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do.

^

(mic drop)

boom

whoa.

yup

(via artymine)

Source: drunkonstephen

"The left, which is largely made up of people who don't believe in Jesus Christ's blood as being necessary for our salvation, view inanimate objects as possessing their own will. That’s animism! That's a return to the most pagan of paganism! And look at what nutty political views it ends up supporting!"

motherjones:

Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt, explaining why he thinks progressives are so concerned about gun-caused violence.

Read more of the right’s “Craziest Anti-Obama Gun Reactions” here.

We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this land, the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition. Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those that spring from any other cause.
President George Washington, in a letter to a Baltimore church.  From Washington: A Life, by Ron Chernow

Source: newyorker.com

motherjones:

cognitivedissonance:

From Jezebel:

Back in August, during a Springfield City Council public hearing on amending the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity protections, Rev. Phil Snider of the Brentwood Christian Church lashed out at the council for “inviting the judgement of God upon our land” by making “special rights for gays and lesbians.”

He goes on to invoke the bible and morality and the end of days a few more times before suddenly appearing to lose his train of thought.

And then something pretty amazing happens.

You HAVE to watch until about the two-minute mark. Let me put this in picture form for you:

Seriously, watch the whole thing. Good payoff.

awwww shit

Source: cognitivedissonance

nationalpost: Rise of the atheists: U.S. Protestants lose majority status as church attendance fallsFor the first time in its history, the United States does not have a Protestant majority, according to a new study.One reason: The number of Americans with no religious affiliation is on the rise.The percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. has reached a low of 48 per cent, the first time that Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has reported with certainty that the number has fallen below 50 per cent. The drop has long been anticipated and comes at a time when no Protestants are on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republicans have their first presidential ticket with no Protestant nominees.
View Separately

nationalpost:

Rise of the atheists: U.S. Protestants lose majority status as church attendance falls
For the first time in its history, the United States does not have a Protestant majority, according to a new study.

One reason: The number of Americans with no religious affiliation is on the rise.

The percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. has reached a low of 48 per cent, the first time that Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has reported with certainty that the number has fallen below 50 per cent. The drop has long been anticipated and comes at a time when no Protestants are on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republicans have their first presidential ticket with no Protestant nominees.

futurejournalismproject: (In)tolerance A poll released today by the Arab American Institute explores attitudes Americans have toward Arabs and Muslims.  “The data extracted,” the Institute writes, ”indicates that anti-Arab and anti-Muslim political rhetoric has taken a toll on American public opinion, especially along age and party lines.” Takeaways from the report: 1. Arabs, Muslims, Arab Americans, and American Muslims have the lowest favorable/highest unfavorable ratings among the groups covered. 2. Muslims were the only group with a net unfavorable rating. 3. Note that one in five Americans were either unfamiliar with or not sure of their attitudes toward these communities. 4. Sikhs and Mormons also fare poorly, but in the case of Sikhs, one in four Americans are “unfamiliar” or “not sure”. 5. There is a deep generational divide, which is reflected in a partisan divide. 6. Younger Americans (18-25) rate Arabs and Muslims up to 17 points higher than the older generation. They also rate Arab Americans and American Muslims higher as well. 7. Younger Americans rate Catholics and the various Protestant denominations covered in the survey almost 20 points lower than do older Americans (65+). The younger group also rates Mormons 15 points lower. 8. This is reflected in a deep partisan divide and even more so in a division between those who describe themselves as Obama or Romney voters. For example, note how the ratings given to Arabs and Muslims by Obama and Romney voters are mirror reflections of each other. While Obama voters give Arabs a net 51%/29% favorable rating and Muslims a net 53%/29% rating; Romney voters give Arabs a 30%/50% net unfavorable rating and Muslims a 25%/57% unfavorable rating. 9. Democrats and Obama voters give no group a net negative rating. Republicans and Romney voters only give strong negative ratings to Arabs, Muslims, Arab Americans, and American Muslims. Image: Detail from The American Divide: How We View Arabs and Muslims.Select to embiggen.
Pop-upView Separately

futurejournalismproject:

(In)tolerance

A poll released today by the Arab American Institute explores attitudes Americans have toward Arabs and Muslims. 

“The data extracted,” the Institute writes, ”indicates that anti-Arab and anti-Muslim political rhetoric has taken a toll on American public opinion, especially along age and party lines.”

Takeaways from the report:

1. Arabs, Muslims, Arab Americans, and American Muslims have the lowest favorable/highest unfavorable ratings among the groups covered.

2. Muslims were the only group with a net unfavorable rating.

3. Note that one in five Americans were either unfamiliar with or not sure of their attitudes toward these communities.

4. Sikhs and Mormons also fare poorly, but in the case of Sikhs, one in four Americans are “unfamiliar” or “not sure”.

5. There is a deep generational divide, which is reflected in a partisan divide.

6. Younger Americans (18-25) rate Arabs and Muslims up to 17 points higher than the older generation. They also rate Arab Americans and American Muslims higher as well.

7. Younger Americans rate Catholics and the various Protestant denominations covered in the survey almost 20 points lower than do older Americans (65+). The younger group also rates Mormons 15 points lower.

8. This is reflected in a deep partisan divide and even more so in a division between those who describe themselves as Obama or Romney voters. For example, note how the ratings given to Arabs and Muslims by Obama and Romney voters are mirror reflections of each other. While Obama voters give Arabs a net 51%/29% favorable rating and Muslims a net 53%/29% rating; Romney voters give Arabs a 30%/50% net unfavorable rating and Muslims a 25%/57% unfavorable rating.

9. Democrats and Obama voters give no group a net negative rating. Republicans and Romney voters only give strong negative ratings to Arabs, Muslims, Arab Americans, and American Muslims.

Image: Detail from The American Divide: How We View Arabs and Muslims.
Select to embiggen.

(via publicradiointernational)

Source: futurejournalismproject

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition.
Albert Einstein, 1954. (via Letters of Note)

(via scipsy)

The Internet is where religions come to die.

knownothingable:

religiousragings:

reasons-greetings:

atheistme:

...Seriously

Chances are, I would not be an atheist if I didn’t have the internet.

This is so true. I think I would still be a Christian if it weren’t for the thought-provoking videos I watched on YouTube.

And dare I say that the internet is the place where I am trying to kill it.

I owe my freedom to the internet as well. Thanks, evils of modern technology!

Pft

I worked that shit out on my own in 1995!

Still, places like RationalWiki are pretty awesome.

(via sweatervesthorror-deactivated20)

Source: openmindedatheist

AUSTIN, TX—A major existential breakthrough was averted Friday when, moments before he had a realization of monumental personal significance, 29-year-old local resident Darrell Gatsas instead turned to God. “He was so, so close to discovering something truly fundamental about himself and his place in the universe, but nope—he went with God,” close friend Peter Rankin, 27, said. “For a second there it seemed like he was going to seriously consider the cause-and-effect relationship of his own actions and elevate himself to a new level of compassion and understanding, but then he suddenly changed course and asked God to swoop in and fix everything.” Reached for comment, God chuckled to reporters that Gatsas is, indeed, a real piece of work.
Pop-upView Separately

AUSTIN, TX—A major existential breakthrough was averted Friday when, moments before he had a realization of monumental personal significance, 29-year-old local resident Darrell Gatsas instead turned to God. “He was so, so close to discovering something truly fundamental about himself and his place in the universe, but nope—he went with God,” close friend Peter Rankin, 27, said. “For a second there it seemed like he was going to seriously consider the cause-and-effect relationship of his own actions and elevate himself to a new level of compassion and understanding, but then he suddenly changed course and asked God to swoop in and fix everything.” Reached for comment, God chuckled to reporters that Gatsas is, indeed, a real piece of work.

Source: The Onion

ipgd:

bonermarrow replied to your photo: casually goads people into a fight about…

The problem is that we haven’t reached the “oh, that’s how it really works” point. I’m talking about the most difficult stuff like quantum foam, neutrinos and gravitons, etc.

that’s a basic issue of the god of the gaps

everything that we were at some point ignorant about as a society could have been explained by divine intervention, but they are being steadily clarified through science

not sure why i should just accept god as the answer for any of the mysteries left to modern science when decades or centuries ago things that we very clearly understand now were just as perplexing as the details of quantum physics are today

there is no precedent that leads me to believe the answer is “god must be responsible” and not “we don’t know, but science will eventually figure it out”. it’s not like there is a pressing rush for me to feel like i know the answer to absolutely everything, right now

i’m talking more about obvious shit like MAGNETS, HOW THE FUCK DO THEY WORK and bill oreilly’s “tide comes in tide comes out YOU CAN’T EXPLAIN THAT” where the actual mysticism involved comes from incomplete knowledge. more complex stuff we don’t have the ‘oh that’s how it really works’ dip for, for now

precedent suggests that, eventually, we will

Many religious people I’ve run across - though certainly not all of them, that should be emphasized - are very uncomfortable with the idea of unanswered questions.  The undiscovered country, as it were.  On the other hand, that there remains an unexplained unknown seems natural to me.  The conclusion that we’ll never know everything doesn’t have me scrambling to invent a supernatural explanation for things that won’t be explained in my lifetime.

As you say, there was a time when we understood far less about things we now know to have trivial, easily-explainable processes.  History is full of lessons learned and forgotten and relearned, as well as fantastical explanations for everything ranging from bio-luminescence to thunder.  The constant theme throughout time and human experience is not confident knowledge of what is, but doubt and skepticism about what might be.

theatlantic: America’s Deepening Bible Belt Divide Gallup notes the relationship between religious intensity and American voting patterns, with the most religious states generally skewing Republican and the least religious trending Democrat. Our own analysis bears this out. We found a substantial positive correlation between religiosity and the percent of state residents that voted for McCain (.67) and consider themselves conservative (.78), and a substantial negative one between religiosity and the percent of residents who voted for Obama (-.64) and consider themselves liberal (-.75). Religion also conforms to the faultiness of socio-economic class across U.S, states, hewing closely to its three key dimensions — income, education and occupation. Religiosity is higher in lower income states where poverty is prevalent. The share of state residents who say religion is very important to their daily lives is correlated with the poverty rate (.60) and negatively associated with state income levels (-.56). Education plays a role. Religiosity is higher in less educated states, and negatively associated with the share of state residents that are college grads (-.55). Religion is also associated with the types of work people do. Religiosity is positively associated with the share of working class jobs (.61) and negatively associated with the share of workers doing knowledge, profession and creative work (-.38). Read more. [Image: Gallup]
Pop-upView Separately

theatlantic:

America’s Deepening Bible Belt Divide

Gallup notes the relationship between religious intensity and American voting patterns, with the most religious states generally skewing Republican and the least religious trending Democrat. Our own analysis bears this out. We found a substantial positive correlation between religiosity and the percent of state residents that voted for McCain (.67) and consider themselves conservative (.78), and a substantial negative one between religiosity and the percent of residents who voted for Obama (-.64) and consider themselves liberal (-.75).

Religion also conforms to the faultiness of socio-economic class across U.S, states, hewing closely to its three key dimensions — income, education and occupation.

Religiosity is higher in lower income states where poverty is prevalent. The share of state residents who say religion is very important to their daily lives is correlated with the poverty rate (.60) and negatively associated with state income levels (-.56).

Education plays a role. Religiosity is higher in less educated states, and negatively associated with the share of state residents that are college grads (-.55).

Religion is also associated with the types of work people do. Religiosity is positively associated with the share of working class jobs (.61) and negatively associated with the share of workers doing knowledge, profession and creative work (-.38).

Read more. [Image: Gallup]

Top