I’m online at the moment and also very bored. So, if anyone wants to ask any questions, please do! :)
I don’t actually know if I can answer asks, but if I can I’d like to. Because I’m bored. Or maybe I’ll ask our followers a question. For those of you who were raised religious, do you remember what it was that was the catalyst for your eventual atheism?
The catalyst for my atheism was taking the compulsory Ethics unit of the subject Religion & Spirituality at my Christian high school. I don’t think whoever wrote the syllabus intended it to lead to any renouncing of faith…
“It’s like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five … Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066.”—Sir David Attenborough, on teaching creationism in schools. (via fuckyeahsexyatheists)
Hello, there :) A few days ago you reblogged my post about the atheist woman being murdered in Texas. A few people commented on it and said they couldn’t find any stories relating to it. I did not want to be a bearer of false information, so I called my aunt to confirm the details. The story is true, but I had the time way off. The murder occurred 20 years ago. However, the found the bodies a few years back. And I believe the other bodies found were her kids (possibly grand kids), not her siblings. I’m sure all you lovely atheist folks have heard of Madelyn Murray O’hare! The story is readily available on Google if you have not. Again, sorry for my ignorance. I should have double and triple confirmed. Just trying to clear things up.
It depends on the definition of morality. People assume we all mean the same thing by it, but if we did you would think we would agree on what is moral. My definition of 'immoral' is something that is detrimental to the species, population or individual. In which case it is objective, and explains why murder would be 'immoral' even if the murderer was mentally deranged, and why homosexuality isn't immoral. This definition gives an objective morality but does not require a transendent lawgiver.
Consistent atheism deems that morality cannot be objective, because for there to be objective law, there must be a transcendent lawgiver. Transcendent law cannot arise from meaningless matter. Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins will confirm this concept. I was just wondering what your personal take on it was.
I am so concerned right now. In about 2 weeks I have to go to a very very small town in Texas. We’re talking like 400 people. One school for all kids K-12. Last year I went there before I truly understood that I was an atheist, and my aunt told me that an atheist woman and her two siblings were murdered because the atheist woman got prayer taken out of the one and only school.
I don’t even know where to start-
First of all, church|state. This is not even some private institution, this is a public goddamn school!
Second, I’m sure there was at least one poor little kid who had different beliefs and felt shamed to be required to pray to a different god, or a god whom he didn’t believe in.
Some may argue that this child of a different religion could have left the room during prayer…Yeah. And get his brains blown out for doing so?
I just wish I knew this woman’s name. I want it to live on. I have so much respect for her. This story has touched me.
And on a side note, I would have no problem with religion if it didn’t cause shit like this. And to the folks who murdered her, you kind, loving, Christian people, ’Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Mark 12:13.
Wow, that is legitimately scary. Be careful out there, whatever you do. Meanwhile. theists: If you’re gonna be fanatical about your religion, at least follow the good parts of it. It’s impossible not to cherry pick, but at least pick the sane sounding parts, eh?