Thursday, October 12, 2006

Why do atheists care about religion?


Jammni' said...

Thanks so much for that succinct, effective, clear-minded video. I will share the link with others.

I guess it's possible that if the religious would live and let live, as some of them claim to try to do, that religion and atheism could coexist. However, it's obvious that we don't live in that world. Atheists will have to push back in order to have the space to live freely without having the God concept forced on us at every turn.

Anonymous said...

Nice video. I agree with the previous post. But I reject the "Atheist" label. It seems to me that labeling is an irresponsible way to "describe" someone. One-word meanings typically get hijacked and distorted until everyone has a different idea of what it means. Then it becomes quick judgement toward others. This keeps us divided. Just look at the word "Liberal". It means something different to everyone. But the word has ONE meaning. Instead of arguing over what label we're carrying maybe we should drop them and take more time to explain where we each come from. The mainstream media is one of our biggest enemies and they use labels extensively. If they didn't have them they wouldn't be able to fool us as easily. It shines a whole new light on things when you know more about a person instead of whether or not they are Atheist, Christian, Muslim or whatever. This is important and maybe more important than people will accept at this time.

Anonymous said...

Yes, we keep accepting things that we should never accept. Always a quick band-aid fix but we always overlook something important. This gives "evil" another door to come through.

British Gary said...

hi, I'm from Britain. I don't know if you're aware of this but there is an ongoing trial in Europe.

The trial is Luigi Cascioli vs. the Vatican.

Luigi wrote an INCREDIBLE book called 'The Fable of Christ' and in it he proves Christ is a mythological character.

Luigi took the Vatican to court in Italy but lost his case and appeal (as he predicted) because the judges were religious. Luigi was going through the motions to get a fair hearing in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. His case has been accepted. Now he's saving up the cash needed for the trail. You can help him if you buy his book from his website. I'll detail it later.

It is the first time in the history of mankind that a religion has been prosecuted directly in a law case that will end with a verdict regarding specific and defined crimes, which is the abuse of popular credulity and belief (Article 661, Italian criminal code) and the substitution of person (Article 494, Italian criminal code).

While in Italy, Luigi had the Vatican (represented by a priest called Don Righi) against the ropes. Check this out;

27th Jan 2006

"Don Righi is innocent because he said and wrote what he has the duty to say and write," Righi's attorney, Severo Bruno, told reporters.
Bruno said he had told Mautone [the Judge] during the hearing that Righi was NOT asserting a historical fact when he wrote of Jesus' existence, but rather "an expression of theological principles."


Now check out Luigi's website (his English is awful but his book is fluent and an incredible read) and please support him if you can, spread the word;

Here's an example of what you'll learn from Luigi's book:

[The gospels were chosen from ~70 gospels that were actually written, the four that were chosen are known today as mark, matthew, luke and john.......]

"Although the Roman community tried to impose its gospels on all the other Eklesie, most of the many different communities continued to follow their own gospel.
Since they needed to put an end to this anarchy, the Roman Eklesie, in the person of Pope Zephyrinus (199 - 217) decided to trust ‘divine’ judgement.
In the presence of many witnesses, all the existing gospels, about 70 of them, were placed on an altar. The Pope asked god to show him through a sign which gospels were to be used. They had their reply the next day when they came back and found all the gospels on the ground except for those of matthew, mark, luke and john which had remained on the altar.
Since there could be no clearer sign than this to eliminate disputes, the Roman community confirmed these 4 gospels to be canonical (true) and rejected all the others declaring them apocryphal (false).
To those who asked why god had chosen four when three of them were essentially the same, Irenaeus replied; “because there are four cardinal points and there are four faces on the cherubim’s."

Luigi's good isn't he? So now back to my opinion....

Which do you think, on the balance of probability, is more likely;

1. all the laws of the natural Universe completely broke down during the reign of Pope Zephyrinus and a a god toppled ~66 gospels from an altar, or

2. some humans deliberately crept into the room overnight and carefully threw ~66 gospels that defied their personal beliefs on the floor, to deceive other humans?

Skeeve said...

Thank you for your comments....British Gary, I'm sure you know what answer I would give :-)

British Gary said...

I do Skeeve, please keep up the good work.

Here's another tip to help make a difference;

I don't know if you've heard of one of our greatest scientists, he's called Richard Dawkins. His website is WELL worth a read as are MANY of his books. His latest one is called 'The God Delusion'.

Check him out on;

If you watch the videos you can enjoy watching him 'whack-a-troll' with "students" from Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University" who tried to disrupt his Q+A session.

They failed. Miserably.

Jenkins said...

I think those religious tests in those states would be deemed unconstitutional in court. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, doesn't the US constitution supercede these state constitutions and therefore there would be no religious test for office. Also, "god" is pretty vague. I could say that my god is Odin or Zeus, or even Satan, and I would meet the test. People are silly.

tk said...

Amen, brother...

Andrew said...

I am a little puzzled by the Cascioli case, although I am happy for him to bring the case to court. I don't think it is reasonable to ask for someone to "prove" the existence of a historical person although I accept that it is reasonable to demonstrate that there enough evidence to make it possible or even likely. As for me, I really don't expect to convince anyone that Jesus lived from a historical perspective any more than I could convince people that many other historical people existed. I personally think that the historical evidence is good and that the books of the New Testament and the writings of the early church make Jesus' existence historically probable, but others are free to come to their own conclusions.

I am not sure what to make of the Zephyrinus story, which definitely appears a bit bizarre to our modern eyes, however, with regard to the "canonicity" of the four Gospels, I assume that you are aware that it is reasonable to propose that at least some in the early church already considered them to be the most authoritative before 199 CE - refer to Irenaeus' "Adversus Haereses", dated by some to 175-185 CE (

Best regards, Andrew