Comments for Atheism and happiness

Comment on Top Ten Religions by Bart Mitchell

Bart Mitchell — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:09:28 +0000

The Bahai’s are a decent sect. My best friend is Bahai, and ive been to a some of their services. They don’t reject science, and their divine leader says some pretty sensible things.

Of course, its still a religion, and has some wakyness too. My friend has made sure that I know that when he dies, he needs to be buried as close to the location of his death as possible. Why? So his soul can see the dead body and understand that its time to pass on to heaven. I asked what happens when a soul doesn’t see the body, apparently thats where ghosts come from, because the soul will just wander the world trying to figure out what happened to it.

In the end, it doesn’t matter how sensible or rational a religion is on the surface, when you dig deeper, it just ends up being a bunch of weird mysical beliefs.

Comment on Is Homosexuality a Choice? by Bart Mitchell

Bart Mitchell — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:58:21 +0000

What I’ve read on the genetic component for sexual preference, is that the possiblity for alternate preference has potential in every human.

Experiments show that when large doses of estrogen or testosterone are artificially elevated in an animal, sexual preference can be altered.

Humans have both female and male genetic components in their makeup, and in most cases one side ends up being dominant. But in some cases, the genetic markers get shuffled. This can end up with bisexual, homosexual, hermaphrodite, and even asexual individuals. Since this shuffling is just a combination of the genes we have, it isn’t a heritable individual gene that causes it, but just having ‘normal’ genes in a slightly different order than what some call normal.

Comment on Agnosticism and Atheism are not Mutually Exclusive by desideriodomini

desideriodomini — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:45:47 +0000

My argument defines the circle as what you currently know, not everything you could possibly know. That may make a difference.

Comment on Is Homosexuality a Choice? by jb

jb — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:19:23 +0000

Also related to abominations according to the bible, in leviticus 11, why would god say that things are unclean to us to eat because of how they are? According to the bible they were created by god so it doesn’t make sense, of course the response to this in Pauline Christianity is to simply ignore this.

These kinds of contradictions show that Christianity as a religious system is a kind of buffet table, where a person picks and chooses what is and isn’t palatable and uses/distorts verses to back up their beliefs.

Comment on Is Homosexuality a Choice? by aliasami89

aliasami89 — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:04:35 +0000

wow very interesting.

Comment on Biblical Flaws? by Samuel Skinner

Samuel Skinner — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:59:48 +0000

The Pope thing is funny. Papal infallibility is the Poep is right… but only when he makes a specific type of declaration. And has the hat on. And his fingers crossed.And the faithful have done the most glorious ritual of the wave… okay… that would be funny though.

So far they have only used “infallibility” for the Virgin Mary. Yes- they are antisex and antifun that much.

As for the bible changing… “accidentally” isn’t the word. The words unicorns, dragon and saytar have been editted to be beast to make it sound more sane.

Comment on Agnosticism and Atheism are not Mutually Exclusive by Gregory

Gregory — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:33:09 +0000

I sometimes hear the arguments that erupt between those Certain Kind of Agnostics (the ones with the Militant Agnostic bumperstickers and those Certain Kind of Atheists (the ones that go on and on about “strong” atheism and “weak” atheism and how “strong” atheism is better) and it ends up looking like people pissing in the wind. So, yes, completely what you say. They deal in slightly different areas. The terms are answers to different questions.

Comment on Agnosticism and Atheism are not Mutually Exclusive by atheismandhappiness

atheismandhappiness — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:00:06 +0000

That wouldn’t make him supernatural though. If we could fully understand god he would be able to be defined by natural means. He could be defined and would have limits. He would be natural. If he was natural, and we still havn’t found him, what does that say about how influential he is? Would he be able to survive indefinately due to natural constraints? And would you still call him god?

It makes for a very interesting line of thought which I came very close to putting in this post but decided to leave out for length reasons. Using this train of thought you could call matter, collectively, god. Or you could call the first cell from whence every other cell came “god.” (Every cell is replicated from a previous cell) There are those that worship cows and those that worship a teapot. It just limits what you believe your god can do, what you will do for it, and even redefines the word itself.

Comment on Agnosticism and Atheism are not Mutually Exclusive by Samuel Skinner

Samuel Skinner — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 02:42:12 +0000

Because God is supposed to be in the circle. I mean think about it- God claims he is in it, but he obviously isn’t, so…

Comment on The Cons of Religion by Atheism and the Cons of Religion | Creative Century

Atheism and the Cons of Religion | Creative Century — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:49:14 +0000

[...] stumbled upon a post from Atheism and Happiness entitled “The Cons of Religion.” It is about some the downsides of following a religion. Among these the division that [...]