photo by TrevinC
“Life sucks and then you die.” Or so said my coworker when she heard about my break-up with my boyfriend yesterday. I laughed, and she promised she would pray for God to take away my troubles. Another acquaintance tried to comfort me by saying I shouldn’t be afraid about finding another man in the future. God would provide, and we have nothing to fear.
Well, sometimes life does suck, being lonely is no fun, and once in a while I wonder if I will find a mate for the long haul who will be an amazing match for me. But am I afraid? Does being an atheist have anything to do with my heartache? I don’t think so, no.
Fear and Humanity
Do atheists fear the world? Is fear a bad thing? Would believing in God protect us from trouble and remove fear from our lives?
(Read more after the cut…)
Read the Rest! Post a comment (17)
Ahura Mazda
An email from Rev. Richard Robbins:
Your name is wrong. You are not a godless girl. Your name should actually be denial girl. You can tell me till the cows come home there is no God but I know for a fact that you believe in God you are just living in denial. If you admit there is a God then you have to deal with being accountable to Him. Not such a happy thought.
I bought the wrong domain name, folks! Is denialgirl.com still available?
Mr. Robbins,
I didn’t think one of the “gifts of the spirit” was telepathy. Apparently I missed that in one of Paul’s epistles. It seems you claim to have the same mind-reading power as the deity you worship. Do you also claim to be all-knowing? Maybe it’s limited to the thoughts and views of atheists? Very curious indeed!
I’ve stated before that the ignorant claim that atheists can’t handle being accountable for our actions and “sins” is ridiculous. Apparently atheists’ refutations of this canned accusation haven’t made a dent in the condescending beliefs behind it, so let me hold up a mirror for you:
You can tell me till the cows come home that Ahura Mazda does not exist, but I know for a fact that you believe in Ahura Mazda and are just living in denial. If you admit Ahura Mazda exists, you have to deal with being accountable to him. Not such a happy thought.
See how amusing that sounds? How likely are you to convert to Zoroastrianism because of what I said? Your answer is going to be the same as mine if you had asked me how likely I am to take your statements seriously. Sorry, Mr. Robbins, it just doesn’t work that way. I can’t be shamed or frightened into believing in a deity if there is no evidence that one exists. Doing so would be intellectually dishonest and delusional.
One more thing: According to Christianity, it doesn’t matter if someone admits there is a God or not; they will still be held accountable for their actions (as will all Christians, if you’ve forgotten what your guy said in Matthew 7:21-25). Of course, you wouldn’t have this problem if you believed in the true god, Ahura Mazda. Good luck!
Dealing with dimwitted debate? I decided to make something that might come in handy.
What are logical fallacies?
Here are a few helpful resources for improving your (and my!) writing.
The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else’s position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It’s a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
“To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven’t, your position is indefensible.”
The above straw man argument appears at about once a week on the net. If you can’t see what’s wrong with it, read the “Introduction to Atheism” document.
—”Atheism: Logic & Fallacies,” Infidels.org
Also because, as stated above, there is a tendency to start with desired conclusions and then construct arguments to support them, many people will happily draw upon logical fallacies to make their arguments. In fact, if a conclusion is not true one must either employ a false premise or a logical fallacy in order to construct an argument that leads to that conclusion. Remember, a sound argument (one with true premises and valid logic) cannot lead to a false conclusion. So in order to avoid using logical fallacies to construct invalid arguments, we need to understand how to identify fallacious logic.
—”How to Argue,” Steven Novella, MD
It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your topic—if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you’re more likely to just assume that it is true and to be careless with your evidence.
—UNC “Fallacies” handout
Good ol’ Bible literalist John Shimkus (R-IL) is a member of the United States House of Representatives. He’s an evangelical Republican who also sits on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This committee has jurisdiction over a large portion of legislation, such as public health, biomedical research, travel and tourism, national environmental policy, alternative energy, and conservation. That sure is a lot of power, wouldn’t you say?
So whats the problem with Shimkus being on the committee? Let’s see what he thinks about preserving the environment:
During a hearing in 2009, he dismissed the dangers of climate change and the warnings of the scientific community by quoting the Bible. He uses God’s promise to Noah (Genesis 8:21-22) [as proof.]
“I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for his creation,” Shimkus said.
Oh goody, someone who thinks the flood was literal and pretty rainbows mean climate change is a lie.
He then uses Matthew 24:31 (which has nothing at all to do with the environment) to defend a position that:
“The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood,” Shimkus asserted. “I do believe that God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.”
(source)
Shouldn’t there be a requirement for learned people who actually know an industry—or at least (dare I say it) science—to lead the major committees in the House? Pretty please with intelligence on top?
Oh gee, it reminds me of this:
Meghan on 
LeetheGirl on 
Loading ...