To all those who cite religious reasons when arguing against same sex marriage.
follow for the best atheist posts on tumblr
(via questionall)
Point 9: “In the National Church German men and women, German youths and girls will acknowledge God and His eternal works”.
Clearly not an atheist.
—
Kurt Vonnegut (via eilahtan34)What, to you, is the essence of humanism? If you were asked to define it in the space provided by a Tumblr answer or a tweet, what would you say?
Humanism is believing that no matter who we are or where we came from, all people deserve dignity and respect. It is our duty to be kind.
Love is the emotion that we evolved to help make all this shit bearable.
(Source: society6.com, via skepticalavenger)
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” - Marcus Aurelius
(Source: yesinspiteofeverything, via pseudoatheist)
I used to be Catholic. I was baptized, had a first holy communion, I was confirmed under the name of Saint Andrew, and I went to Sunday school in between it all. I believed very strongly in all of the teachings of the Bible, including that of creationism, and every little absurdity. I believed…
If it’s wrong, then it’s wrong. Simple as that. We can say thanks for the positive things it contributed, but now it’s time to move on - the same way we did for alchemy, astrology, abacuses, and horse-&-buggy technology. It’s called progress.
(via humanistatheist)
An excerpt from BBC’s 1959 Face to Face interview with British philosopher, mathematician, and sociocultural critic Bertrand Russell. Russell articulates in just under two minutes one of the most important and admirable aspirations we could hope to live up to, both individually and as a society.
I should like to say two things, one intellectual and one moral.
The intellectual thing I should want to say to them is this: When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts. That is the intellectual thing that I should wish to say.
The moral thing I should wish to say to them is very simple: I should say, love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like. We can only live together in that way — and if we are to live together and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance, which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.
Catch the full BBC interview, very much worth the watch in its entirety, here
Religiousish rant; here we go.
One of the things I hate most is when people tell me that being agnostic is a cop out. It’s not. Whether it’s religious nuts telling me that I’m just scared to be held responsible to a higher being or atheists telling me that I’m just too scared to fully commit to saying there’s no god in case I’m wrong, that’s all bullshit and those people need to shut up. Being agnostic isn’t either of those. It’s admitting that there are countless possibilities in regards to a higher being, or lack thereof. There is neither definitive proof of the existence of a god, or definitive proof of the NONexistence of a god. Saying you know without a doubt that there either for sure is one, or isn’t one, isn’t a belief founded on proof. Because there is no proof. Being agnostic acknowledges that. It’s not a fucking cop out. It’s regarding the lack of proof as what it is. Why do people NEED to take one side or the other? If there’s no proof, it’s perfectly fine to balance in the middle and admit it.
NO ONE can be 100% positive that their theism or atheism is correct. So fucking forgive me for not deciding on something when I don’t have all the facts.
Personally, I don’t know why people are willing to say they know 100% if there is or isn’t a god when they don’t have proof, but whatever. Igenuinely don’t care, as long as they don’t shove their beliefs down my throat or tell me that I’m wrong. I think there are strong arguments for both sides. But again, I don’t have proof and I’m content with that. Now, I’m not saying that if there is a god, he has to be a man in the sky controlling everything. Honestly, I highly doubt that. It could be possible, though. But I doubt it. A “god” could just be an active energy in the universe that is a part of everything. Like the Force. To me, that seems far more logical, and likely, than a man in the sky. But I just don’t know.
Point is, I’m not copping out of anything. So people needa back up off my shit.
(via humanistatheist)
—
From Adam Savage’s speech at the Reason Rally in Washington on March 24th 2012. Full text here. Video here. (via onehumanist)(via onehumanist)
—
God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. (via singnoevil)
