Latest on MJJC

Atheist thread

Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

My point was to call them out for committing the very same mistakes they criticize religious people. Logic and critical thinking should be applied in all those topics where a conscious debate is required, not being selective about it. It's what pisses me off.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Totally agree. You are totally right. They are the very thing they claim to hate
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

[youtube]u04yPWweZO4[/youtube]

This is more socio-political rather than religious but I think this is the best place to post it. I have been thinking about this theme a lot lately and I'm so glad someone took the time and effort to wrap it into such a profound message. "As the world got better, our fears got worse"... And we have politicians all over the world ready to exploit those fears for their own atavistic agenda :(
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

There was an episode of The Simpsons where Homer stops going to church and his arguments for not going was actually really good.

My fave quote from that episode

Homer: ''Why do we need to go to one building every Sunday, isn't God supposed to be everywhere? And what if we've picked the wrong religion? Every week we're just making God madder and madder''
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

In the end of the day atheist or believers... or pinning logic against beliefs.. we don't KNOW!


I've mentioned in here that I am not 100% sure what I believe... I was raised with a mom with Christian views and a dad that is muslim.. (neither are religious in my view point), I've lived in the U.S. and in Libya.. have seen religion in a unique view point and studied it a bit in college..

...I am not writing about what I intended but whatever I guess..

I'll just say whatever happens to you at the point of death it cannot be what religion teaches - even IF there is something divine that exhists.. and IF there is something out there, its much greater than the human view of what can be written about in a book.. Man can't comprehend it now with all the science we have - and they could not comprehend it thousands of years ago..

Of course I'd prefer there to be something, but it's not (IF something) what we expect!
 
Former child star and heart throb of the TV show Growing Pains, Kirk Cameron, has apparently morphed into a giver of marriage advice that seems to come from a different decade. The actor-turned-Christian evangelist had some of this advice this week, telling the Christian Post that women should “follow” their husbands’ leadership.
“Wives are to honor and respect and follow their husband’s lead, not to tell their husband how he ought to be a better husband,” he opined. “When each person gets their part right, regardless of how their spouse is treating them, there is hope for real change in their marriage.”
He added, “A lot of people don’t know that marriage comes with instructions. And, we find them right there in God’s word.”
Cameron has six children with his wife and fellow actress, Chelsea Noble, according to the Post.
This point of view isn’t unique to Cameron, the Friendly Atheist points out.
“He’s only expressing what most churches still preach on a weekly basis, what has been the common theme of Biblical marriage for thousands of years, and is still part of most wedding ceremonies today, reminding wives to, ‘submit to your husbands in every way,'” Horus Gilgamesh writes. “Did the secular world really not have any idea that this type of inequality is readily taught in scripture and practiced in Christian households around the world?”
Cameron’s sister, Candace Cameron Bruce, also actively promotes the idea that wives should be submissive to husbands.
“The definition I’m using with the word ‘submissive’ is the biblical definition of that,” Bure, who starred in the sitcom “Full House,” wrote in her 2014 book. “So, it is meekness, it is not weakness. It is strength under control, it is bridled strength. And that’s what I choose to have in my marriage.”
Click to expand...

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/kir...usbands-no-matter-how-they-are-being-treated/
 
^ Isn't that just so convenient for them? :smilerolleyes: I pity the women who have been brainwashed into this cult. If that offends your sensibilities, I wouldn't recommend the Biblical Gender Roles website though. They had a nice little article about marital rape a while back. Some excerpts:

The phrase “A wife does not have the right over her own body, but her husband does.” could not be clearer. A wife does not have the right to stand and deny her husband access to her body. As I said in the previous post, a wife can humbly ask for a “delay”, or “raincheck”, but only for legitimate physical or psychological reasons and the judge of what is legitimate or not is her husband.

(...)

I understand to people who have not read the Scriptures, everything I have stated up to this point and in previous posts in these series seems cold, and unfeeling. But you need to understand that our modern western culture has the idea of marriage and sex backwards from God’s design.

This the Modern Western formula regarding sex:
Feelings of fondness between a man and a woman leads to sex

This is God’s formula regarding sex:
Sex leads to feelings of fondness between a man and a woman

Some people might respond to this saying “it is not always true that sex leads to fondness between a man and a woman” and they would be right. But let’s consider why it would not. I have one word for you – its called pride. A wife may actually be more annoyed at her husband after sex, then she was before if she does not release her feelings of pride during sex and give herself fully, both mind and body to her husband.

(...)

You are not being selfish when you act on your God given sexual urges and initiate sex with your wife. Even if your wife is not in the mood, but she yields to your advance anyway, you ought to take it.

You should NEVER, EVER feel guilty for initiating sex with your wife.

(...)

The haters of the fact that God says sex is to occur if either the husband or wife want it will immediately scream “Rape” when I tell you as a Christian husband, that you ought to take the sex from your wife even if she is not in the mood.

The little phrase they neglect that I have stated is “if she yields”.

I am NOT advocating for a husband to physically force his wife to have sex with him.

I will address the situation if she does not yield in my next post.

But I will say this, despite American laws to the contrary, Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as “marital rape”. In the Scriptures, the only way rape occurs is if a man forces himself on a woman who is not his property (not his wife, or concubine). A man’s wives, his concubines (slave wives taken as captives of war or bought) could be made to have sex with him, no questions asked.

Now the Bible states that if a man did take one of his female slaves, he had to make her at least a slave wife (a concubine), which gave her a certain status above a normal slave. She had the right to be fed, clothed and the right to regular relations with him even he had other wives. She also had to be given the full rights of a daughter, if her father-in-law had purchased her for his son. I realize this entire scenario is appalling to our modern western notions, but I choose to not challenge God’s wisdom in the laws he gave. If you want to argue with God about this at the judgement, be my guest.

(...)

Many of us husbands, but not all, will take the grudging acceptance, where she yes, but with a bad attitude.

Believe it or not, I have seen bloggers and others online say that a man is raping his wife if he has sex with her, knowing she is not in the mood, even if she grudgingly yields. Anything short of her happy consent in their view, is rape. I have asked several good Christian women about this, including my wife and sister-in-law and they just laughed at such a ridiculous notion.

But if your wife’s reaction is anything but a happy or grudging yield to your sexual advance, you need only follow up her response with “is that a no?”

And perhaps throw in “do we need to sit down and refresh our minds with what God’s Word says about sex in marriage?” If your wife is not a Christian, a reference to the Scriptures may fall on deaf ears so you may just want to leave it with the first question “is that a no”, and then see my next post that will deal with how to handle unbelieving wives.

Your wife has two choices

Her first choice is to react to your “is that a no” question by grudgingly giving in. This is what I mean by, if she is not in the mood, but yields anyway, then just take it, knowing that both you and your marriage need the sex.

Her second choice is to react to your “is that a no” with a “Yep, it’s a no”. In that case you have to move to a different strategy that with I will address in my next post, “8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal”.
Click to expand...





​
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

I am agnostic, but am pretty sure there's no magical entity or entities.

As I said, I do not belittle those that do believe in whatever. However, I am an activist for separation of church and state. Which causes some clashes with some people, but that goes with the territory.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Does anyone else feel instant annoyance when they read the words Kirk Cameron? :giggle:
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

That's why it baffled me the LGBTT community being "against islamophobia." Many Muslims would want them rather dead than fighting for their rights by their side, actually, Islam does't promote human rights whatsoever.

I hate the the word "islamophobia," it's the stupidest one recently made up.

That's the kind of people who came up or use that stupid word trying to silence the ones who call out people's atrocities in the name of that religion.

12417786_956465084421663_6952037166069410064_n.jpg
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

^ I so agree with Sam Harris there. I like that these vocal atheists like Harris or Dawkins are not hypocrites when it comes to criticizing religions and don't just criticize one religion but turn a blind eye on another one's attrocities. Unfortunately most liberals are total hypocrites when it comes to this which is one of the reasons I became disillusioned in today's liberal movements. They have no problem criticizing Christianity and calling out its backwards interpretations but say something about Islam and you are all kind of "nazi", "racist" or "Islamophobe".

And yes, I agree that "Islamophobia" is a stupid, stupid term. It's like saying criticizing Christianity is "Christophobia". Or criticizing communism is "Communophobia". We should never be discouraged from excercising criticism of any ideology - including Islam. There is something wrong when an open dialogue about ANY ideology is discouraged.

 
Last edited:
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

I think many liberals are concerned about discrimination against Muslims as individuals and that is why they're more sensitive to criticism of Islam. It's understandable when you have prominent politicians arguing for a ban on all Muslims entering the country, special surveillance for Muslims, a tax on "head rags", and other such discriminatory nonsense. A lot of people don't distinguish between Islam as an ideology and individual Muslims who have a wide range of interpretations of that ideology. Few liberals would argue that forced marriages or LGBT persection are acceptable practices but they (we) have a problem with the tacit assumption that all Muslims are in favour of this. I guess the term Islamophobic is appropriate in that sense, as in there is only one version of Islam and that version is best represented by ISIS and Boko Haram. You could say it is the most literalistic version and that would probably be accurate but there are sects within Islam that believe the Quran is not meant to be taken literally at all times.

That said, the term Islamophobia is also often abused to deflect any critical inspection of the Quran or the historically documented actions of Mohammed or other things that should be open to debate. There is nothing "phobic" about pointing out that there are verses in the Quran in support of slavery, rape, mysoginy, antisemitism, homophobia, torture and murder. But even if that wasn't the case and the entire Quran was about love and peace and happiness, there is nothing wrong in principle with questioning it.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Some more Sam Harris videos on Islam.



 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

The reasons why I think "islamophobia" is a stupid word are because firstly, Islam is not a race, it's a religion, an ideology; Ben Affleck's idiotic rant and anyone else who agrees with him proves some people think it's a race. And secondly because a phobia is an irrational fear or hatred towards something or someone, anyone who has publicly called out, criticize the atrocious actions committed in the name of Islam, Allah, did it in a logical and rational way. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc are/were not xenophobes.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

It's not surprising religious people have 'woo woo' beliefs but talking about Michael, it's surprising to me how he could like and believe in Chopra's teachings. I think some of my neurons exploded trying to understand what the f.uck was saying. But I love how Sam destroyed Chopra.


BxITG_fCUAAgO62.jpg:large
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Evangelical faith healer vs. street fighter. LMAO.

 
I laughed my ass off the first time I watched the video, I used to play Street Fighters a lot when I was a child. :lmao:

But "faith healers" are one of the worst kind of scammers, many children have died and others have lived severely ill of initially treatable diseases because their imbecile parents opted to take them to faith healers instead of taking them to hospital.

Victim Of Faith Healing Wants Parents Prosecuted

April 19, 2016 by Michael Stone 156 Comments
Permanently disabled because she was denied medical care as a child, Mariah Walton wants her faith healing parents prosecuted.
Walton, 20, is usually bedridden, and when she’s not, she has to carry around an oxygen tank. She has had screws in her bones to hold her breathing device in place, and she has no options for recovery besides a risky heart and lung transplant.
Yet all of this could have been prevented if Walton’s faith healing parents had simply taken her to a doctor when she was a child.
Walton has a condition called pulmonary hypertension. Her situation could have been prevented if doctors had closed the small congenital hole in her heart in her infancy or childhood.
However, Walton’s parents were fundamentalist Mormons who went off the grid in northern Idaho in the 1990s and refused to take their children to doctors, believing that illnesses could be healed through faith and the power of prayer.
The prayers failed; and Walton is now left in dire circumstances because of the outrageous behavior of her parents.
As a child Walton grew sicker and sicker. Her parents would pray over her, and rub rancid olive oil over her body, but refused to seek medical attention for their sick daughter. Finally, in her late teens, Walton managed to see a doctor about her poor health. But it was too late, the damage to her heart and lungs had been done, and it was permanent.
Mariah says she is angry about the way she was treated as a child:
I feel it is not OK for people to be allowed to ignore modern science that saves lives. I had no vote and no power over my parents, and they were legally allowed to let me get to this point.
​

Walton told The Guardian:
I would like to see my parents prosecuted. They deserve it. And it might stop others.
​
While Walton’s parents should be prosecuted, that is not likely to happen. Currently in Idaho there is a religious shield law that protects parents who claim to be acting out of religious faith, so when a child is injured or dies in Idaho due to lack of medical care, faith healing parents are not held accountable.
A bill that would have protected children from faith healing parents was killed by Republican lawmakers in the state last month.

<iframe src="http://abcnews.go.com/video/embed?id=38497880" scrolling="no" style="border:none;" height="360" width="640"></iframe>
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...ants-parents-prosecuted/#sthash.YlbKrW6w.dpuf
Click to expand...

[video=youtube;q7BQKu0YP8Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y[/video]
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

got my tattoo...
13669228_10206916180044861_1649232579574783971_n.jpg
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
I laughed my ass off the first time I watched the video, I used to play Street Fighters a lot when I was a child. :lmao:

But "faith healers" are one of the worst kind of scammers, many children have died and others have lived severely ill of initially treatable diseases because their imbecile parents opted to take them to faith healers instead of taking them to hospital.



Click to expand...

I used to be in a church that practiced faith healing. Luckily they weren't quite as irresponsible as to advise people not to see a doctor. But then those more zealous believers might have stopped seeing a doctor or taking a medicine on their own to prove themselves their faith.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

I just read that a religious (Muslim) man stabbed a woman and her three daughters in France because they were dressed "too provocatively". The youngest daughter is only 8 years old and she is in critical condition. And the ironic thing is that people like him see themselves as the protectors of morality when their own behaviour is so deeply immoral and hurtful. That's the poison of religion.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

This is brilliant.

 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Indeed. This one makes a similar point:

[youtube]KYV7KWQ-fY4[/youtube]

It's uncanny how much they have in common, isn't it?

(for those who haven't watched the video, it's a parody of a fundamentalist right-wing Christian vs. a fundamentalist right-wing Muslim. Obviously I don't think all Christians/Muslims are like that, lol).
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

^Islam took stories from the Torah and the Bible to write the Qu'ran after all.

I miss Hitch so much, he'd tear apart Muslim apologist and anyone else who uses the stupid word islamophobia/islamophobe to single out people who rightfully criticize Islam and the attrocious actions committed in it's name.

 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Michaels Lover said:
sickening
Click to expand...

Wtf? Imagine if they started lecturing a Jewish, Christian or Muslim kid about their religious beliefs on an entertainment show. People would be outraged. But since it's an atheist, nobody cares. We need a word for this... atheistophobia? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top