Atheist Bible Reading and Forum

Bible study

2009-11-09T17:27:00.003+11:00

Scripture does not argue the existence of God, for example, it rather assumes it from page one, because it was the given understanding for those to whom it was written. [source]

Well said. If you are still living with an understanding equal to those men and women in the desert about 2000 years ago, you are forgiven in believing and not questioning the existence of a god. In modern time, with all the advances made in Science, it is very sad and an indication of the failure of education that so many are still fooled by the false promise of a god. If you are capable of applying reasons and requiring evidence for your everyday activities, why on earth would you believe in something as absurd as a super natural being supervising everyone of our daily activities. Even if a creator exists, why does it care about what happens to us, a species living on a small planet in one of the many stars of one of many galaxies?

Please, my dear religious readers, think for yourself and apply reason and require evidence. Where is the evidence of any god, let alone yours?

Tearing a Page from the Bible

2009-11-09T16:40:00.002+11:00

Gary DeMar wrote:

Ian McKellen of Lord of the Rings (Gandalf) and X-Men (Magneto) fame is an admitted homosexual. He is in the habit of tearing out the Bible passage that condemns homosexuality, specifically Leviticus 18:22 which reads, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

What is your business to mind about someone's private sexual preference? If he sins in the eyes of your imaginary god, so be it. Let your imagine god do whatever it can. Ooops, of course your imaginary god cannot do a thing, because it is imaginary!

LFACC - On Slavery & moral

2009-11-04T21:55:00.004+11:00

This post will deal with the issue of slavery raised in Douglas Wilson's Letter from a Christian Citizen [page 21 - 30]

Wilson asks "Given your worldview, what is wrong with this [ He (Jesus) did teach Christian slaves to make a special point of working diligently for believing masters.]? There is nothing wrong with it on your principles, where the universe is just time and chance acting on matter. Why does it matter if the master matter acts on the slave matter? Who cares? ... But how could atheism lead to a condemnation of slavery?"

The fact that such questions are being asked is strikingly worrisome. It seems to me that Wilson will, if not being a Christian and hence afraid of the punishment, do *everything*. The fact is people have evolved innate compassion towards other people and things. No wonder there is no child's behind left under religious care!

Atheism is not moral guide. Atheist are people who do not believe there is a god. Period. Simple. Get it?

The fact that atheist is 10% in the USA population, but 0.1% in the prison population should say something which Wilson either is ignorant of or conveniently disregarded. People in prison not necessary, as Wilson pointed out, are immoral. But at least, it means rational atheists understand the rule of law and are able, statistically, to be better citizens.

I have pointed out before, moral is a moving social standard. Many atheists, me included, condemn industrialised slavery (sweatshop production). We condemn slave, including child sex slave. Unlike the old testament, we at least will not condone such practice (Wilson seems to praise the OT to set limits on the practice as a moral guide). Yes, I understand OT was 2000+ years ago. That is exactly why religion, based on a single set of books, cannot be used as modern moral guide. They are out-dated!

Wilson puts up the fear mongering again on page 20:

The judgments that fall in the Old Testament are largely temporal judgments. The judgments that Jesus speaks of are eternal.

Punishment should be appropriate for the crime. What have I done to deserve eternal hell fire? Because Adam & Eve ate the forbidden fruit? Where is the justice?

If current laws represent the current moral standard, it seems to be people with faith have the same proportion in society and in prison whereas atheists are statistically significantly under represented in the prison population. Obviously, either the moral guide in the bible is out of date or people with faith have lower moral standard.

ps Question to Wilson, people in prison are slave (There are over two million people currently incarcerated in the United States. page 25) or people in prison are students (graduate schools of crime and vice from courtrooms page 26)

LFACC - Who & Whether questions of God

2009-11-04T10:21:00.006+11:00

In Letter from a Christian Citizen, Douglas Wilson raised many interesting points. This post will deal with the point of atheism towards Muslims and towards Christianity. [page 13-15] Here is how Wilson describes the issue:

You [Sam Harris] advance an argument that might be called an argument for partial atheism: “The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims” (7). But I am afraid that this is a false analogy entirely. You say, “Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions” (7). Well, no, not exactly. And well, actually, no, not at all.

Suppose we are considering a phenomenon that is, by most accounts, inexplicable as an unsupervised occurrence—three of us attend a sophisticated party uptown, and half way through the evening at the party we find a trout in the punch bowl. At this point, the three of us divide into three schools of thought. I think that Smith, a practical joker, put it there; our friend Murphy thinks that Jones, the avant-garde performance artist, put it there; and you think that it has simply shown up as the result of natural forces. My central point is not to interact with the truth or falsity of your naturalistic position—except perhaps through the use of this absurd example of the punchbowl—but rather to show that you are arguing for something completely different from what Murphy and I are arguing. We all have an explanation but your explanation is of a different kind altogether.

The differences between two of us (between Murphy and me) concern who put the trout in the lunchbowl. The difference between the both of us together and you is over whether someone put a trout in the punchbowl. And who and whether represent different questions entirely. Quite apart from who is right and who is wrong about this, it is important to note that we are not disagreeing in the same way or over the same kind of issue at all.

So when an atheist says "you understand why I don't believe in your god when you understand why you don't believe in other gods", atheist is missing a point. Both christians and muslims believe in a god, they are just disagreeing on whose version of god is true. We, atheists, cannot see any evidence to support ANY god. Wilson is right that who and whether are two different questions. However one of these questions (whether there is a god) must be answered first before asking which god to believe.

The sticky point is the burden of proof. From a pure logical angle, the burden of proof is with the claimant. There is no way for anyone to disprove anything which is only in the mind of the claimant. However, I can also agree that there is NO way any religion can prove the existence of a god which will/can intervene with the natural laws.

The demand of the proof is that it must be objective, repeatable and observable. For any miracle to be "repeatable", it is no longer miracle. When under a certain condition, a miracle *always* happens, then it is no longer miracle. It is just a scientific observable data. Millions of miracles are happening everyday everywhere, e.g. calling someone up using your mobile phone, life saving operations in the hospitals etc. They are no longer in the realm of religion.

Since there is no way religious people can demonstrate their imaginary god, we have to settle to other means of resolving the issue.

For me, if anything needs a creator, the creator also needs a creator. Since it is impossible, the conclusion I have is there is no creator. This settle the "whether" part. The rest flows logically and simply. The "who" does not worth asking.

The origin of universe and then the origin of life are unsolved questions. But I refuse to substitute "god" as a solution because, as pointed out above, that begs the question who created god, and who created the creator who created god,...

Even if a creator were to exist, the chance that the creator would be interested in human's daily activities is non-existence. The jump from a cosmic god to a personal god as claimed by the religious is another huge mental gymnastic no rational mind can perform.

The fact that Wilson pointed out this difference in Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation does not prove anything.

I will discuss other parts of Wilson's book in the future.

Atheists 'not fully human', says Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor

2009-11-04T07:30:00.002+11:00

Cormac Murphy O'Connor is now on the list of dishonest people whom I do no respect.

Moral Authority

2009-11-03T16:01:00.002+11:00

In a written debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson on "Is Christianity Good for the World?" which led to a book
of the same name, and a movie COLLISION: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson, they discussed a range of issues. I like to focus on the moral authority in this post.

Wilson asked Hitchens to clarify the source of authority for atheists' moral. Let me put it this way. Moral standard is a moving goal, as human civilisation progresses, the moral standards, as reasonably expected should improve. Take for instance the case of human slavery. While the old testament supported such actions, in today's society, it is generally considered immoral to own slave, let along the practice of slave trafficking.

While Wilson claims the bible provides an absolute standard and authority for human moral, I disagree. Chinese, with a 5000+ years of written history, has been guided morally by the teaching of Confucius in the last 2500+ years. Arguing that it takes christianity to establish moral for a society is an insult to 1/5 of the world's population. Many of the practices from the bible is considered barbaric today. How can we, with consistency, ever expect a rational being to seek moral guidance from a collection of books written almost two thousand years ago (by authors who were not from the leading civilisation at that time) with no knowledge of today's social situation?

The moral code established in the bible is barbaric and out of date. The current moral code in most countries today is much more advanced than the limited christian moral. Hitchens has pointed out in his book the biggest mis-teaching in the new testament is vicarious redemption.

My stance is clear. There is no absolute moral standard. Moral is established socially, driven by our survival innate ability to care, empathise and be passionate.

Atheists

2009-11-01T21:33:00.000+11:00

Bible is a 'handbook of bad morals'

2009-11-01T11:47:00.002+11:00

The 1998 Literature Nobel prize winner Jose Saramago said, as quoted by news agency Lusa.

The Bible is a manual of bad morals (which) has a powerful influence on our culture and even our way of life. Without the Bible, we would be different, and probably better people. [source]

It takes a Nobel-laureate to tell the truth which everyone knows to get reported by the news.

Atheism vs. Christianity

2009-10-31T15:15:00.004+11:00

All the comments are too easily reputed:

# Atheism does not have missions to feed the hungry.
# Atheism does not have programs to give shelter to the homeless.
# Atheism does not trouble itself to help the poor or give to the needy.
# Atheism does not clothe the naked or visit the imprisoned.

None of the above is true. There IS non-religious based organisation aimed/tasked to help, e.g. Red Cross, Amnesty International!

# Atheism does not give hope to the despairing, does not give love to the needy soul, or open arms to the broken-hearted.
# Atheism does not seek to bring healing to any person.
# Atheism seeks to tear down Love and stop its flow into the hearts of the un-loved.

What is the use of giving false hope to anyone? Real hope comes from scientific advances. Real hope to cure the ill, lessen the pain, feed the hungers come from evidential based scientific research. Most scientists are atheists. They are the people giving real hope - not the false hope such as those from the religious.

Love is human basic characteristics. We don't need religion to tell us to love our parents, our family, respect and enjoy friends, obey common laws and basically be good. It is totally false for religious to claim any moral high ground. The fact that they believe in something which has no evidential support already indicates a lack of integrity. People in high offices within religious organisations are telling lie daily, pushing the parasitic theological doctrines to the common people, demanding blind following, sucking the followers' hard-earn money for their own luxury living. Tell me why Pope lives in a palance? Why many preachers fly in private jets and live in multi-million dollar mansions.

# Atheism does not intend to encourage the down-trodden.

Unlike religion, atheists do not oppress the common people. Oppressive behaviour of religion can be vividly observed today in many Islamic countries. Past horror during the Puritan era should not be forgotten either.

# During the 20th century, atheists (mostly communists, such as those who followed Stalin) slaughtered untold millions of Christians, Jews, and people of many other religions for the sake of their faith. This still goes on today in places like China.

People kill people to seek power, like the past and like the present. Don't forget millions of people during the crusades. Also don't forget the ex-USA President sent thousands of young Americans in harm's way - to invade Iraq, eg. - because he was allegedly told to do so by his god. Good people do good thing. Bad people do bad thing. It is only religion to have good people do bad thing!

# Atheism seeks to destroy the hope of Jesus Christ and take love away from a world of people in need of care. In the name of science they proclaim, "there is no God", "we evolved from slime", "the cosmos is an accident". Declaring as gods the foundations and fate of the universe, they ignore the needs of the hearts of men to know that there is a Divine Creator who loves them.

Atheism is not a synonym of Science. Atheists are people who do no belief in a god - whether it is Allah or Jesus because there is no evidence to demonstrate there is a god. Many atheists will be the first to convert to any religion which can demonstrate, with repeatable reliable evidence that god exists. Atheist does not need to proof there is no god. The burden of proof is with the people who claim there is a god. Just like you do not need to proof that there is a pink unicorn which just flied above your head does not exist.

The fundamental difference between scientific theories and religious dogmas is the ability to explain observable facts. Evolution and Big bang theories are not imaginary theories. They are based on evidences - many evidences from different angles, different places and different time. Once formulated, scientific theories are constantly being challenged both from within and outside to prove its validity. If a single valid evidence exists to contradict a theory, the theory will be abolished. Can religious dogmas survive similar scrutiny?

If everything needs a creator, who created the creator?

# Because an atheist got God banned from public schools, our children must pass through metal detectors on their way into school where they score worse and worse on educational tests and morals are at an all-time low. They must remember each day the school massacres of the past few years and wonder... if... when... where... who... Does anyone stop to think that this downward trend started the year God was banned from schools?

The proportion of inmates in prison shows a very interesting data. The fraction of religious inmates is basically similar to the population. BUT the fraction of atheists in prison is significantly less than the proportion in the population. How's that possible? Atheists are more morally law obeying citizens! American public schools need metal detectors in the entrance NOT because school sponsored prayers are banned. Students can pray in private in school as they like. Muddling the issue does not make it right.

House excludes spiritual care from Health Care Reform bill

2009-10-30T11:10:00.003+11:00

The Secular Coalition for America is thrilled that the House of Representatives has decided to remove language found in all three draft bills that would require private and public plans to cover the spiritual care of individuals with religious objections to medical care.
...
If this language had been included, tax payers would be forced to help foot the bill for this religion-based “care” – “care” offering no scientific evidence of effectiveness. "Care" which, in fact, endangers lives by placing government approval on non-scientific practices.

WOW. We must applaud the House of Representatives to right the wrong in the bill.

What is worrying is WHY such wording would have been in the bill in the first place. Given USA is one of the most "advanced" civilisation with massive quantity of weapon of mass destruction, should we not expect the law makers be of a higher standard than others? The fact that BS such as prayers be included as a tax-payer subsidized care plan in the first place sends chills down my spine? What this is telling me is than we are living in a very dangerous world. With so many apocalyptic wishful thinking religious fools, some even managed to put such BS into a bill for passing into law, one would wonder the chance of someone stupid enough to push the red button which will spell the end of the world as we know it today. That chance is obviously non-zero!

Christian teacher charged with sex assault used Bible to persuade victims

2009-10-30T11:03:00.002+11:00

Only if the victims were not brainwashed with religious BS, such abuse of young children would not have happened. Bad things are done in the name of religion, often, too often!

People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

2009-10-29T14:49:00.002+11:00

Selected comment from Richard Dawkin's Foundation:

People have EXPERIENCED being abducted by aliens. People have EXPERIENCED rising up out of their body and looking down on it from the ceiling. It doesn't make it real.

One person's personal experience will never match another's. As real as it may feel, it cannot be used to empirically determine the existence or non-existence of God. That's where evidence comes in.

Most Christians have "experienced" God.
Most Muslims have "experienced" Alah.
Many different people have "experienced" many different Gods.

Does this mean all gods exist? Does that mean they are all crazy and you are not? Or is it simply easy for most people to mistakenly believe that they have experienced God?

So God singled you out as 'special' and gave you a direct experience. Are you certain it wasn't Allah or Vishnu, as Wiggy points out? Perhaps it was Satan. He's suppose to be really good a deception, you know. Perhaps you were temporarily ill or have been drugged. Considering these possibilities, how can you expect anyone else to trust your experience as genuine or that you've interpreted your experience correctly?

What exactly did you experience and how do you know you experienced it?

So God singled you out as 'special' and gave you a direct experience. Are you certain it wasn't Allah or Vishnu, as Wiggy points out? Perhaps it was Satan. He's suppose to be really good a deception, you know. Perhaps you were temporarily ill or have been drugged. Considering these possibilities, how can you expect anyone else to trust your experience as genuine or that you've interpreted your experience correctly?

I have experienced no god and so I know no god exists.

How many people here have seen a skilled magician? They can do magic, so magic is real right?

The basic functioning of the brain and an overview of how concious percepion is different than reality should be required in all education programs around the world.

2009-10-29T11:51:00.003+11:00

To save you from typing, here is the text mentioned in the video. Print it out and have some glue handy. Next time when you see a bible, stick it to the inside front page. Have fun.

An atheist is one without a belief in, or one who lacks a belief in the existence of God or Gods.

Since there is no empirical proof that this God or any God exists, we invite you to enjoy reading the bible as a fictional work using a rational, enlightened and open mind.

Feel free to watch shows such as
"The Atheist Experience"
or read Richard Dawkin's
"The God Delusion"
to help give you the proper context for a greater understand of God and Religion.

We also hope you understand that this is a religious text made up of a number of stories and myths but remember, it is not a scientific text.

So enjoy your fictional bible reading experience!

Is Christian Faith defendable?

2009-10-28T21:01:00.002+11:00

The video says there are good solid reasons to believe in christianity. "Saying there are good reasons" does not mean that there is any reason, let alone good ones. So I am challenging my reader(s) to state these reasons.

Good reasons to NOT believe in any god

2009-10-28T18:47:00.003+11:00

I never was, am not and never will become religious. My father let me grew my curiosity. I stubbornly chose to study the "hardest" subject in my undergraduate course. I took up to the maximum allowed courses during the three years of under graduation and enjoying it to the best I could.

Since I started this blog, I have been exposed to a lot of challenges and none have changed my view on religion - religion has passed its used-by date long time ago. People also questions my scientific attitude and says that I should be an agnostic. No, I am an atheist. If you claim there is a god, you provide the proof. If there is no evidence of such existence, my default position is there is no god. I cannot be agnostic towards pink unicorn, imaginary flying dragon, ...

My family urges me to be "polite" towards the religious and stop ridiculing religion. I am sorry I cannot, but I appreciate their concerns. Intellectually, religious ideas cannot stand up to the standard of evidence I have been trained to require. Religion is an idea virus, spreading and damaging the host - human society.

Religion, as a business, is unfairly subsidized by tax payers. Religion does not fulfil its corporate citizens' obligation to pay tax. The huge amount of money collected by religion is only channeled back to promote religion - and more income. Charity? Does it not there are charities working without any religious banner? When a priest of a church in Melbourne suburb spend a little more in helping the poor, what did the church do? Try to force him to retire! [source]

Religion is not a harmless thing people choose to do at their private space. As the saying goes, "if I do not know there is a god and Jesus, I don't go to hell when I die. WHY you tell me then?" Religion is political, trying hard to grip any political power and have no intention not to exert its unwarranted power and wealth. How many people have died in the name of religion over the centuries? How many more need to die in the future?

Without raging wars (this is only hypothetical because USA ex-president Bush alleged that he was told to invade Iraq by his god), religion is still doing a lot of harm. Richard Dawkins, in comparing the Catholic church to the Anglican, put it like this:

What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders. The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate. The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast; nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite. It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV. Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.

Is Anglican church any better? May be. But it is still a parasite to the society we can do without happily.

Peace!

Why Religion Saddens Me

2009-10-28T18:37:00.001+11:00

I would actually think "Why religion is dangerous" is a more appropriate title of this self reflection. Great respect from this blogger towards VanCoffeeChick to say what she said in the youtube video.

Quote

2009-10-26T19:13:00.003+11:00

One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. - Arthur C. Clarke

How true! If anyone suggests that without religion, there is no moral, then it is an insult to one fifth of the world's population, Chinese, who traditionally live under the moral guideline of Confucius (551 B.C.E. – 479 B.C.E.) who has laid down the moral law: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself 己所不欲、勿施於人

This Confucius moral ideas have deep cultural influence to Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnames. It is said way earlier than the bible.

Dishonest people I do no respect - Tony Blair

2009-10-26T12:17:00.002+11:00

Tony Blair

Not only has Tony Blair led the UK into the illegal invasion of Iraq (under the pretext of weapon of mass destruction - which has never been found), he is now grouping the atheists with the religious fanatics:

Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century. [source: Speech delivered on 7th October, 2009 at the Common Word Conference at George Town University]

Tony Blair now joins a list of dishonest people whom I do no respect.

Theory or Fact?

2009-10-26T11:20:00.002+11:00

As I have pointed out before, science starts with observation, repeatable, reliable observations. To most people, such observations are facts. It is undeniable. It is there for the keen eye to see and testify. For the scientists, these are data, factual data.

The sun came out from the East the day before yesterday in Melbourne. The sun came out from the East yesterday in Melbourne. The sun come out from the East today in Melbourne. These threestatements are facts. But for a scientist, these statements are data. So a scientist postulate a theory. The sun comes out from the East. (Note that the time reference and place reference has been removed from this postulate.) Now the scientist will see if this postulate can explain the observed factual data. Yes, it can. So it passes the first test. Now, the scientist will see if this postulate predicts new observations. Yes, it predicts that the Sun will come out tomorrow from the East in Melbourne. So we wait and test if the new observation can be observed as predicted. ... the result will be known tomorrow. It also predicts the sun will come out from any place. But let put that aside to keep the length of this post short.

Meanwhile, this is an overly simplified example of how science works. The example is also overly simplified by not taking into account a number of conditions that may have superficial effects on the observation, e.g. the weather condition. But this is not the point. The point is that when a postulate graduates into a theory, it would have been tested over and over by many many scientists in many many different places at different times. A theory "explains" many observable facts.

When the IDiots say, 'evolution is only a theory, not a fact', my response is "what? what do you mean by ONLY?". Of course, a theory is not A fact! A theory is more than a fact, a theory explains a lot of facts. The correct sentence to show a little knowledge of the scientific process should be evolution is a theory, not only a fact.

To those with compulsorily lying abnormalities, next time when you want to say something about evolution, do not expose your ignorance by saying evolution is only a theory. Saying that will only expose your arrogant ignorance on the subject matter you are trying to say. That weakens your position of argument to the point 'no comment' is a more than enough response. So be warned.

Religion without a god

2009-10-25T14:48:00.002+11:00

Extract from Atheism Explained: From Folly to Philosophy (Ideas Explained) by David Ramsay Steele:

Buddhism. None of the sects of Buddhism accepts the existence of an all-powerful Creator God. Most Buddhists believe in the existence of devas, beings with powers far more exalted than anything human, and having little to do with humans. Like humans, devas may misbehave and be reincarnated as lower life forms. Buddhists have traditionally held that the universe has existed and will exist for ever.

Jainism has about fifteen million members, in several different sects. It's an old religion dating back to ancient India, though most members are now outside India. Jains have always been noted for strict morality, asceticism, and dedication to learning. They explicitly reject the concept of a Creator or controller of the universe. They hold that the universe has existed for infinite time, going through repeated cycles which will continue for ever. Jains will not usually reject the word 'God', but will define it in terms of abstract qualities rather than a conscious agent. Similarly, they appear to worship their tirthankaras (great sages of the past), but will always insist that they do not worship these individuals, only the virtues they embody.

Daoism is a traditional Chinese religion. Its two main scriptures are the Daodejing and the Juangzi. Daoism is concerned with human life, personal and social. The (or Dao 'way') is the natural flow of things. Daoism has no concept of worship and no concept of salvation. Its central tenet is wu wei or non-interference: violent, invasive action will produce more problems than it solves.

Confucianism is a system of beliefs in which a very vague reference to 'heaven' plays a small part, nothing like the central part of 'God' in 'the Abrahamic faiths. Confucians emphasize right conduct, which to Westerners often seems more a matter of etiquette than of morality.

'Chinese traditional religion' refers to beliefs currently held by most Chinese (nearly a fifth of the world's population). It's largely an amalgam of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism, along with some 'folk beliefs' that are not specifically Confucian, Daoist, or Buddhist. What is called 'ancestor worship' is an element in traditional Chinese thinking, but it does not necessarily commit its followers to the theory that the deceased ancestors are still conscious.

Falun Gong is a new religion, with about one hundred million followers, based on the writings of 'Master' Li Hongzhi. It has been banned in China since 1999. Most of the beliefs concern qigong, the traditional breathing exercises associated with Buddhist and Daoist meditation. Li has expressed views about the malign influence of aliens and about distant and finite 'gods', but these views are not paid much attention by rank and file practitioners of Falun Gong, who are mainly concerned with raising their consciousness, improving their health, and behaving morally.

Shinto is the traditional folk-religion of Japan. Most Japanese follow both Buddhism and Shinto to some extent, often merely ceremonial (at weddings and funerals). Even today, more than ninety-five percent of Japanese have no contact with classical theism or anything close to it. Shinto involves recognition of numerous gods "the eight million gods"-though 'nature spirits' might be a more accurate rendering of the Japanese word 'kami'. As in many forms of non-Abrahamic religion, there are virtually no demands on what an individual personally believes. Shinto has little in the way of a distinctive morality: elaborate traditional Japanese morality comes mainly from Confucianism.

Christian atheism is something that springs up from hundred different places. The Death of God Theology of the 1960s has been influential, but mainly confined to theologians. The best expression of popular Christian atheism is Don Cupitt's book, Taking Leave of God. Christian atheists work within many traditional denominations, though many find themselves most at home in the Unitarian Universalist churches.

Unitarian Universalists have their historical roots in Christianity. Unitarians were Christians (such as Arius, fourth C.B. ) who denied that Christ was God and rejected century C.B.) the Trinity. Universalists (such as Origen, third century were Christians who believed that all souls, even Satan himself, would eventually be saved. In the U.S., Unitarians 1961. However, they also accepted and Universalists united in into their ranks people who did not believe in God or an afterlife. They no longer define their denomination as specifically. Christian. A recent survey of the labels Unitarian Universalists choose to apply to themselves (respondents were permitted to give more than one answer) came up with the following percentages: Humanist, 54 percent; Agnostic, 33 percent; Earth-centered, 31 percent; Atheist, 18 percent; Buddhist 16.5 percent; Christian 13.1 percent; Pagan, 13.1 percent.

Does god exist?

2009-10-25T14:28:00.000+11:00

In the poll, 96% says no (out of 165,856). That's healthy.

Blasphemy of religion?

2009-10-23T22:28:00.005+11:00

CNN

Here are some commentaries:

Example of Sharia law in action.

This is a smart kid

2009-10-22T23:36:00.001+11:00

I don't know how young he is, but he looks young enough for me to call him a kid. But he is smart and have read enough to response better than a lot of adults. Congrat!

Quote

2009-10-21T16:52:00.003+11:00

"A religious idea is just an idea somebody had a long time ago, and claimed to have received from God. It does not have a different status to other ideas; it is not surrounded by an electric fence none of us can pass." - Johann Hari

This is such an under statement.

Just an example: anyone, who has vision of being told by an imaginary god to kill and burn his/her son as an offering, will be admitted to a psychiatric hospital today [Genesis 22]. Killing some one, one's own son in particular, as a test of faith is rubbish. That testing idea promotes blind faith and is counter to the advancement of human kind. The status of such religious idea should be the lowest of all stupid ideas. Anyone believing in such crazy idea as words of god is even more so.

Jurors Consulted the Bible and a Texan Now Faces the Death Penalty

2009-10-20T11:50:00.003+11:00

Do you REALLY follow the moral guide given to you in the bible? Really?

As shown in the clip above, we have our own moral standard. We do not need your imaginary friend to tell us what is moral and what is not.