The 20 coolest atheist t-shirts according to the Daily Telegraph:
1) Zeus to Reason
Because the Cult of Reason turned out so well the last time.
2) Distrusted minority
When raising consciousness backfires.
3) What would Dawkins do?
If The God Delusion is a reliable indicator, string a few irrelevant anecdotes together and call it science.
4) Atheist wine club
Correction: whine club.
5) Which day did God make all the fossils?
It depends. Are you talking about Eoanthropus dawsoni or Hesperopithecus haroldcookii?
6) No one has been stoned to death by atheists
Because atheists prefer starving people to death, shooting people to death, gassing people to death, and beating people to death with shovels.
7) God works in mysterious ways
This is how Christians know you have not read the Bible.
8) Dawkins&Dennett&Harris&Hitchens
Snippy&Phony&Screwy&Silly. The four intellectual dwarves of atheism.
9) Born OK The First Time
A successful entry does not dictate a successful exit.
10) Atheists do it unsupervised
And unmarried and childless. And not very often.
11) Atheists have morals too
A morality of one is not a functional moral system.
12) Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church
It's not your school. And who the Hell are you to tell anyone else what to do or where to do it?
13) Imaginary friend
Now explain the other 93 percent.
14) Sleep with an atheist
Add to your STD collection.
15) Science, Dawkins, Rock&Roll
Social life as sausage fest.
16) iFraud
Because irritating Christians, Jews, and Muslims just isn't enough.
17) Roman Lions
Arguably not the best way to demonstrate that atheists do not harbor the desire to kill vast quantities of innocent people.
18) Separation of church and state
Amen.
19) Wait, what?
Dinosaur rodeo rocks!
20) Darwin is my homeboy
Charles Darwin is dead. In another 150 years, Darwinism will be too. [I think half that time is sufficient.]
13 comments:
20 shirts, 20 comments, 20 refutations
1) Zeus to Reason "Because the Cult of Reason turned out so well the last time." I do not judge Christianity based on the inquisition and crusades. Maybe you could return the favor.
2) Distrusted minority- exaggerates the issue, perhaps, but religious discrimination is still a problem.
3) What would Dawkins do? "If The God Delusion is a reliable indicator, string a few irrelevant anecdotes together and call it science." Dawkins ≠ atheist Jesus
4) Atheist wine club "Correction: whine club." some whine, some don't
5) Which day did God make all the fossils? It depends. "Are you talking about Eoanthropus dawsoni or Hesperopithecus haroldcookii?" Are you seriously saying that all fossils that have been discovered are hoaxes?
6) No one has been stoned to death by atheists "Because atheists prefer starving people to death, shooting people to death, gassing people to death, and beating people to death with shovels." a slight generalization, perhaps?
7) God works in mysterious ways "This is how Christians know you have not read the Bible." Most atheists, myself included, have read the Bible.
8) Dawkins&Dennett&Harris&Hitchens
no comment
9) Born OK The First Time "A successful entry does not dictate a successful exit."
You are doubting my ability to die?
10) Atheists do it unsupervised
???
11) Atheists have morals too
Yes. We do. I consider the golden rule a functional moral system and endeavor to follow it. Do you?
12) Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church
"It's not your school. And who the Hell are you to tell anyone else what to do or where to do it?"
You do support separation of Church & State, don't you? Thinking in church can be dangerous. I deconverted in the middle of Mass.
13) Imaginary friend "Now explain the other 93 percent." What other 93%
14) Sleep with an atheist
WTF
15) Science, Dawkins, Rock&Roll
I would guess that you prefer science and dawkins to sex and drugs
16) iFraud
"i" am not a fraud, to my knowledge
17) Roman Lions "Arguably not the best way to demonstrate that atheists do not harbor the desire to kill vast quantities of innocent people." agreed.
18) Separation of church and state "Amen." AMEN!!!
19) Wait, what? I'm guessing the picture was necessary there.
20) Darwin is my homeboy. Exactly.
"Charles Darwin is dead. In another 150 years, Darwinism will be too. [I think half that time is sufficient.]" (mentally vomiting)
CRL (lost google account password)
Thanks for stopping by CRL. Remember this was a cut and paste job from Vox Day. I thought some were on target or at least funny and others were were neither. You need to see the shirts to get Vox's comment. There's a link.
A few comments in response:
1. I think the Cult of Reason accurately reflects atheist principles while the Inquisition/Crusades do not reflect Christian principles. How similar is the rhetoric of the "New Atheists" and their disciples to the atheist rhetoric of the French Revolution, at least in kind if not degree? The Inquisition and Crusades were not based on New Testament Christian ideals. What atheist principles did the Cult of Reason violate?
3, 10, 14, 16, 19. I didn't make the t-shirts. (See link to article.)
5. No. But I can't say the same for the imposed morphologies that, by circular reasoning, serve as evidence for Darwinistic gradualism.
7. Then why do most atheists fail to understand even the most basic biblical concepts?
9. Not in the least.
11. The Golden Rule is groundless, unless you consider yourself as its ground, which makes it a moral system of one, which is just what Vox said.
12. a) Yes I do, primarily for the sake of the Church. Should I be restricted as to where I can pray? b) I think in Church all the time; it's expected of us. If you would visit we'd expect you to think, too.
20. Here's some mental ginger ale and Saltines. Hope it helps.
1) I would say that atheism, in and of itself,does not have any ideals (note to more experienced atheists- correct me if i'm wrong), therefore the cult of reason could not have either followed or violated these nonexistent ideals. My comparison to the inquisition and crusades was not to say that these were caused by Christianity but to say that it is unfair to judge a belief by it's believers.
5)So not hoaxes but improperly constructed?
7) Because it's incomprehensible nonsense! (jk) Thinking back to the time just before my deconversion, i can remember "understanding" concepts such as the trinity, the afterlife, free will, the resurrection, etc. The first thing that happened as my faith started evaporating (in the middleis that i saw that my understanding of these concepts was flawed. I went on for a few weeks knowing this and yet still believing them. When made the final "leap of doubt" and became an atheist, i did not understand the concepts but i understood why i had believed them. 9 months later, these things look ridiculous in my mind. I cannot understand why i believed them, let alone the concepts themselves. A process such as this could cause such misunderstanding among other atheists as well. (the same can be said of creationists understanding of evolution)
11) groundless or not, if followed, it would lead to a better world, which is my concept pf morality.
12) I have nothing against silent, individual prayer in schools. School prayer only becomes a problem when it is class or school wide, required, or otherwise forced on non-adherents. My thinking in church comment was not intended seriously.
20) Thank you! Mental stomach calmed. Disgust not.
I would say that atheism, in and of itself, does not have any ideals...
Even if we grant that atheism is merely the "lack of belief in a god", which I am loathe to do, it would still be true that not believing in a god would entail other beliefs. For example, if you don't believe God created the world, you, as as atheist, have an alternate explanation. At every point where the theist invokes God, the atheist invokes something else, not nothing. Everybody's feet are planted somewhere on the Plane of Belief.
I cannot understand why i believed them, let alone the concepts themselves.
I see your point. But people who don't understand particular concepts should not impose this limitation on everyone else. You have shown the rare ability to acknowledge, to some degree, the interior logic of positions contrary to your own.
groundless or not, if followed, it would lead to a better world, which is my concept of morality
In Mark 12:31, Jesus is quoted as saying that the second most important law is to "Love your neighbor as yourself." The Golden Rule is just a popularized restatement of this. Mark 12:30 says, "The most important is: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." I believe that the world would be better by following both of these rules instead of just the second.
The grounds of morality may not seem to be a practical question since one can act morally without comprehending the grounds, just like he can watch TV without understanding the technology. But, if the underpinnings of a person's moral life, their worldview, can't provide a coherent reason for their moral life, then that person's worldview is faulty and should be discarded in favor of one that does—unless he is of the opinion that a coherent worldview in unimportant.
Disgust not.
I's sorry to hear that you're disgusted. I don't have anything for that.
I am not at all familiar with the cult of reason, except or the Wikipedia article linked from vox popili. I said that atheism does not have any ideals in itself. That does not mean that if atheism is true, certain other statements about the world are not also true. For instance, if there is no God, it logically follows that there is no afterlife. If there is no afterlife, more emphasis is placed on our action's consequences in this universe.
"and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first commandment. And the second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self" In my mind, even as a Christian child, i have always reversed those commandments.
Although it appears impossible to be 100% sure of God, the existence of one's neighbor is likely enough to be considered a certainty. In that way, even from a Christian perspective, one's duty to one's neighbor comes above one's duty to God unless God directly reveals himself prior to asking for such duty.
That bettering the world is a moral imperative is something that i believe simply is, true and real in the manner of mathematical axioms. x simply =x and y=y. If this belief would be considered faith, so be it.
I do not see the interior logic of arguments contrary to my own. If i saw unflawed interior logic within an argument, i would change my position to include this argument, eliminating weaker conflicting arguments. What i do endeavor to see is the possibility that my own logic may have an unseen flaw. I was not attempting to assert my non-understanding of christian concepts onto you.
I am not truly disgusted. San Franscisco (my home city) and the surrounding area is heavily (becoming less so) Catholic and exceptionally liberal, as a result most of my friends and acquaintances believe in either theistic evolution or intelligent design (with the rare atheist). As a result, i am not used to creationism and tend to be somewhat shocked when i encounter it.
That bettering the world is a moral imperative is something that i believe simply is, true and real in the manner of mathematical axioms.
Can we say that it's axiomatic when we live in a world where such philosophies as objectivism, hedonism, and nihilism are adopted by so many? Mustn't axioms hold for all? If it's your own personal axiom then it remains a "morality of one".
In that way, even from a Christian perspective, one's duty to one's neighbor comes above one's duty to God unless God directly reveals himself prior to asking for such duty.
From a Christian perspective that's exactly what does happen. My neighborly duty is merely an "incarnated" instance of my duty to God. From a Christian perspective, without God there would be no duty to my neighbor. Of course God does not reveal Himself in the same way that my neighbor does, since their natures are very different, but the Christian is as aware of God's real existence and as he is of his neighbors.
...most of my friends and acquaintances believe in either theistic evolution or intelligent design... [I} tend to be somewhat shocked when i encounter [creationism]
I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the world. Theistic evolutionists and IDers are creationists in this sense.
The fact that nihilism, hedonism, and the like are widely followed does not mean that they are right.
"From a Christian perspective that's exactly what does happen. My neighborly duty is merely an "incarnated" instance of my duty to God." If you were 100% sure of Gods existence, duty to God would come above duty to one's neighbor. If you are not completely and totally, sure of god's existence, you risk doing a great disservice to your neighbor on the chance that you are wrong. This does not that mean that, assuming the existence of God, duty to God would not be important, but it seems to me that my duty to what is certainly real is more important than my duty to what is uncertain, probably nonexistent.
My understanding of theistic evolution is that God created the matter, energy , etc. needed to produce the universe and then left the forces of nature, including Darwinian evolution, to do their jobs. Although it technically may be creationism, I have never considered it as such as it involves the acceptance of evolution. ID, the way it is believed here, is like theistic evolution, except that God may have guided the process at some points. Although it is certainly creationism, it comes considerably closer to evolutionism.
The fact that nihilism, hedonism, and the like are widely followed does not mean that they are right.
True, but it does mean that the Golden Rule is not axiomatic.
...it seems to me that my duty to what is certainly real is more important than my duty to what is uncertain, probably nonexistent.
Again, true, but the Christian does not think God's existence is uncertain or improbable. My disagreement is not with your personal priority of neighbor over God, but with your assertion that a Christian should be of the same opinion.
I don't want to get into a debate about evolution but...
God created the matter, energy , etc. needed to produce the universe and then left the forces of nature...to do their jobs
Why would God create the universe then ignore it? Does He have other obligations?
ID...is like theistic evolution, except that God may have guided the process at some points.
Why would God create the universe then ignore it for the most part, but intervene in very rare instances, e.g. the development of the eye and flagellum? Is the universe a hobby?
A third option would be that God, having created the universe, controls every molecule at every moment. What makes this option less likely than the others?
Just like the existence of atheism is not disproof of Christianity and the existence of Christianity is not disproof of atheism, the fact that some people do not believe in or follow morality is not a valid argument against its existence. The golden rule is not axiomatic, it is just a handy rule to follow in an attempt to better the world. It is the responsibility to better the world which is axiomatic.
Of course, a Christian would certainly not be expected to believe that the existence of God is unlikely; believing that god's existence is unlikely is the same as not believing in God. I would expect that all Christians (and all atheists) have some doubt and uncertainty remaining, no matter how strongly they hold their beliefs. Sorry if this is not the case with you. If you do have a significant bit of doubt, I think it would be wrong to serve god first and your neighbor second, but if you are really very close to 100% sure of God, than he would come first.
"Why would God create the universe then ignore it for the most part, but intervene in very rare instances, e.g. the development of the eye and flagellum? Is the universe a hobby?
A third option would be that God, having created the universe, controls every molecule at every moment. What makes this option less likely than the others?"
None of these options seem the least bit likely. That is one of the main reasons that I am an atheist. The fallacy in the first two situations is philosophical, while the third option is flawed scientifically. I do not care to get into a debate on evolution either.
I've never understood atheist theories of morality, but there are doubtless many perfectly sensible things I don't understand.
I've enjoyed reading your comments. I might have something new (and original) posted in the next week or so. Please come back and share your perspectives.
Take care.
I'll await my post. I just got my own blog up and-running here http://rocketpropelledpeacocks.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the interesting post.
My was supposed to be your (I notice weeks later)
good post
Post a Comment