Taken from American Atheists online media:

“When American Atheists was formed in 1963, a contemporary scientific symbol was chosen; this acknowledges that only through the use of scientific analysis and free, open inquiry can humankind reach out for a better life.

Recognizing the new atomic era, but also emphasizing the truths of older scientific findings, the atomic whirl was chosen. The atom is still a distinguishing unit of all matter, the smallest particle of an element that can exist and still retain the properties of that element.

You may notice that one of the orbitals in our symbol is broken, or open-ended. This demonstrates that while Atheists rely on the scientific method for learning about the cosmos and increasing our knowledge about nature, we know that not all of the answers are in. We recognize that with new knowledge come new questions and areas for human inquiry and exploration.”

AmericanAtheistsLogo

Shall we dissect this dislogic? Yes!

“this symbol (referring to the atomic symbol with an “A” inside) acknowledges that ONLY through the use of scientific analysis and free, open inquiry can humankind reach out for a better life……..while Atheists rely on the scientific method for learning……..WE KNOW THAT ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE NOT IN….

“…If THEY know that ALL of the ANSWERS for existence and being and acting and thinking ARE NOT IN…”, emphasis added and ie (everything has not been discovered) then HOW CAN ANYONE CLAIM ABSOLUTELY AND BASE THEIR WORLDVIEW ON THE GROSS ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTION that God, a god, a supernatural entity, WILL NOT SOME DAY BE DISCOVERED OR REVEALED??????

If this God we believe has chosen to conceal himself through nature and reveal himself through conscience and through history in so many various ways, tangibly, without excuse, how will anyone deny history, but more arrogantly deny any possibility of future proof for GOD? This God who does not rightfully bow to man’s emotional flights of pride, hate, and self-interested and self-inflicted violence has chosen to reveal himself in various ways in time, first to the First order of His creation by original direct relation of his presence, second by relation to the Law and the Prophets and his direct presence, and third by revealed direct relation of presence. God has spoken through: Himself, people, animals, bushes, fire, still-small voice, Prophets who never made wrong predictions, (prophets who claimed to be and failed to predict, were not recorded and acknowledged as such and faced the penalty of death in the institution of pre-Christ Christianity, aka Old Covenant Judaism. IOW, dont speak for God unless God really spoke to you. So the Atheist says prove God and I will believe? or does the Atheist say prove God and I will choose not to love him?” to not believe? find proof and I will hypothesize around the evidence, the illusion? stthomascross

Advertisements

“A Reaction to ‘Columbus Day: A Time to Celebrate Religion in America”

J. Trevor Scines

http://www.frcblog.com/2014/10/columbus-day-time-celebrate-religion-america/

I am left with no doubt that Columbus was a political explorer contemporary of the beginning of Enlightenment atheistic humanism, but in no way can I reasonably allow the vested interests of the abusive schisms which broke off of orthodox Christian theology to justify Chris Columbus’ behaviors by saying he was a victim of his time or the empire he solicited to fund his exploration, whether it was the crown of Spain, Rome or the crown of Babylon. Other explorers and missionaries protested the mistreatment of indigenous peoples from freedom-from-religious adherents who insisted on using the great name of Christianity, particularly the powerful Roman geopolitical empire and its jealous predecessor cohort twice-removed, the Wild West and New World of Protestantism. Does Ms. Cristina Hadford really believe that Columbus applied the same “pragmatic application” to those he tortured and slaughtered in the “West Indies?” Nor do I give a free pass for Early American slave owners. Many Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Secularists protested slavery and other historical injustices; but it was politically correct and too widely accepted as is evidence by this author’s either whitewashing the issue or maybe an ignorance of actual history.

Columbus and many other yet-to-remain, “manifest-destinized”, egotistical, self-aggrandizing warlords and human rights abusers had to ignore fundamental Judeo-Christian commandments and principals that had already been completely set in stone, and papyrus, that in no uncertain terms slaves were to be treated with dignity and respect. Under the Jewish Old Covenant Law, slaves were to be set free after seven years, called the year of jubilee for slaves and debtors, or if they preferred the care and employment of their employer, master, or lord depending on the culture and era you inherited, they would then be considered bond-slaves, or bondservants, or employees, as I like to refer to modern slaves in the West. This could be considered, in proper context, with someone accusing the Jews and Christianity of advocating slavery, the kind with whips and chains and starving workers. This was not a question of dignity for Columbus as is testified, at least in part, to the fact that he was not canonized of sainthood by his very own church. But Ms. Hadford, you seem to be oblivious to any atrocities committed in the history of the world in order that you may fulfill your westernized, moral-majority-seeking aspirations.

While I will in no way disagree that there should be in fact “A” time to celebrate religion in America, (some would say everyday or once a year and some may say on the first day of the week) I would wholeheartedly disagree that it should be Christopher Columbus who is the catalyst for this celebratory event or formal recognition and I believe there is momentum for my shared belief as five states do not recognize the federal holiday.

It Does Matter

Protestantism is one giant search for identity that has been fluctuating for 500 years. It is man-centered and looks the same in every single schism and division. It loses more Christian identity with every “improved” division. Centered on a pastor’s preaching of his interpretation that he intelligently gathered from thousands of other former Traditional Church members.

I sit and look at one lone cloud in front of an eternity of blue

Yet dominating all of this is the golden blasting hue

It warms my cold skin morning without fail

And burns the same flesh in the noontime

Soothed with aloe of the earth

This chaos is ordered harmony

Love its only cure

Why?

THERE is No such Thing as separation of Church (religious belief, worldview, ideology) and State (persons with strongly held convictions for or against Jesus Christ, running the affairs of a nation)

For one is either passionately self-worshiping, self-journeying, self-seeking or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Mormon, or historically Christian.

For as we know, EVERYONE has a worldview, and no one, not one person ever, has the ability to hold a neutral, all-mediating and equitable authority over people. This is impossibility. This is anti-science. As in physics, so too in philosophy, every action has a consequence. The delusion captivating the world, at least in some parts, is that nothing matters and we cannot change anything.

New Americans: after Reformation Formed? Revolt, Rebel, from Tradition’s hierarchical Theological hell?

New Americans, pulled from Africa’s well? Join the Indian’s and Revolt, Rebel, from New England’s white- Christian hierarchical hell?

New Americans and global citizens, for Atheism has saved? Revolt, Rebel, from this purposeless, illogical, and random loveless hell!

Now, Oh Now, Another Empire has FELL!

Good or Evil

“Is humankind inherently good or evil?” My primary answer is formed by the question of which God do you believe in? Do you adhere to the recapitulated atheist, Buddhist or Eastern-mystical religious view that God is the infinite Universe or do you believe that God is a monotheistic God like that of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims? Are there universally confounding laws of existence in evidence, yet undiscovered, or concealed that would dictate a responsibility of consciousness to a religious, theological, and supernatural premise or are we truly unbound by any sort of intentional design by a atheistic, relativistic infinite universe that presupposes good and evil are evolutionary, natural, chemical reactions fabricated by the mechanisms of survivability? So, to the naturalist, in respect to an ontological approach, humankind can be neither good nor evil because the question presupposes a “super” natural and higher standard of perfection; that the present state of humanity is somehow less or needs to be more than it currently is. Consequently, good and evil, like love and hate, are merely mechanisms of the chemical evolution of the present state of the infinite Universe.

To the non-atheist the question: “is humankind inherently good or evil?” the answer would have to be “good.” We observe order from the molecularly-discovered universe and conclude that even higher orders must exist in the yet undiscovered world, the genome, the irreducible complexity of living organisms, the dissent of species historically and homogenously constrained, and the supernatural experiences of forgiveness, mercy, compassion, and charity which would seem to be counterintuitive to a chaotic and disordered universe void of any ultimate good causality. We see the reproductive structure of familial relations that are good and life-giving as opposed to We see the superiority and dominance of Humankind over the animalistic world by metaphysical explorations of reason and will. We see the triumphalism of human spirit to commune, to achieve, to believe, to know, to exist, to overcome human suffering, and above all, to hope and expect. Evil is the opposition to harmony and order in an otherwise stable and predictable planet and galaxy, to keep it local. So, if humankind were inherently evil, I would conclude that we were birthed from an evil creator and humankind would be predominantly evil in a chaotic world and that any form of good as compared to the evil would subsequently diminish quite rapidly by our evil inherent nature. If order and natural law originates from chaos, what restrains the present state of chaos in such orderly fashion? If order comes from order and chaos comes through secession from order, I would surmise that good restrains evil, such that chaos is subservient to order.

Finally, I believe we are inherently good with a predisposition and supernatural exposition to evil: that which is seemingly opposite and logistically and decidedly inferior to that good infinite cause of the observable and orderly function of being.