Door-To-Door Atheism

[bloodyrosemccoy]

A Room of One's Own Day
Women's Healthy Weight Day
Anniversary - Macintosh Computer (Apple)

 

Phil Plait from The Bad Astronomy Blog links to a very good article by Lauren Becker on why young-Earth creationism isn’t just an idiotic belief, but also a scary one.

 

As someone who holds the Scientific Method as a core belief—as somebody who cannot believe something contrary to the evidence—I find that every once in a while I have to post an evangelical scientist link. I say that I respect everyone’s right to believe whatever they believe, but I may not always respect the beliefs themselves, and sometimes their implications and potential consequences make me downright nervous.

 

Also, I’d just like to point out that when I look at a mind-blowingly awesome image of the cosmos and say, in reverent tones, “And people wonder why I’m an atheist,” I am dead serious. Life is so much cooler that way. You cannot use that garbage about how you must believe in a god when you’re holding a newborn baby in your hands, because I don’t, and it makes it even more incredible. That’s the one big misconception about skeptics—that they’re sad and dead inside—so I work hard to debunk that whenever I can.

 

Trust me, folks. The real version of the Grand Canyon, the 300 million year old one with the fossils and the erosion and the cryptobiotic soil, will make you happy to be honest with yourself and be a lot cooler into the bargain.

Comments

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

I can respect a position that says a god may be behind creating everything, but that he created the natural laws that make the world work the way it does. A Christian paleontologist isn't an oxymoron to me.

I do, however, try to explain that I find wonder without a god, because many people seem not to understand that's possible.

[gwalla.livejournal.com]

I'm an agnostic because I don't think there is any way of deciding between atheism and deism. Nor do I think there's much reason to.

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

True. The only trouble with deism in the "intelligent design" argument is that after they argue that something so complex as the universe must have been designed, they turn around and argue that the complex designer of the universe doesn't have to be explained, and just IS. They don't understand that if they're going to argue that for the designer, why not for the universe itself? Can't have it both ways, now, can they?