Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, October 30, 2009

Friday Fun: Atheist Motivational Posters

Som of my favorites from http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/453/collection-of-atheist-and-atheism-motivational-posters/. BTW, I'm not truly an atheist. I believe that true atheism is every bit as arrogant as religion is. But if I'm going to form a null-hypothesis, in the absence of any other tangible evidence, Atheism is the only reasonable position.















9 comments:

  1. If you don't believe that there's a God, you're an atheist, really and truly. If "true atheist" is defined as someone who has faith that there is no God, someone who would deny objective evidence of a higher power even if there was any, then I'm not a true atheist either.

    It's the same sort of thing as when conservatives claim that the USA is a republic instead of a democracy. It's not a "pure" democracy, but a republic still grants the ultimate power to the people. Atheism and agnosticism are completely compatible concepts, so it sounds like you are, in fact, an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This one is so old you may not have heard it.

    Agnostics's Prayer:

    O God, if there is god,
    Save my soul, if I have a soul.

    SĂ©anmhur Samain, all

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brabantio,

    The difference to me is the degree of certainty. I am foremost a scientific thinker. The null hypothesis (starting assumption) of the exsistanece for ANYTHING is that it DOES NOT exsist until you can present evidence that IT DOES. Therefore, "not believing" (which is merely a null) is NOT the same thing as "believing there's not" (which is a conclusion.) I do reject the evidence that's been presented thus far (since it's all man-made, and largely scientifically refuted) to reject the null hypothesis, but that doesn't mean I've concluded anything, only that cannot reject reject the null. But it's not like the null is anything PROFOUND. I do however stop short of saying God's IMPOSSIBLE, only because that's impossible to prove. (It's impossible to proove the nonexsistance of ANYTHING, which is EXACTLY why THAT'S the null hypothesis: Between the two it's the one you can DISPROOVE.) But that's where my feeling that any CERTAINTY the atehist feels is as arrogant as religion comes from. And I can still accept the POSSIBILITY of a 'god' (or more like a 'something that's out there') I just don't think it resembles in the slightest the God that anyone on earth thinks they know.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I am foremost a scientific thinker."

    Wow. That didn't sound nearly as arrogant when I wrote as it does when I read it. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  5. Conchobhar,

    I hadn't heard that, but I like it! :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sure, I understood the "null hypothesis" reference. It just makes you an "agnostic atheist", from what I can tell. You don't believe in God, but you don't claim to know that there is no God. Until you see some evidence, your default setting would be atheism.

    I don't know if you know people who are especially militant about the supposed impossibility of deities, but if that's the case I would encourage you to draw your conclusions from a larger sampling of thought. Those people would not define "atheist" for everyone else. As an atheist, I just have to object to the sentiment of "I'm not an atheist because I'm open-minded and objective". If I'm misunderstanding you, let me know, but "the difference to me is the degree of certainty" seems pretty clear.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This might sound really mean, but I perceive religion (or more accurately the need for religion) as a mental deficiency. It allows people to defer responsibility, blame, and guilt, and also lets them accept unchangeable aspects of their lives like death.
    I don't care to label whatever I am, but as I feel no need to defer any of those feelings, religion, as a whole, is unattractive to me. I just can't see sitting in church listening to someone talk about morals, but frame it with a cute little story (not that they are all cute, some are downright nasty). What good does that do me? I found out early on from my parents what was right and wrong and that knowledge has served me well ever since. I don't need someone to preach about the immorality of murder, robbery or adultery. I know these things already.
    But that to me is where the difference is, some people do need that. They need reminders to be a good person. Despite whatever their parents did or did not teach them, religion becomes the crutch that holds them up. Sadly, they use it to justify their immoral behavior from time to time.
    That doesn't encompass the whole of it though. There are plenty who just decide to follow. Do what they are told. Indoctrinated from birth really, brought to church, Sunday school, and all that other religious stuff their whole lives and as such, they unquestioningly follow. These are the people who scare me. That may be because I could have been one if I didn't question why.
    As for the existence of God(s), the very nature of contemporary Gods is such that no one could possibly know whether they exist or not so it's totally pointless arguing it. Is it out of the realm of possibility? No, I guess not, but I think it rides that line. In my view, because not everyone is born with the same capabilities, if some people need their faith to make it through, fine, but they certainly don't need religion.
    Faith - can be good for some people, just not me
    Religion - man made organization following man made rules and asking people for their lives through money, time and oppression of thought in return for...?

    ReplyDelete
  8. You got it, Jesse! Personally, I like the Hitchens quote that [PP], "In a secular society, men of goodwill will still do good and evil men will still do wrong. But to make a GOOD MAN do EVIL THINGS, first you must make him religious."

    I think the fact that I'm splitting hairs with Brabantio over the difference between agnosticism and atheism shows how far away from organized religion I've strayed, LOL.

    And I completely agree with you about the whole "deffering of responsibility" angle. In the extreme religion only does harm, as fanatics destroy and kill in the name of their God, and in moderation it accomplished very little at all, relative to what could be accomplished just as well without all the nonsensical baggage that the church brings.

    So I don't think you were 'mean' at all. BLUNT maybe... but I'd certainly be WAY violating my first principal to fault anyone for THAT. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Methinks your quote, "In a secular society, men of goodwill will still do good and evil men will still do wrong. But to make a GOOD MAN do EVIL THINGS, first you must make him religious", was ripped off by Hitchens from Weinberg.

    As for the 'true atheism' shit, please be more accurate with your terminology.

    Most atheists consider themselves 'agnostic atheists'. I prefer 'de facto atheist' myself.

    ReplyDelete