"Non-believers are not magically exempt from sexism, patriarchy, and white supremacy. And, in the absence of anti-racist redress, there will always be a deep divide between an overwhelmingly white secular movement with social power and economic privilege and people of color who must navigate racial segregation daily in white America. For non-believers of color, the argument about whether or not secularist organizations should address social justice is an absurd luxury that only white people have."
5 months ago with notes (407)    via (root)
# atheists # atheism+ # atheist # religion # bigotry # feminism # sj # privilege # secularism 








Source: fetters Via: latinagabi
7 months ago with notes (269)    via (root)
# religion # atheism # huh # interesting # judaism 








"

One thing I have learned is that feminists do not just wake up one day and announce that they are feminists. Feminists in any society, including Muslim feminists in Muslim societies, are created. Men and patriarchal systems create feminists. Thus, if anyone complains that Muslim feminism is not needed, they need to learn that it is they who are creating the need for Muslim feminism. I would still say that Islam as a religious system does not have to change. Muslim patriarchy, however, must go.

Just like in Christianity, many of the millennial Muslims also grow up with “a warped understanding of what feminism is.” Just like in “conservative and/or fundamentalist Christian communities in which feminism was not only vilified, but also considered literally evil” most Muslims treat Muslim/Islamic feminism with skepticism and even hatred. This has to change.

"
7 months ago with notes (493)    via (root)








"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But not one of these hypotheses is more probably than any other; they lie outside the region of even probably knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them. The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible."
Bertrand Russell (via theraginghottruth)
8 months ago with notes (115)    via (root)








rabbleprochoice:

sageoflogic:

Church in my town did this. Yeah they really did have 3800 crosses. Checked home depot, to put them together would be like 5 bucks a piece. So with tax almost 20000 dollars they don’t get taxed for that went to anti-choice protest instead of something good like the orphanage down the street.

20,000 dollars that could have been spent on born children. 20,000 TAX FREE dollars.
Pro-lifers care about kids, guys! As long as they aren’t already born, if they are well then fuck you!
Love,
Rabble

rabbleprochoice:

sageoflogic:

Church in my town did this. Yeah they really did have 3800 crosses. Checked home depot, to put them together would be like 5 bucks a piece. So with tax almost 20000 dollars they don’t get taxed for that went to anti-choice protest instead of something good like the orphanage down the street.

20,000 dollars that could have been spent on born children. 20,000 TAX FREE dollars.

Pro-lifers care about kids, guys! As long as they aren’t already born, if they are well then fuck you!

Love,

Rabble

8 months ago with notes (539)    via (root)








8 months ago with notes (18610)    via (root)
# atheist # atheism # religion # faith # god 








Source: orangeis Via: muffinw
baconbeernboobs:

christinsanity:

Isn’t it interesting they never teach us that? And all of them claim THEY are the correct ones…

Even religion has gone through evolution.

baconbeernboobs:

christinsanity:

Isn’t it interesting they never teach us that? And all of them claim THEY are the correct ones…

Even religion has gone through evolution.

9 months ago with notes (135)    via (root)








handsomedorothy:

I went to google “Why isn’t America Metric”

image

Are you fucking kidding me

9 months ago with notes (93)    via (root)
# religion # bible # murrica # USA # christianity 








triguenaista:

ave-atque-vale:

queendread:

proud-atheist:

Thanks to Catholic Cultureshttp://proud-atheist.tumblr.com

GREAT WORK BLAMING BRUTALLY COLONISED COUNTRIES FOR THEIR OWN COLONISATION JUST TO MAKE A CHEAP POINT ABOUT RELIGION
JUST
REALLY
A+

*cracks knuckles*  Let’s get some history up in here, kids.
People appear to be ignorant about “the vital role Christianity played in the spread of Western empire and the systematic destruction of indigenous cultures and peoples,” so here are a few notes:
“Of all religions, Christianity has been most associated with colonialism because several of its forms (Catholicism and Protestantism) were the religions of the European powers engaged in colonial enterprise on a global scale.”
“ The modern missionary era was in many ways the ‘religious arm’ of colonialism, whether Portuguese and Spanish colonialism in the sixteenth Century, or British, French, German, Belgian or American colonialism in the nineteenth...”
“We talked about William Carey, but we didn’t talk about how the British used “protecting missionaries” like Carey as an excuse for imperial expansion in India. We talked about Christianity in China, but we didn’t address the gunboat diplomacy of Britain which was – again – justified as defending Christian missionaries. Or we could turn our attention to the Americas, where Christianity was nearly without exception the primary logic used by the so-called Indian reformers who set up boarding schools in which they took native children away from their homes, forced them to adopt western customs, and punished them for observing traditional practices. (The system they created unsurprisingly made it much easier for whites to steal practically all of their ancestral lands.)”
“According to Edward Andrews, Christian missionaries were initially portrayed as “visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery.” However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close, missionaries became viewed as “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them.” As the colonial government was taking African land, the missionaries were preaching that it was God’s will that the Europeans do so and that Africans should not resist but be patient since their riches await them in heaven.”
A brief review of the Catholic Church’s involvement with imperial projects in Latin/South America:
“The church acted as a legitimating institution for various colonial projects, at times as financier, and profited tremendously from the revenue generated by its increasingly global presence…”
“there were ample resources for legitimating the use of force to create social, cultural, and political conditions in which conversion by “persuasion” was more likely to be successful.”
“The Spanish and English colonial projects both constituted empires on which the sun never set, yet the reach of global Catholicism exceeded them both by constituting forms of colonial relations even where there was no formal colonial jurisdiction.”
“The identification of Christianity with European cultural norms was therefore itself a historical product of significant cultural transformations in European history and in Christian thought and practice. The necessity of differentiating between what was European and what was Christian became important enough to be codified as instructions to missionaries in Vatican documents by the seventeenth century. Hence Christianity’s views of its own history, attitudes toward other religions, and theological reflections on how God orchestrates history and ostensibly uses empires for his own purposes would deeply affect the ways that the church would interact with various colonial projects.”
“The Catholic Church played a central role in both cases by sending missionaries to work in Spanish territories from California to Paraguay, and in the Portuguese territories from Africa to Japan. The church also granted ideological and institutional legitimacy to those imperial projects, if not always to what it perceived to be the excesses of the conquistadors.”
“Yet the extension of Spanish jurisdiction over the New World, accompanied precisely by the use of violence, and ostensibly for the purposes of evangelism,…”.
The most vocal apologist for the conquests of the Americas as just wars was the Spanish royal historian Juan Gines de Sepulveda (ca. 1490-1573)….[He is] known today almost exclusively for his claim […] that the American Indians were ”natural slaves” and fit to be ruled by ”natural masters” like the Europeans. […] This so-called School of Salamanca became a formidable critic of the Spanish conquests of the Americas, and of the use of coercive force for the purposes of evangelization—both of which Sepulveda vigorously defended.
The primary difficulty with the just war argument […] was that it simply did not describe the realities of the Spanish conquest nor exhaust the many reasons why the Spanish claimed legitimate title to the Americas—and especially why the Spanish and Portuguese empires continued to receive the support of the Catholic Church quite in spite of their ruthlessness and systematic exploitation of indigenous peoples and expropriation of what one Spanish critic called their ”lands, liberty, and property in exchange for their faith in Christ.” […] the massive Spanish colonial enterprise that nearly covered two continents was self-evidently not about saving innocent Aztecs from human sacrifice or cannibalism. Jose de Acosta (ca. 1540-1600), […] was not alone in thinking the language of just wars […] something of an ideological distraction from the violent effects of the wars of conquest
“As the consolidation of colonial control was most often the means through which the church sought to ”civilize” indigenous peoples, cultural conflicts continually erupted in most missionary contexts. In some areas colonial administrators forcibly resettled populations, forced indigenous people to submit to religious indoctrinations and attend mass, and used force to ”extirpate idolatry” by destroying indigenous religious sites and prohibiting participation in indigenous religious practices.”
“Although not all of the missions were amenable to colonial control, most of the religious encounters in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries tended toward religious paternalism and the affirmation of colonial institutions as the order necessary to both civilize and evangelize indigenous populations. By the nineteenth century, new theories of scientific racism replaced earlier classicizing models of humanity and civilization, creating a perhaps more insidious version of the ”white man’s burden” to civilize and Christianize under the auspices of empire.”
In conclusion: if you blame colonized people for Christianity’s many, many sins, you need to sit down, shut up, and school yourself.

^ A++ Excellence.

triguenaista:

ave-atque-vale:

queendread:

proud-atheist:

Thanks to Catholic Cultures
http://proud-atheist.tumblr.com

GREAT WORK BLAMING BRUTALLY COLONISED COUNTRIES FOR THEIR OWN COLONISATION JUST TO MAKE A CHEAP POINT ABOUT RELIGION

JUST

REALLY

A+

*cracks knuckles*  Let’s get some history up in here, kids.

People appear to be ignorant about “the vital role Christianity played in the spread of Western empire and the systematic destruction of indigenous cultures and peoples,” so here are a few notes:

A brief review of the Catholic Church’s involvement with imperial projects in Latin/South America:

  • The church acted as a legitimating institution for various colonial projects, at times as financier, and profited tremendously from the revenue generated by its increasingly global presence…”
  • there were ample resources for legitimating the use of force to create social, cultural, and political conditions in which conversion by “persuasion” was more likely to be successful.
  • “The Spanish and English colonial projects both constituted empires on which the sun never set, yet the reach of global Catholicism exceeded them both by constituting forms of colonial relations even where there was no formal colonial jurisdiction.”
  • “The identification of Christianity with European cultural norms was therefore itself a historical product of significant cultural transformations in European history and in Christian thought and practice. The necessity of differentiating between what was European and what was Christian became important enough to be codified as instructions to missionaries in Vatican documents by the seventeenth century. Hence Christianity’s views of its own history, attitudes toward other religions, and theological reflections on how God orchestrates history and ostensibly uses empires for his own purposes would deeply affect the ways that the church would interact with various colonial projects.”
  • “The Catholic Church played a central role in both cases by sending missionaries to work in Spanish territories from California to Paraguay, and in the Portuguese territories from Africa to Japan. The church also granted ideological and institutional legitimacy to those imperial projects, if not always to what it perceived to be the excesses of the conquistadors.”
  • “Yet the extension of Spanish jurisdiction over the New World, accompanied precisely by the use of violence, and ostensibly for the purposes of evangelism,…”.
  • The most vocal apologist for the conquests of the Americas as just wars was the Spanish royal historian Juan Gines de Sepulveda (ca. 1490-1573)….[He is] known today almost exclusively for his claim […] that the American Indians were ”natural slaves” and fit to be ruled by ”natural masters” like the Europeans. […] This so-called School of Salamanca became a formidable critic of the Spanish conquests of the Americas, and of the use of coercive force for the purposes of evangelization—both of which Sepulveda vigorously defended.
  • The primary difficulty with the just war argument […] was that it simply did not describe the realities of the Spanish conquest nor exhaust the many reasons why the Spanish claimed legitimate title to the Americas—and especially why the Spanish and Portuguese empires continued to receive the support of the Catholic Church quite in spite of their ruthlessness and systematic exploitation of indigenous peoples and expropriation of what one Spanish critic called their ”lands, liberty, and property in exchange for their faith in Christ.” […] the massive Spanish colonial enterprise that nearly covered two continents was self-evidently not about saving innocent Aztecs from human sacrifice or cannibalism. Jose de Acosta (ca. 1540-1600), […] was not alone in thinking the language of just wars […] something of an ideological distraction from the violent effects of the wars of conquest
  • “As the consolidation of colonial control was most often the means through which the church sought to ”civilize” indigenous peoples, cultural conflicts continually erupted in most missionary contexts. In some areas colonial administrators forcibly resettled populations, forced indigenous people to submit to religious indoctrinations and attend mass, and used force to ”extirpate idolatry” by destroying indigenous religious sites and prohibiting participation in indigenous religious practices.”
  • “Although not all of the missions were amenable to colonial control, most of the religious encounters in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries tended toward religious paternalism and the affirmation of colonial institutions as the order necessary to both civilize and evangelize indigenous populations. By the nineteenth century, new theories of scientific racism replaced earlier classicizing models of humanity and civilization, creating a perhaps more insidious version of the ”white man’s burden” to civilize and Christianize under the auspices of empire.”

In conclusion: if you blame colonized people for Christianity’s many, many sins, you need to sit down, shut up, and school yourself.

^ A++ Excellence.

9 months ago with notes (2030)    via (root)








"Don’t you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don’t you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out “Don’t you believe in anything?”
“Yes”, I said. “I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”"

Isaac Asimov (1997) The Roving Mind. Prometheus Books. p.349

I feel the same way.

(via hitchhikingthegalaxy)

11 months ago with notes (209)    via (root)








11 months ago with notes (1527)    via (root)








skepticalavenger:

Reasons I’m an Atheist

skepticalavenger:

Reasons I’m an Atheist

1 year ago with notes (294)    via (root)








yellow dress: UU

okaygreatthefuss:

yellow-dress:

okaygreatthefuss:

Unitarian Universalist is my new association. They align with my personal beliefs in so many perfect ways. I can be a progressive Christian, a scholar, a historian, a forward thinker and a humanist all in one. Thank God.

Hey there, I was just wondering what definition of…

Historically, many religious people were humanists, although they have been flawed in their ways. Anyway - here’s how it works for me: apply individual thought and rational thinking to faiths that often, in theory, forsake all other beliefs. But what if that interpretation is wrong? Enter the belief in evolution but that it was guided by a larger being- An omnipotent being. What if all things came from one larger thing? Is that not the basis of many faiths as well as the big bang? It may not work for many, but it does for me. It allows me to pray, accept science, apply faith, accept others of a different faith and so much more. As a historian, there are so many religions and things over time that are fascinating! I cannot be pretentious enough to believe that only one is right. The Universe is a big place. I hope this helps! Sorry it isn’t more - that would be a long explanation!

That was a very interesting read; I appreciate that you took the time to answer my query! :) You sound like a really open-minded person and an especially good person to have discussions about religion with (which can be a very tricky topic >.<)

1 year ago with notes (8)    via (root)








UU 

okaygreatthefuss:

Unitarian Universalist is my new association. They align with my personal beliefs in so many perfect ways. I can be a progressive Christian, a scholar, a historian, a forward thinker and a humanist all in one. Thank God.

Hey there, I was just wondering what definition of ‘humanism’ you choose. I completely understand that there are multiple definitions and the term is flexible and ambiguous, but generally humanism is synonymous with secularism, so I’m a little confused. A lot of people go with the definition that “Humanism […] generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalismempiricism), over established doctrine or faith (fideism)" [x], so I was wondering how you balance the theistic concept of faith with the humanist leanings against it?

1 year ago with notes (8)    via (root)








confrontingbabble-on:

Religious rationalization…
If eternity in heaven with my loved ones is false, I will be sad.  I do not wish to be sad, therefore eternity in heaven with my loved ones is true.
If riches and rewards for eternity is false, I will be sad.  I do not wish to be sad, therefore riches and rewards for eternity is true.
If a god watching over me is false, I will be sad.  I do not wish to be sad, therefore a god watching over me is true.
If the stolen property and genocide my group did is OK, is false, I will be sad.  I do not wish to be sad, therefore the stolen property and genocide my group did is OK, is true.

confrontingbabble-on:

Religious rationalization…

If eternity in heaven with my loved ones is false, I will be sad.  I do not wish to be sad, therefore eternity in heaven with my loved ones is true.

If riches and rewards for eternity is false, I will be sad.  I do not wish to be sad, therefore riches and rewards for eternity is true.

If a god watching over me is false, I will be sad.  I do not wish to be sad, therefore a god watching over me is true.

If the stolen property and genocide my group did is OK, is false, I will be sad.  I do not wish to be sad, therefore the stolen property and genocide my group did is OK, is true.

1 year ago with notes (76)    via (root)








ALH