Just like any atheist organization's website the first thing you notice as close to the top of the page as possible of the American Humanist Association website are the words "donate now"-actually, it is written thusly, "DONATE NOW."
With their mind on their money and their money on their mind the American Humanist Association are the next atheist organization that has nothing better to do with donated money during a time of worldwide recession but waste it attempt to demonstrative just how clever they think themselves to be.
While atheists complain that via an Intelligent Design conspiracy Creationists are attempting to smuggle religion in though the back doors of public classroom atheism is kicking in the front door. I have chronicled this in posts such as, Protecting the Science Classroom and The Wedgie Document.
Since there is more news on raising children as atheists we must again ask, "If raising children in a 'faith' is 'child abuse' what is raising children to be atheists; reeducation?" This is part of the rise of atheism is America.
Actually, considering that the New York Times is a liberal "news" paper it is difficult to discern if they are victims of atheist propaganda or promulgators of it. True Freethinker has been noting failed attempts by various atheist sects to put a happy public relations face on atheism. Taking advantage of the fact that reporter/journalists no longer seem to bother with annoying little tasks such as conducting research and checking facts various atheist sects get free advertizing by granting interviews.
"Humanist Manifesto III" is a successor to "Humanist Manifesto" which was originally promulgated in 1933.1
"Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."
Some atheists argue that Christians have ulterior motives for "doing good deeds" since these are based on fear of God. They claim that, in counter distinction, atheists are the only people who have pure motives since they do not believe in any higher power (they themselves being the highest power), they thus do "good" for its own sake.
In part 1 I noted that I had previously posted with regards to Unitarian Universalism and had some very interesting comments by a reader (see comments section of this post). Also, I had previously considered the attempts, hopes and/or wishes of the "New Atheists" to establish a new atheist religion. I have been commenting on a sermon by Unitarian Universalist, Rev.
I have previously posted with regards to Unitarian Universalism and had some very interesting comments by a reader (see comments section of this post). I have also previously considered the attempts, hopes and/or wishes of the "New Atheists" to establish a new atheist religion.
This essay will present merely a hint at the contents of the elusive document, "The Wedgie."
What is in view is actually quite understandably, in a manner of speaking, some atheist's comfort in having history rewritten and science co-opted in order to make atheism free from any stain and absolute materialism the demonstrable outcome of the scientific endeavor.
In my essay The Red Light of Punishment I considered the atheist argument that theists do not perform charitable deeds for pure motives because theists function under a system of reward and punishment. Of course, atheists are subjectively imposing purity of intention as a virtue. Yet, the reason why their argument fails is that: it presupposes that they can read the minds and discern the motives of theists and it does not take into consideration the ulterior motives of atheist who perform charitable acts.
While we have been on this subject a bit this bit of information seemed relevant especially since London atheist are assuring us that not one single pence of the £83,000 / $124,392.19 they have raised (as of Oct 23rd) will go towards helping anyone in any way. It now seemed appropriate also to note a study about donations in relation to secular liberals and religious conservatives.
I ended the previous post making the following point, "…generally speaking, once secularism removes undesired theistic authoritarianism and superstitious ignorance from the realm of science they somehow manage to end up with many of the same scientific conclusions as theists (I mean hard science and not speculation and interpretation of evidence)." Now, let me offer a few of these points of agreement. I will specifically comment with regard to the Judeo-Christian Bible:
"American Atheists works for freedom from theism, the freedom from dependency on god theories…We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them."1
We state that we are dealing with the issue of "ethics/morals" as homage to a young man who, with his secular chest puffed up, told me that he was not into morals. No indeed! He informed me that he was into ethics. Yes, I had to be the one to inform him that ethics is a body of morals. The issue is that considering just how many sects of secularism there are, which of their ethics/morals are we to follow? Let us look at some of their statements on the issue.
I tend to forget to mention here when I post relevant essays elsewhere.
In case anyone is interested, I am posting a five part essay which serves as a, from the horse's mouth, introduction to Atheism, Brights, Freethinkers, Humanism, Naturalism, Rationalism, Skepticism, Philosophical, Skepticism and Universism.
The posts will consist of a basic introduction, definitions, ethics/morals, science and concluding musings.