Wize Words of December!

There is nothing wrong with being agnostic in cases where we lack evidence one way or the other. It is the reasonable position.

Carl Sagan was proud to be agnostic when asked whether there was life elsewhere in the universe. When he refused to commit himself, his interlocutor pressed him for a 'gut feeling' and he immortally replied: "But I try not to think with my gut, really, it's okay to

reserve judgment until the evidence is in".

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

Let's Think, 8 December, 13

"How could the human mind progress, while tormented with frightful phantoms, and guided by men, interested in perpetuating its ignorance and fears? Man has been forced to vegetate in his primitive stupidity: he has been taught stories about invisible powers upon whom his happiness was supposed to depend. Occupied solely by his fears, and by unintelligible reveries, he has always been at the mercy of priests, who have reserved to themselves the right of thinking for him, and of directing his actions."
- Baron d'Holbach, encyclopedist and passionate Enlightenment atheist in Good Sense, 1772

FFR Foundation 

In Loving Memory of Nelson Mandella

Richmond Forum November 2013

http://youtu.be/n2prB3weT4c

Let's Think 30th Nov. 2013

http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie/posts/10151972011832874:0

Let's Think....

"I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line."

From "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas"

Bertrand Russell (1947)

We're Thinking.....

"It has been claimed by many that Freethought does away with churches, creeds, Christs and even a God. So it does to a certain extent, but not as feared by Christians. Freethought has never said pull down your churches, burn up your creeds, crucify your savor or reject your god. No one ever knew a Freethinker to try to make laws to control people. All their efforts have been the other way, trying to tear down laws already made which control by "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not." 

If those who oppose Freethought did not strive to force all to think as they do, accept Christ by faith, believe the bible to be infallable, keep Sunday as a holy day, and work for a future reward, then our fight would be at an end instantly. 

Liberty of conscience is all we ask- not control of any class, creed or sect. Every true Freethinker accords to each individual the right to mental freedom."

Etta Semple, "Liberty of Conscience is All that We Ask" (1898)

(FFRF)

Peaceful Islam?.....

We are not alone!

“When I got untethered from the comfort of religion, it wasn't a loss of faith for me, it was a discovery of self. I had faith that I’m capable enough to handle any situation. There’s peace in understanding that I have only one life, here and now, and I’m responsible."

- Brad Pitt, Actor in an interview in Parade Magazine 2007

Fallacies and Islam

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/lee-myers/how-many-fallacies-does-it-take-make-muslim

Why I'm not a believer

http://www.facebook.com/4ffrf/posts/10151924280914728

Let's Think....

http://www.facebook.com/4ffrf/posts/10151916402249728

Quran and the Believers

Muslims do not read the Quran to understand whether or not it is the Word of God. They first believe that it is the Word of God and then they read it. However, if one reads the Quran without prejudice, one would ask him/herself what are the points in it that muslims believe are "the word of God"?

If anyone reads the Quran through his/her own curiosity, and not through the eyes of faith, he/she then realises that it is full of superstitions, and would wonder why so many people accept it as fact and as the true word of God?!!

9/11

We all mourn the loss of life and the tragedy which occurred on September 11, 2001. We'd also like to share this insightful quote: 

“The men who committed the atrocities of September 11 were certainly not 'cowards,' as they were repeatedly described in the Western media, nor were they lunatics in any ordinary sense. They were men of faith—perfect faith, as it turns out—and this, it must finally be acknowledged, is a terrible thing to be.”

Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

I'm Atheist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiiFwHCaEnU&sns=em

Say CHEESE......

He is the one which scored the wining gol, 2014 here we come!!!!

Why I'm not a believer

How much longer, how many more generation needs there to be for mankind to think differently and NOT to believe and repeat what was said and believed thousands of years ago by just one man without any credible proofs what so ever?

Wise Words

"Reading is thinking with someone else's head instead of one's own.

Arthur Schopenhauer

(February 22, 1788 - September 21, 1860)

Result of Strong Faith?

...................................

Faith-healing couple ordered to stand trial for son's 'murder'

IN THE days leading up to Brandon Schaible's April 18 death from bacterial pneumonia and dehydration, the nearly 8-month-old boy suffered through spells of vomiting, diarrhea, breathing difficulty, irritability and a decreased appetite, his parents told homicide detectives.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible, of Rhawnhurst, also spoke of their devout belief in the healing powers of Jesus, and of how they prayed that Brandon's ravaged 14 1/2-pound body would be healed without doctors or medicine.

"Psalms 100:3 says, 'I am the God that heals you.' And another verse says that God does not ever change. So, I believe that he is still the God that heals,' " Catherine, 43, said hours after Brandon's death, according to a statement read yesterday by Detective James Crone at the couple's preliminary hearing.

"It's against our religious beliefs - we believe in divine healing," Herbert, 44, said when asked why they didn't get their baby to a doctor, Detective Brian Peters said, reading from Herbert's statement.

Herbert also said that he had "no regrets" about not seeking medical care, Peters said.

Municipal Judge Charles Hayden then ordered the Schaibles - high-school dropouts and lifelong members of First Century Gospel Church in Juniata Park - to stand trial for third-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and related counts.

The Schaibles, who have seven living children, have been down this road before.

They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 for the 2009 death of son Kent, 2, who also died of bacterial pneumonia after not receiving medical care.

The couple was sentenced to 10 years' probation and ordered to provide their remaining children with annual medical checkups and medical care when needed.

The fact that they did not do that for Brandon amounts to malice and third-degree murder, said Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore, who also prosecuted the first case.

"They knew. They were on notice. You couldn't be more clear. These are parents who are on probation for doing the same exact thing to a child . . . and they did it once again," Pescatore said after the hearing.

But defense lawyers Mythri Jayaraman, for Catherine, and Bobby Hoof, for Herbert, argued that the charges should be dismissed because their clients had no way of knowing Brandon was so sick that he would die.

They noted that Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Gary Collins testified that the child's symptoms were the same as those caused by the flu or a cold, and he could not say how long the child showed symptoms.

Let's Think, January 12, 2013

Pascal's Wager

Is it Safer to Bet on God than Not?

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Someone who offers Pascal’s Wager is arguing that to believe in God is a better bet than not believing in God. If you believe and God exists, you’ll go to heaven and avoid hell; if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing. If you don’t believe in God and God does exist, you’ll lose heaven and go to hell; if you’re right, then you gain nothing. There are a lot of problems with this argument.
The first problem lies in the implicit yet unstated assumption that we already know which god we should believe in. That assumption, however, is not necessary to the argument, and thus the argument itself does not explain which religion a person should follow. This can be described as the “avoiding the wrong hell” dilemma. If you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed “go to heaven and avoid hell.” However, if you choose the wrong religion, you’ll still go to hell.
The thing missed by so many who use this argument is that you cannot “bet” on the general concept of “theism.” You have to pick specific doctrines. Theism is just a broad construct which includes all possible god-beliefs and, as such, does not exist absent specific theologies. If you are going to really believe in a god, you have to believe in something — which means picking something. If you pick nothing, then your “belief” is literally empty and you remain an atheist. So, a person who picks risks picking the wrong god and avoiding the wrong hell.
A second problem is that it isn’t actually true that the person who bets loses nothing. If a person bets on the wrong god, then the True God (tm) just might punish them for their foolish behavior. What’s more, the True God (tm) might not mind that people don’t bother believing in it when they use rational reasons — thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet. You just cannot know.
Also, some choices do indeed come with large risks. Many have died because they trusted in prayer rather than medicine. Others have perished due to the handling of poisonous snakes and the drinking of lethal liquids because Jesus said they would be able to do so without harm. Thus, the choice of pseudoscientific and mystical beliefs can carry very negative consequences.
A third problem is the unstated premise that the two choices presented are equally likely. It is only when two choices are equal in probability that it makes sense to go with the allegedly “safe bet.” However, if the choice of a god is revealed to be a great deal less likely than the choice of no god, then god ceases to be the “safe bet.” Or, if both are equally likely, then neither is actually a “safe bet.”
One final problem is the conclusion of the argument, where a person decides to believe in a god because it is the choice that offers the most benefits and least dangers. However, this requires that the god in question not mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven and/or to avoid punishment in hell.
But this means that this god isn’t actually a just or fair god, since a person’s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to make a pragmatic and selfish choice. I don’t know about you, but that certainly isn’t the sort of god I would ever consider worshipping.