Russell's teapot Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God. Origins of the analogy[edit] In an article titled "Is There a God?" In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy as a reason for his own atheism: I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. The burden of proof argument[edit] Other thinkers have posited similar analogies. Analysis[edit] Objections[edit]
Wicca: For the Rest of Us - The God and Goddess The God and Goddess represent the balance of the universe, the world as a whole, no one part complete without the other. They are not, however, dichotomies - they are not opposites. They can both represent all things - both life and death, for example. Good and evil are generally not addressed at all, as they are human constructs: humanity hardly needs a supernatural force tempting it to evil - it creates far too much on its own. Many Wiccans simply worship the God and Goddess. "The God and Goddess are the embodiment of love and goodness and want only what's best for us." As embodiments of the universe, the God and Goddess dwell everywhere and are within everything. We are very insistent in that we acknowledge no evil deity. "I believe in a God and a Goddess, But I only worship the Goddess because Christianity has so overemphasized the God." Many people identify more with one than the other, God or Goddess. However, deities are not names to be plucked from a book.
An Atheist Manifesto Update: (2/08/2006 1:35 p.m. EST) Read Sam Harris’ additional arguments about The Reality of Islam Editor’s Note: At a time when fundamentalist religion has an unparalleled influence in the highest government levels in the United States, and religion-based terror dominates the world stage, Sam Harris argues that progressive tolerance of faith-based unreason is as great a menace as religion itself. Harris, a philosophy graduate of Stanford who has studied eastern and western religions, won the 2005 PEN Award for nonfiction for The End of Faith, which powerfully examines and explodes the absurdities of organized religion. Truthdig asked Harris to write a charter document for his thesis that belief in God, and appeasement of religious extremists of all faiths by moderates, has been and continues to be the greatest threat to world peace and a sustained assault on reason. An Atheist Manifesto Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. No. Continued: The Nature of Belief
Evil Bible Home Page Universal grammar Universal grammar (UG) is a theory in linguistics, usually credited to Noam Chomsky, proposing that the ability to learn grammar is hard-wired into the brain.[1] The theory suggests that linguistic ability manifests itself without being taught (see the poverty of the stimulus argument), and that there are properties that all natural human languages share. It is a matter of observation and experimentation to determine precisely what abilities are innate and what properties are shared by all languages. Argument[edit] The theory of Universal Grammar proposes that if human beings are brought up under normal conditions (not conditions of extreme sensory deprivation), then they will always develop language with a certain property X (e.g., distinguishing nouns from verbs, or distinguishing function words from lexical words). As a result, property X is considered to be a property of universal grammar in the most general sense (here not capitalized). I.e. History[edit] Chomsky's theory[edit]
Flying Spaghetti Monster The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism, a movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools.[3] Although adherents describe Pastafarianism as a genuine religion,[3] it is generally seen by the media as a parody religion.[4][5] The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.[6] In that letter, Henderson satirized creationist ideas by professing his belief that whenever a scientist carbon-dates an object, a supernatural creator that closely resembles spaghetti and meatballs is there "changing the results with His Noodly Appendage". History Internet phenomenon Positions Creation Afterlife Pirates and global warming
DAILY INSPIRATION on Spiritual Growth I Am An Atheist Azeusism has caused every major atrocity in modern history! It happens far too frequently -- the lame atheism has caused more atrocities/death than Christianity/Islam/whatever argument. This means that a compelling response has not been found. If you are talking to a Christian who makes that argument, consider making the following argument. If he can discover exactly what's wrong about this argument, he has discovered exactly what's wrong with his own argument. Find the flaw in the following argument: Azeusism, or not believing in Zeus, has been the cause of almost every single major atrocity of the past several thousand years. Mass murder. Witch trials -- Azeusists. Crusades -- Azeusists. Holocaust -- Azeusists. Hitler -- Azeusist. Stalin -- Azeusist. Mao -- Azeusist. Pol Pot -- Azeusist. Mastro Titta (executed 516 people ... for the Catholic Pope. Jim Jones -- Azeusist. Also, in modern times, almost every serial killer has been an Azeusist. Jeffrey Dahmer -- Azeusist. Why aren't more editorials written into the newspapers with this kind of reasoning?
5 examples of how the languages we speak can affect the way we think Keith Chen (TED Talk: Could your language affect your ability to save money?) might be an economist, but he wants to talk about language. For instance, he points out, in Chinese, saying “this is my uncle” is not as straightforward as you might think. In Chinese, you have no choice but to encode more information about said uncle. The language requires that you denote the side the uncle is on, whether he’s related by marriage or birth and, if it’s your father’s brother, whether he’s older or younger. “All of this information is obligatory. This got Chen wondering: Is there a connection between language and how we think and behave? While “futured languages,” like English, distinguish between the past, present and future, “futureless languages” like Chinese use the same phrasing to describe the events of yesterday, today and tomorrow. But that’s only the beginning. Featured illustration via iStock.
The Myth of Militant Atheism Nine bullets fired from close range ended the life of Salman Taseer last month, making the Pakistani governor the latest high-profile victim of religious violence. Taseer had the audacity to publicly question Pakistan's blasphemy laws, and for this transgression he paid with his life. Taseer joins a list of numerous other high-profile victims of militant religion, such as Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas abortion doctor killed by a devout Christian assassin in 2009, and Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker whose provocative movie about Islam resulted in his being brutally murdered in 2004. With this background, it is especially puzzling that the American media and public still perpetuate the cliché of so-called "militant atheism." In fact, however, while millions of atheists are indeed walking our streets, it would be difficult to find even one who could accurately be described as militant. But this reflects a double standard, because it seems to apply only to atheists.
Recovering from Religion