1. I normally never talk about my beliefs because it’s one of those no-no conversations that no matter what, there are going to be people who will not agree with what you have to say. So why bother, right?

    But recently I’ve come to a new conclusion in what I believe in. Religion wise, that is. I used to be straight up atheist. It was straight to the point and easy. Is there a God? No. Done. 

    But over the past year I’ve come to realize the universe/nature/overall STUFF is very fluid and there are still a lot of things we don’t understand. 

    I like to think about it like this: Human beings and/or the planet Earth are often compared to just a speck of sand in relation to the vastness of the rest of the ever expanding universe, right? But I think I’m even less than that. I believe my existence literally means nothing and that because I’m such an insignificant portion of the universe/nature/STUFF, that I shouldn’t even be trying to figure out what any of it means. Does that make sense? 

    Like, who am I, this less than equal to a grain of sand human being, to try and question what is/isn’t/could/couldn’t be out there? It isn’t my place. It’s none of my business. I believe my role in life is to just live. That’s all I can do. 

    But if anyone asks, I’ll just say agnostic. Fuck it. 

     
  2. 00:06

    Notes: 7

    Reblogged from narseywarsey

    Tags: religion

    Losing my religion,

    narseywarsey:

    I’ve been going to church lately. I recommend it, it’s not for everybody tho. Lately I’ve been feeling like my soul is not worth saving tho, Idk I know what I do is bad..I just don’t care. & that, that makes me feel unsavable…I will still try.

    Supposedly all it takes is accepting God/Jesus/what have you into your heart and bam salvation. Or…so that’s what seven years of Catholic school has taught me. 

     
  3. Allowing Women To Drive Would Mean No More Virgins, Saudi Arabia Religious Council Says

    atheismfuckyeah:

    Allowing women to drive in Saudi Arabia would mean no more virgins and an increase in homosexuality, according to academics at Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, Majlis al-Ifta’ al-A’ala, it has been reported in the Telegraph.

    More pornography would be used if women were allowed on the roads and rates of prostitution and divorce would also risethe report stated.

    Produced in conjunction with Kamal Subhi, a former professor at the King Fahd University, the study into repealing the ban predicted that there would be no more virgins left in the Arab kingdom in 10 years.

    Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world which bans women from driving.

    Professor Subhi described sitting in a coffee shop in an unnamed Arab state where “all the women were looking at me“.

    “One made a gesture that made it clear that she was available,” he said. “This is what happens when women are allowed to drive.”

    The report was produced for the country’s legislative assembly, the Shura Council. However this institution has no power as Saudi Arabia is ruled by a monarchy with absolute power.

    The state’s controversial ban on female drivers last came under attack in September after Shaima Jastaniya was sentenced to 10 lashes just days after Saudi King Abdullah granted women the right to vote. The punishment was overturned after international and domestic pressure.

    Saudi Arabia is currently considering a law for women to cover up their eyes if they are deemed too“tempting.”

    HuffPo

    WHAT. WTF Saudia Arabia. Seriously? 

    All bolding in the above is mine. Because WHAT.

    Seriously, Saudi Arabi, what the fuck are you doing. 

    I cannot respond to this coherently right now. Jesus fucking christ.

    ~Mooglets

     
  4. atheismfuckyeah:

    meeglots:

    I’m listening to atheist debates again

    No. There is no way anyone will convince me that torturing someone to death, as a scapegoat, for a deed apparently committed four thousand* years before said scapegoat was born, is moral. Ever.

    It is not a good thing, it was never a good thing and it never can be a good thing.

    You cannot punish a great x n grandchild for the deeds of a great x n grandparent. You simply cannot punish one person in place of another. Torturing someone to death is not moral

    God is apparently all powerful, if it wanted to forgive humanity it’s sins, it could do it without the need to sacrifice a person/part of itself in human form/it’s son.

    The reason all of this scapegoating is going on (Jesus, and Abraham’s son, Isaac, before him) is because the Christian god is based on earlier gods, and the Christian god back then still required sacrifices - hence all the burnt offerings in the OT - and a scapegoat was a good way of doing it (literally, a goat, representing the person/s who misbehaved, was sacrificed/punished in place of the person who committed the crime/sin - hence ‘scapeGOAT’).

    And a human sacrifice was at the top of the hierarchy of meaningful sacrifices. That’s just how it worked. They burnt things so the smoke would go up and the gods could smell it. They sacrificed human lives because human’s are, obviously, at the top of the damn pile.

    NONE OF THIS MAKES IT MORAL. IT WAS, AND CONTINUES TO BE, DISGUSTING.

    If I had nothing else to base my opinion of the Christian and Jewish God on, this alone would put me off the entire thing. This alone would make me dislike and distrust. This single act alone is disgusting enough.

    (*If you believe the story of Adam and Eve, at least - if you DON’T believe the story of Adam and Eve, then I wonder why you think Jesus was sacrificed? Because he was sacrificed for the crime of Original Sin, so God could forgive humanity for that sin and other past sins and for ‘future sins’, the Original Sin being Eve taking and eating the forbidden fruit and then getting Adam to join her. Don’t believe in that story? Then you render most of the point of Jesus’ sacrifice moot.) 

    Reblogging myself, because I can.

    Thoughts?

    ~Mooglets

    (Source: mooglets)

     
  5.