Monthly Archive for June, 2007Page 2 of 3
I don't think my mom was ever pleased at my lack of religion, but this woman is just crazy:
Readers and members of Planet Atheism may be (I hope :) ) aware of the Planet Atheism FAQ. I believe it is quite comprehensive, and it should answer any questions a potential member may have.
But what about current members? Sometimes, they have questions, too. I could add them (and their answers) to the current FAQ, but I think that those who're interested in one of the kinds of answers aren't necessarily interested in the other, and vice-versa. If you're not in, you won't be having any problems, and if you're in, you're not considering whether joining is a good idea. :)
Therefore, later today (I hope) I will be starting a new Planet Atheism members FAQ. It will include answers for questions such as "my last post isn't showing up on PA".
If you're a member, and have any other questions, ask away (for instance, as a comment on this post), and I'll answer them, either as a reply, or in the FAQ. :)
But what about current members? Sometimes, they have questions, too. I could add them (and their answers) to the current FAQ, but I think that those who're interested in one of the kinds of answers aren't necessarily interested in the other, and vice-versa. If you're not in, you won't be having any problems, and if you're in, you're not considering whether joining is a good idea. :)
Therefore, later today (I hope) I will be starting a new Planet Atheism members FAQ. It will include answers for questions such as "my last post isn't showing up on PA".
If you're a member, and have any other questions, ask away (for instance, as a comment on this post), and I'll answer them, either as a reply, or in the FAQ. :)
The topic of gay marriage is hot on the press again and being discussed on a few blogs around the ridges. After listening to quite a few arguments concerning the subject of marriage, it seems to me that there is a great deal of discussion about the definition of marriage itself. What it is, what it is not and why. Talk to a variety of people and each seems to have a view of what a marriage is and what it is not. Many people seem to have a view of marriage which derives from their religious beliefs, but to assume that marriage is only that which confirms our complies with our religious beliefs, is to only acknowledge part of the larger picture.
To assume that marriage throughout history is derived from a specific religious belief, flies in the face of history. My understanding of human relationships and history suggests strongly that marriage is not specifically aligned with the advent of either judaism, christianity, hinduism, buddhism or islam. That various religions have formulated their version of what a marriage is and goes on to claim that ALL marriages must fit their religious precepts, is an indication of religions trying to redefine what marriage is and the history of it.
In other words, marriage predates judaism and as such it predates christianity. If one wants to pretend that the only kind of marriage is one formalized through a specific religious construct, then all I can say is that the revising of history has been successful in this case.
"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage." - Westermarck, Edward Alexander (1903). The History of Human Marriage. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London. ISBN 1402185480 (reprint).
Marriage as a concept, existed prior to judaism and consequently christianity and islam. One only needs to look at Ancient Egypt to see this. And certainly pagan marriages, (those who were not one of the big 3), existed prior to these religions and during the expansion of these religions.)
In other words, neither jews nor christian, nor muslims created marriage. They created a concept of marriage which fitted their religious precepts and then went on to claim that marriage under all circumstances must comply with their religious precepts. If you want a "christian marriage" - go right ahead. If you want a "jewish marriage" - go right ahead. If you want a "hindu marriage" - go right ahead - but don't try and pretend that you invented the concept of marriage and that all marriages must fit your religious precepts.
Marriage existed prior to the jewish version, the christian version or the islamic version. Religions do not OWN the concept of marriage. They have just formalized a natural process of pair bonding into their respective religions and tried to convince us that no other type of marriage except the ones they espouse, are allowed to exist.
The marriage contract, as we in the west know it, involves consent which is why it is restricted to those who are able to give consent on their own cognisance. This rules out marrying your goldfish if you believe that it looks at you in that "special way", as it is not capable of responding in kind to your declaration of love and marriage. The issue of consent or consensual sex is also what makes paedophilia wrong whether you have a religious belief that it is wrong or not. Paedophilia is illegal because a contract for sex cannot be made without consent. Children are unable to give consent on their own cognisance, so paedophilia is sex without the legal consent of one of the parties. Sex without consent is rape. Easy to see why it is illegal and a crime. The same goes for bestiality or people in love with their goldfish. The issue of a contract requiring mutual consent is what keeps paedophilia and bestiality illegal.
Surely one would agree that the important issue in a contract of any kind is that of mutual consent. The ability to give consent on one's own cognisance is the underlying feature. Unless, of course, you support the marrying of children as child brides at the age of 9 or 10 - regardless of their ability or willingness to consent? Now, where did I read about instances like that? Oh yes - in so-called holy books.
So, Christianity gets to say what a christian marriage is. Judaism gets to say what a jewish marriage is and islam gets to say what an islamic marriage is. However, they don't get to dictate to those OUTSIDE of their specific religion what a marriage is. If, however, the only reason you can give for not marrying your goldfish or your cat, or perhaps your favourite teddy bear, is a scriptural one, or one associated with your religious beliefs; where in passage and verse does it say that you are not allowed to marry your underpants?
I think that if a referendum was held in Australia today concerning gay marriage that it would pass. However, the conservative government and conservative "christian prime minister" that we have now decided to rewrite the definition of a "marriage" so that the door to marriage for gay people is shut. I believe that this is a case of him inflicting his personal religious beliefs on the rest of the population. He has the right to his own religious beliefs, he does not have the right to impose them on others.
As I have mentioned previously, you also have the right to believe according to your religious position, that homosexuality is wrong, but it is an insufficient and irrelevant reason for those who do not share your religious beliefs and by demanding through law that it be banned, you are in effect demanding that I object to gay marriage because of religious beliefs I do not hold. It is tantamount to saying - "My religious beliefs will decide for you even if you don't share them."
This isn't good enough.
The Kinks - "Lola"
marriage 
relationships 
gay marriage 
same sex marriage 
civil union 
homosexual 
religion and politics
I'm in! The blogroll is displayed using custom code by David W
Ain't this rich. Over at the Rapture Ready forums, a bizarre twilight world, we learn that Mormonism is just an American version of Islam, as shown by this list:
1. "Holy" Cities - Muslims venerate Medina where Mohammed was born, and Mormons venerate Palymyra where Joseph Smith grew up. Also, Salt Lake City is to the Mormons what Mecca is to Muslims - the "promised" land.
2. Founded by a "prophet" - mohammed for islam, Joseph Smith for Mormonism. Both of these men were born poor and were uneducated when they invented their religions.
3. Additional "Scripture" that overrides God's Word - Koran for muslims, Book of Mormon, D&C, and other "revelation" handed down through "prophets".
4. Both require the wearing of all-white, special religious clothing for certain religious rituals.
5. Both have believed in the concept of "religious war" and have raised religious armies to fight these wars.
6. Strange Dietary laws for both religions, including forbidding of alcohol for either religion (and this rule is routinely broken by both religion's practitioners, as well).
7. Both of them attempt to establish Theocracy wherever they are by taking over the government, which they do by flooding a town with residents of their religion - this goes for both Muslims and Mormons. Examples - Muslims in Lebanon do this, and Mormons in California and Arizona and Idaho do this. Also, both religions have already established huge theocracies (i.e. Saudi Arabia for muslims, Utah for Mormons).
8. Both are based on paganism.
9. Both consider Jesus as "important", but they both also lower Jesus to be lower than the One True God.
10. Polygamy is accepted in both.
11. The founding prophets of both not only had many wives, but they both married young girls as well.
12. Both religions believe that there will be sex in the afterlife and it will be a reward
13. Both religions have buildings and rituals which they exclude "outsiders" from."
What I found ironic is how easily a lot of these could be applied to many other Christian or religious denomination:
1. Holy Cities: Jerusalem.
2. Prophets: Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, etc. Poor and uneducated? You decide.
3. New Testament is often considered to override the Old Testament. How else do we avoid the stoning of Sabbath breakers? (Exodus 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.
4. Special clothing: I seem to remember special clothes for christenings, weddings and perhaps we could even consider the crucifix a special piece of religious apparel.
5. Holy Wars: Oh come on! Crusades.
6. Strange dietary laws: Okay, forbidding alcohol and allowing alcohol are raised somewhere in the bible, but I can't remember where. Goat in its mothers milk anyone? (Deuteronomy 14:21) "You must not boil a kid (baby goat) in its mother's milk". Seashells? (Leviticus 11:12) "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
7. Theocrazy: Washington DC for evangelicals. How else would Bush have got in, unless he had the votes of the Religious Right? Plus, since then there have been all kinds of crazy faith based initiatives, for example abstenience only sex-ed.
8. Pagan roots: Horus, Dionyses, Mithraz. The pagan roots of Christianity is stamped all over it.
9. No Gods but me: Now I'm not sure where Evangelicals stand on the Trinity, but the Catholics sure have a strange idea of a ONE true god.
10. Polygamy was accepted by the early prophets, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon of the Old Testament as well.
11. Virgins: Oh come on again! (Numbers 31:18) 'But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves' And this is from Moses himself.
12. Sexy Heaven: Now I'm unsure about what Evangelicals do think about heaven, but I doubt it's any less strange or perverse.
13. Kicked out of church: Again I don't know the particulars of this, but I'm sure that there are some people they would turn away, for example gays, atheists, etc.
Irony, eh?
If there are any mistakes, I'd appreciate corrections.
N.B. Theocrazy is an intentional mistake, I thought it was appropriate.
1. "Holy" Cities - Muslims venerate Medina where Mohammed was born, and Mormons venerate Palymyra where Joseph Smith grew up. Also, Salt Lake City is to the Mormons what Mecca is to Muslims - the "promised" land.
2. Founded by a "prophet" - mohammed for islam, Joseph Smith for Mormonism. Both of these men were born poor and were uneducated when they invented their religions.
3. Additional "Scripture" that overrides God's Word - Koran for muslims, Book of Mormon, D&C, and other "revelation" handed down through "prophets".
4. Both require the wearing of all-white, special religious clothing for certain religious rituals.
5. Both have believed in the concept of "religious war" and have raised religious armies to fight these wars.
6. Strange Dietary laws for both religions, including forbidding of alcohol for either religion (and this rule is routinely broken by both religion's practitioners, as well).
7. Both of them attempt to establish Theocracy wherever they are by taking over the government, which they do by flooding a town with residents of their religion - this goes for both Muslims and Mormons. Examples - Muslims in Lebanon do this, and Mormons in California and Arizona and Idaho do this. Also, both religions have already established huge theocracies (i.e. Saudi Arabia for muslims, Utah for Mormons).
8. Both are based on paganism.
9. Both consider Jesus as "important", but they both also lower Jesus to be lower than the One True God.
10. Polygamy is accepted in both.
11. The founding prophets of both not only had many wives, but they both married young girls as well.
12. Both religions believe that there will be sex in the afterlife and it will be a reward
13. Both religions have buildings and rituals which they exclude "outsiders" from."
What I found ironic is how easily a lot of these could be applied to many other Christian or religious denomination:
1. Holy Cities: Jerusalem.
2. Prophets: Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, etc. Poor and uneducated? You decide.
3. New Testament is often considered to override the Old Testament. How else do we avoid the stoning of Sabbath breakers? (Exodus 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.
4. Special clothing: I seem to remember special clothes for christenings, weddings and perhaps we could even consider the crucifix a special piece of religious apparel.
5. Holy Wars: Oh come on! Crusades.
6. Strange dietary laws: Okay, forbidding alcohol and allowing alcohol are raised somewhere in the bible, but I can't remember where. Goat in its mothers milk anyone? (Deuteronomy 14:21) "You must not boil a kid (baby goat) in its mother's milk". Seashells? (Leviticus 11:12) "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
7. Theocrazy: Washington DC for evangelicals. How else would Bush have got in, unless he had the votes of the Religious Right? Plus, since then there have been all kinds of crazy faith based initiatives, for example abstenience only sex-ed.
8. Pagan roots: Horus, Dionyses, Mithraz. The pagan roots of Christianity is stamped all over it.
9. No Gods but me: Now I'm not sure where Evangelicals stand on the Trinity, but the Catholics sure have a strange idea of a ONE true god.
10. Polygamy was accepted by the early prophets, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon of the Old Testament as well.
11. Virgins: Oh come on again! (Numbers 31:18) 'But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves' And this is from Moses himself.
12. Sexy Heaven: Now I'm unsure about what Evangelicals do think about heaven, but I doubt it's any less strange or perverse.
13. Kicked out of church: Again I don't know the particulars of this, but I'm sure that there are some people they would turn away, for example gays, atheists, etc.
Irony, eh?
If there are any mistakes, I'd appreciate corrections.
N.B. Theocrazy is an intentional mistake, I thought it was appropriate.
One claim often made by creationists and supporters of "intelligent design" is that there are very few transitional fossils.
In a way they are right, there are fewer transitional fossils than we might expect, but the reason for this is not that transitional forms do not exist. It has more to do with the methods used by scientists to name newly discovered fossils. The methods of naming were formed before the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species.
This is explained excellently by Richard Dawkins in his book Climbing Mount Improbable
.
So one specimen of a homo habilis, may have features which make it more similar to homo erectus than another homo habilis specimen, but both will still be called homo habilis. If we look at the actual features of the specimens we can see a gradual slope of changes but creationists either through lack of understanding, or deliberate misrepresentation, look simply at the naming of the specimens and claim there are gaps, where none exist.
Of course there are some gaps in the fossil record, it would be surprising if there were not. Less than 0.01% of living creatures will ever become fossils and less than 0.01% of fossilised remains have been uncovered and studied. What we do have is a good selection of fossils showing how life on earth has gradually changed over millions of years.
New fossils are regularly being discovered which fit perfectly in a gap between two previously known species and invariably the creationists claim that there are then two gaps instead of one.
In a way they are right, there are fewer transitional fossils than we might expect, but the reason for this is not that transitional forms do not exist. It has more to do with the methods used by scientists to name newly discovered fossils. The methods of naming were formed before the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species.
This is explained excellently by Richard Dawkins in his book Climbing Mount Improbable
."There are 55 million people in Britain but not a single one of them is intermediate between non-voter and voter. Just as, for legal purposes, a juvenile changes into a voter as midnight strikes on the eighteenth birthday, so zoologists always insist on classifying a specimen as in one species or another. If a specimen is intermediate in actual form (as many are) zoologists' legalistic conventions still force them to jump one way or another when naming it."
So one specimen of a homo habilis, may have features which make it more similar to homo erectus than another homo habilis specimen, but both will still be called homo habilis. If we look at the actual features of the specimens we can see a gradual slope of changes but creationists either through lack of understanding, or deliberate misrepresentation, look simply at the naming of the specimens and claim there are gaps, where none exist.
Of course there are some gaps in the fossil record, it would be surprising if there were not. Less than 0.01% of living creatures will ever become fossils and less than 0.01% of fossilised remains have been uncovered and studied. What we do have is a good selection of fossils showing how life on earth has gradually changed over millions of years.
New fossils are regularly being discovered which fit perfectly in a gap between two previously known species and invariably the creationists claim that there are then two gaps instead of one.
I put in a request to join the Atheist Blogroll, and you should too!
EDIT: (old code removed)
EDIT: (old code removed)
I have never believed in a higher power. At least I don't think so. When you're a kid and your mother tells you something, you accept it as fact. That's not really faith is it? If it is, I lost my faith at age eight (at least I think I was eight, it could have been earlier). I still remember the moment pretty clearly, surprisingly.
My family never went to church, but my mother is very religious. She read me Bible stories and tried to teach me the way of Christianity. One night we got to the story about God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, and at the moment he was about to do so, called the whole thing off. I asked my mom why God did that and she said that God was testing his faith.
That was all it took.
My mind started making connections. God is omnipotent and omniscient right? He knows all and sees all. He should know whether Abraham is faithful enough shouldn't he? Also, if God loves us, why would he do something so mean?! I decided this story wasn't true. There was some mistake. But I kept thinking and came to the conclusion that, if this story was so obviously flawed, how could I trust any of the stories? Clearly I could not. It occurred to me that the children's Christian books my mom read from weren't that much different from any of the other books. They all had pictures and stories. Maybe people just started believing it, not knowing that it was just a story? I decided to go with that, and didn't really think much of it for a few years, but I never believed any of those stories my mom read me again.
Fast forward a few years (again, I can't remember exactly when this was... some point in early adolescence). My best friend invited me to church, so I started going with him. I still didn't buy it, I just wanted to hang out with my friend. But that's where the trouble started. It seemed like every youth group meeting on Wednesday nights, someone new had accepted Jesus as their savior. I felt like something was wrong with me! I now wanted to accept Jesus, but I thought that I should feel something, and know that it was what I should do. Since I never felt that, I began to feel like there was something wrong with me.
For years after this, I would go through phases.
Phase 1: Actively pursuing faith. I would read the Bible (not just for academic purposes), I would pray. Ultimately, I would realize that I was getting nowhere closer to believing, and that my prayers were never answered.
Phase 2: Totally rejecting faith. I would come back to not believing and not caring. The whole thing was stupid right? Why should I bother?
Phase 3: Doubt. I would begin to doubt myself, doubt my quality as a person, since I was obviously missing something.
Repeat.
Eventually 1 and 3 became less serious, and as I learned more about other religions (and that millions don't believe at all), I accepted what I had known all along: God does not exist. This was about 10th grade.
After my realization, I became very vocal about my lack of faith. It didn't go so well most of the time. I had no clue people could be so uneducated! When I would say that I don't believe in God, the most common response was always "You're a Satan worshipper?!" This leap of logic is exasperating! If I don't believe in God, why should I believe in Satan? Isn't God necessary for Satan's existence?
I became quite angry with the entire institution of religion. I frequented chat rooms with a friend who had also recently lost his faith, and we would just start attacking religion, regardless of the topic at hand. Believe me, I got into more arguments than I can count, but a few times I actually changed some minds. It helps when you know more about the Bible than the people defending it.
From what I can tell, most people have this disillusionment and anger. I never felt remorse for it until a few years later. I cooled off.
Fast forward another few years-- the past six months or less. It occurs to me that, while my methods were crude at best, unacceptable at worst, perhaps I wasn't wrong to actively try to change minds. We seem to be at an important time in the battle between science vs. religion. It shouldn't be a battle, but we play with the cards we're dealt. If gone unchecked, the US could turn to a Christian nation. The ten commandments could become law. Maybe it's a little far fetched, but it IS conceivable.
Thus, this blog was born. I hope to help spread a greater understanding of atheists, non-theists, agnostics, anyone with a naturalistic world view. We aren't immoral, we aren't evil, and we certainly don't worship Satan. In fact, the atheists that I know are some of the most moral people I know!
We're becoming a persecuted minority, and we can't sit back and take it.
My family never went to church, but my mother is very religious. She read me Bible stories and tried to teach me the way of Christianity. One night we got to the story about God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, and at the moment he was about to do so, called the whole thing off. I asked my mom why God did that and she said that God was testing his faith.
That was all it took.
My mind started making connections. God is omnipotent and omniscient right? He knows all and sees all. He should know whether Abraham is faithful enough shouldn't he? Also, if God loves us, why would he do something so mean?! I decided this story wasn't true. There was some mistake. But I kept thinking and came to the conclusion that, if this story was so obviously flawed, how could I trust any of the stories? Clearly I could not. It occurred to me that the children's Christian books my mom read from weren't that much different from any of the other books. They all had pictures and stories. Maybe people just started believing it, not knowing that it was just a story? I decided to go with that, and didn't really think much of it for a few years, but I never believed any of those stories my mom read me again.
Fast forward a few years (again, I can't remember exactly when this was... some point in early adolescence). My best friend invited me to church, so I started going with him. I still didn't buy it, I just wanted to hang out with my friend. But that's where the trouble started. It seemed like every youth group meeting on Wednesday nights, someone new had accepted Jesus as their savior. I felt like something was wrong with me! I now wanted to accept Jesus, but I thought that I should feel something, and know that it was what I should do. Since I never felt that, I began to feel like there was something wrong with me.
For years after this, I would go through phases.
Phase 1: Actively pursuing faith. I would read the Bible (not just for academic purposes), I would pray. Ultimately, I would realize that I was getting nowhere closer to believing, and that my prayers were never answered.
Phase 2: Totally rejecting faith. I would come back to not believing and not caring. The whole thing was stupid right? Why should I bother?
Phase 3: Doubt. I would begin to doubt myself, doubt my quality as a person, since I was obviously missing something.
Repeat.
Eventually 1 and 3 became less serious, and as I learned more about other religions (and that millions don't believe at all), I accepted what I had known all along: God does not exist. This was about 10th grade.
After my realization, I became very vocal about my lack of faith. It didn't go so well most of the time. I had no clue people could be so uneducated! When I would say that I don't believe in God, the most common response was always "You're a Satan worshipper?!" This leap of logic is exasperating! If I don't believe in God, why should I believe in Satan? Isn't God necessary for Satan's existence?
I became quite angry with the entire institution of religion. I frequented chat rooms with a friend who had also recently lost his faith, and we would just start attacking religion, regardless of the topic at hand. Believe me, I got into more arguments than I can count, but a few times I actually changed some minds. It helps when you know more about the Bible than the people defending it.
From what I can tell, most people have this disillusionment and anger. I never felt remorse for it until a few years later. I cooled off.
Fast forward another few years-- the past six months or less. It occurs to me that, while my methods were crude at best, unacceptable at worst, perhaps I wasn't wrong to actively try to change minds. We seem to be at an important time in the battle between science vs. religion. It shouldn't be a battle, but we play with the cards we're dealt. If gone unchecked, the US could turn to a Christian nation. The ten commandments could become law. Maybe it's a little far fetched, but it IS conceivable.
Thus, this blog was born. I hope to help spread a greater understanding of atheists, non-theists, agnostics, anyone with a naturalistic world view. We aren't immoral, we aren't evil, and we certainly don't worship Satan. In fact, the atheists that I know are some of the most moral people I know!
We're becoming a persecuted minority, and we can't sit back and take it.
It's just occurred to me that an essay I wrote a while back for a club's website in my local Humanist group has never been put on my philosophy site. So, I added it today. It's called "The Humanist Contemplative". In this essay, I outline a particular focus within Humanism that our club is based around. But I think the essay has broader value to me because it shows a way of talking about and presenting Humanism that I think should be more common. Throughout the explanation, I utilize concepts from the following...- Complex systems theory (science)
- Buddhism or the Buddha (3 general references)
- The Kalama Sutra (Buddhist)
- ‘The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow’ (Buddhist)
- Dalai Lama (Buddhist)
- Stoicism (2 general references)
- Epictetus (Stoic)
- The Christian Bible
- The three pillars of Anglican/Episcopalian faith (Christian)
- Jesus (Christian)
- Chuang-Tsu
- Frederick Edwords (2 references)
- Albert Einstein
- Sam Harris
- Paul Kurtz
- Ayn Rand
- Carl Sagan
- Socrates
To read the article, see my philosophy site or click this link:
The Humanist Contemplative
So what is "The Highway To Hell?" I would consider that it is the antithesis of "The Yellow Brick Road." Now some of us, freethinkers, sceptics, atheists, agnostics and the like, consider the idea of a place like hell to be part of interesting mythology, but mythology nonetheless. I guess the "Highway To Hell" is that road that so called unbelievers, nonbelievers or disbelievers are on. If that is so, I am on that highway and beetling along at breakneck speed. No doubt blasphemers top the list when it comes to a place on Hell's Highway and as a practiced blasphemer, I may actually be coming first. Obviously, threats of Hell, Hades and the devil are of no consequence to those who consider them to be all but primitive campfire stories. But I suppose they do keep the kiddies in line.
One of the problems of the concept of hell is one which is closely related to the problem of evil. As in, how can an omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent god consign some people to hell forever where they will be eternally punished? Is it love to create a heaven and a hell, then tell people they better do as you say and love you and get your name right or you're going to burn them for eternity? Does that pass for love?
And now for a little background about hell. Gehenna, (or gehenom or gehinom) has sometimes been described as a final punishment for the wicked and sometimes as a spiritual forge in which souls are purified after death. The name derived from a burning garbage dump near Jerusalem (the valley of Hinnom), sometimes identified as an entrance to the underworld. Gehenna also appears in the New Testament and in early Christian writing to represent the place where evil will be destroyed. It lends its name to Islam's hell, Jahannam.
The word is supposedly derived from the Greek meaning the Valley of Hinnom's son. The valley forms the southern border of ancient Jerusalem and stretches from the foot of Mt. Zion, eastward, to the Kidron Valley. It is first mentioned in Joshua 15:8. as a deep, narrow ravine at the foot of the walls of Jerusalem where refuse was burned. It is here that the bodies of executed criminals or others deemed unworthy of a proper burial were dumped. The association with hell derives from the tradition that the Canaanites sacrificed children to their god Moloch in this place.
Eventually this valley became Israel's "garbage dump". In it would be thrown refuse as well as dead animals and the dead bodies of criminals. This "dump" was perpetually on fire to rid the land of these unclean things. Jesus, who spoke more about hell than love, used this word 11 times to describe the suffering of those who do not trust in Him before death.
The Christian philosopher Origen also argued that the literal terrors of hell were false, but they ought to be publicized in order to scare simpler believers.
That having been said, watch the video, enjoy the music and find out why I am on "The Highway To Hell."
hell 
hades 
The HighwayTo Hell 
evil 
Gehenna 
Origen 
satire 
Moloch
I'm chicken. Really, I am. The religious fanaticism in the US right now means that future employees who google my name could deny me a job because of my lack of faith. If I ever want to do any freelancing, people could deny me their business because of it. It happens. Therefore, I remain closeted. My friends, some of my family, and one or two co-workers know that I'm an atheist, but day to day it's much easier to let people assume I share their beliefs.
I live in the so-called "Bible Belt." You know what that means. Liberty University is just a couple hours away. Drive less than an hour and you hit Salem, where Borat found that people would like to hang homosexuals. Yes, this isn't a very enlightened area, but it's beautiful, and as long as you don't talk politics or religion the people are some of the friendliest you'll meet for the most part.
So that's my MO. What should you expect? Who knows? We'll play it by ear.
I live in the so-called "Bible Belt." You know what that means. Liberty University is just a couple hours away. Drive less than an hour and you hit Salem, where Borat found that people would like to hang homosexuals. Yes, this isn't a very enlightened area, but it's beautiful, and as long as you don't talk politics or religion the people are some of the friendliest you'll meet for the most part.
So that's my MO. What should you expect? Who knows? We'll play it by ear.
Creationist criminal Kent Hovind, who is serving a much-publicized prison sentence for large-scale tax evasion, has just published an alleged conversation with Me. I know I’ve made Myself scarce lately, but this slander forces Me to break My silence and clear the record. I am not, nor have I ever been, incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. More importantly, I do not love Kent Hovind.
The conversation Hovind published is a complete fabrication, but I wish to single out several portions for divine disavowment anyway: (more…)
Blasphemy, creationist, God, kent hovind, Sycophants, tax evasion This has got to be the worst website in the history of the internet, truly dreadful on an epic scale.
You think that looks bad?
On the actual site, the rainbow background is a looped graphic cycling through all the colours, that white blob is a dove which flies around the page, and I'm not even going to mention the awful continuous looped "music".
If you really want to subject your eyes to this abomination, click on the link below.
Works best (or rather worst) using IE.
Let me see it.
Those with photosensitive epilepsy will probably want to avoid this one.
You think that looks bad?
On the actual site, the rainbow background is a looped graphic cycling through all the colours, that white blob is a dove which flies around the page, and I'm not even going to mention the awful continuous looped "music".
If you really want to subject your eyes to this abomination, click on the link below.
Works best (or rather worst) using IE.
Let me see it.
Those with photosensitive epilepsy will probably want to avoid this one.
From mwillett.org
Let us take responsibility for our own actions, inactions, strengths and frailties and not project them onto ghosts, spirits, stars, portents and gods unseen.
Let us have the courage to accept that one person's faith is another person's bloody-minded pig-headed refusal to accept the obvious.
Let us have the courage to accept that the person at the front of all crowds, including this one, doesn't know all the answers.
Let us have the wisdom to accept that if our ancestors had fared differently in wars our communities would be holding different absurdities up as sacred truths, and the willingness to accept those absurdities would be seen as the badge of social trustworthiness or even the right to be allowed to draw breath.
Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells their children to believe it.
Let us have the courage to accept that wanting to believe in something with every fibre of our being does not and cannot make it true.
Truth needs no help, no believers, no bowed heads and no amens.
Some people might find Pat Condell's subject matter and opinions offensive - viewer discretion recommended.
Personally, I love this guy, he tells it like it is without pulling any punches. His delivery is thought provoking and witty. Check out his other vids at the link below:
Pat Condell on Youtube
Personally, I love this guy, he tells it like it is without pulling any punches. His delivery is thought provoking and witty. Check out his other vids at the link below:
Pat Condell on Youtube
If you live in Britain, then at 9:00am next monday (the 18th), you can listen to Hitchens talk about his latest book, 'god is not Great: How religion poisons everything', on Radio 4's 'Start the week'. If you're not in Britain, you should be able to find it on the BBC website for at least a week after broadcast.
" I Come From A Land Down Under"
Ever wondered why Australia is called the "Land Down Under?" Ok you haven't, but maybe some people don't know. It is a colloquialism which refers to all things Australian because of Australia's position in the southern hemisphere. When one looks at a map in the most common way, Antarctica appears at the 'bottom' of the page, and north appears to be "up" and south appears to be "down." Now if cartography developed in Australia, we would have all you northern hemispheric centrists as "downunders."
According to the description listed beside the video: -
"This is some traditional Australian Dancing. This is what the convicts used 2 do in their spare time and to the same music. Ahh-Just watch it." (My suggestion is to watch out for Australians cause they are the biggest bullshit artists you are ever going to meet.)
Nevertheless, this is a video made by a couple of aussie guys doing what aussie guys go best and that is making dickheads out of themselves. :)
When you watch the video, you will see an Australian flag. On the flag you will notice the Union Jack which symbolizes that Australia was claimed as a British Colony. The Southern Cross is the constellation called surprisingly, The Southern Cross. It is comprised of 4 major stars in a kite pattern and is easily recognizable from the Southern Hemisphere. The other major symbol on the flag is The Commonwealth Star or Star of Federation which has seven points to denote the six states and the combined territories of the Commonwealth.
One of the guys is dancing around a Hills Hoist which is an Australian version of the rotary clothesline. Its distinguishing feature is a crown and pinion-winding mechanism invented by Adelaide based Lance Hill in 1945. As most places in Australia have good clothes drying weather, the Hills Hoist has been a common feature in many Australian backyards. In part of the clip a guy is also riding a unicycle and carrying a cricket bat. Cricket, if you hadn't guessed, is a National obsession for many Australians.
The song used is by Men at Work and is called "I Come From a Land Downunder"
Travelling in a fried-out kombi
On a hippie trail, head full of zombie
I met a strange lady, she made me nervous
She took me in and gave me breakfast
And she said,
"Do you come from a land down under?
Where women glow and men plunder?
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover."
Buying bread from a man in Brussels
He was six foot four and full of muscles
I said, "Do you speak-a my language?"
He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich
And he said,
"I come from a land down under
Where beer does flow and men chunder
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover."
Lying in a den in Bombay
With a slack jaw, and not much to say
I said to the man, "Are you trying to tempt me
Because I come from the land of plenty?"
And he said,
"Oh! Do you come from a land down under? (oh yeah yeah)
Where women glow and men plunder?
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover."
This song was used as a theme song by the crew of Australia ll when they won the America's Cup in 1983. I remember the yachting race well as it was the first time that another country broke the US's stranglehold on the race. Most of Australia sat up glued to their TV sets in the wee small hours to catch a glimpse of John Bertrand's crew doing the seemingly impossible. It goes without saying that a lot of Australians also had a small celebrationary drink as a result. The next day, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time, Bob Hawke went on National television and uttered his immortal line that any boss, who sacked a worker taking a sickie because he was up late celebrating the win, was 'a bum'. So, many of us didn't go to work. I know I didn't. :) I can't imagine the present Prime Minister, John Howard being quite as "Australian."
australia 
men at work 
down under 
southern hemisphere 
aussie 
america's cup 
bob hawke 
john howard 
humor 
humour
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
