Monthly Archive for January, 2008Page 2 of 4
The Dutch cabinet has decided against a general ban on burqas, clothing that covers the whole face except for the eyes.
The cabinet argues that a general ban would violate the constitutionally...
I was listening to the podcast “A Christian and an Atheist” on my way to work this morning, and I had a lot of thoughts about things which were said, but even more about things which were not said. In my next few posts, I’m going to go over some of those things. In this [...]
In the January/February 2008 issue of The Humanist magazine (pg 17) I read a short article titled The Post-Theological Umbrella by David Niose. It talks about humans in the "pre-theological" stage moving to the theological stage as a "natural development of extremely advanced animals."
The article explains that we came to a point in our development when we were smart enough to ask deep questions, but not smart enough to answer them. The proof that it is normal for any advanced animal comes from the Neanderthals, who "buried their dead and had religious relics that suggest that they also asked deep questions that required theological answers."
This all makes sense to me until I'm asked to describe myself as "post-theological" instead of atheist. I'm seeing articles in magazines and blog entries all over the place telling me to call myself something different in order to avoid the icky feelings theists get when they hear "atheist". This article, like the others I've read, mentions the 2001 ARIS survey. This study revealed 13% identified as non-religious, but only 1% call themselves atheist. Post-theological doesn't sound bad to me, and that's where I get confused. I've been extremely happy with being just an atheist all this time.
The point of this article is for all of us to come together and pick one name to fight under, other than atheist, or changes in culture regarding theism vs. atheism will take much longer. I'm having a hard time thinking this through, because I've only been an atheist for three years. I'm still super pissed about being brainwashed as a child. I can't tell if it's anger or reason that tells me I should just stick with atheist and fight the fight. I don't want it to take longer than it needs to and theists are having huge success with renaming creationism. Should we do what they are doing and rename in order to try to gain a warm-fuzzies face?
The article explains that we came to a point in our development when we were smart enough to ask deep questions, but not smart enough to answer them. The proof that it is normal for any advanced animal comes from the Neanderthals, who "buried their dead and had religious relics that suggest that they also asked deep questions that required theological answers."
This all makes sense to me until I'm asked to describe myself as "post-theological" instead of atheist. I'm seeing articles in magazines and blog entries all over the place telling me to call myself something different in order to avoid the icky feelings theists get when they hear "atheist". This article, like the others I've read, mentions the 2001 ARIS survey. This study revealed 13% identified as non-religious, but only 1% call themselves atheist. Post-theological doesn't sound bad to me, and that's where I get confused. I've been extremely happy with being just an atheist all this time.
The point of this article is for all of us to come together and pick one name to fight under, other than atheist, or changes in culture regarding theism vs. atheism will take much longer. I'm having a hard time thinking this through, because I've only been an atheist for three years. I'm still super pissed about being brainwashed as a child. I can't tell if it's anger or reason that tells me I should just stick with atheist and fight the fight. I don't want it to take longer than it needs to and theists are having huge success with renaming creationism. Should we do what they are doing and rename in order to try to gain a warm-fuzzies face?
According to the monotheistic tradition, god created the Earth and all the plants and animals which fill it prior to creating man in whom he endowed dominion over all the aforementioned creations. This concept of dominion is intimately tied to the idea that we humans were made in the image of the divine creator, which is to say that, in a microcosmic sense, god's dominion over all worldly and extraterrestrial creation is analogous to our "rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" (Genesis 1:26). We could easily point out the fact that, once again, monotheistic dogma reveals itself to stem from the minds of arrogant, simple men attempting to explain their wondrous control of planet Earth. However, it is just as simple to demonstrate that human beings possess anything but dominion over this planet.
Let us first look at our rule over the animal and plant life mentioned above. We will grant that in the year 2008, it would certainly seem as though mankind does indeed exact a significant degree of control over the rest of the Earth's flora and fauna. We have the power to genetically engineer livestock to better suit our dietary taste, the ability to slaughter creatures of any size using our advanced weapons, and even the capabilities to level entire habitats when we so choose. However, this control is a very recent development. Our present ability to manipulate plants and animals to suit our needs has been a long time coming, and for millions of years prior to this age people were nothing more than another type of creature struggling to compete with the myriad others. Early man was lucky to live into his ripe old thirties, and only did so through surviving his fair share of potentially fatal injuries (archeological evidence demonstrates that your average adult "caveman" usually suffered numerous fractures over the course of his/her life).
Even today, a solitary person stripped of the technology others developed over millennia stands little chance in a show down against most other animals; our bodies are soft, our muscles weak, and our agility and senses laughable. And even with all our modern technology at hand, man's dominion is at best transient and at worse a facade. We need only look to any one of the many instances in which a "domesticated" animal decides to show its true colors and attack its master.
As we turn to man's supposed "rule...over all the earth" in general, the monotheistic theory truly begins to buckle. If there is one thing than humans have failed to control, even today, it is the Earth itself. At present, we have zero ability to regulate climate or geologic phenomenon. Humans can only do their best to shield themselves from the onslaught of Mother Nature, and these efforts are by and large pathetic. The recent tragedy that was Hurricane Katrina provides a vivid reminder of our crippling limitations.
When one takes into account the existence of extraterrestrial threats, the situation becomes far grimmer. For example, were an asteroid of sufficient size to happen upon a course intersecting our orbit, mankind would be helpless to do anything but patiently await its destruction. Our chances of diverting the rock prior to collision are abysmal, and once it struck we would almost certainly go the way of the dinosaurs. Even if a few straggling tribes were capable of eking out a living, who could call such an existence evidence of dominion?
Yet, we really need not look to the catastrophic as evidence of the reality that man lives thoroughly under nature's thumb. Simply consider the fact that the Earth is 70% water; salt water no less! This means that the majority of the Earth is utterly uninhabitable by the human race; when taken into consideration, this fact makes it much more likely that god, if he exists, is either a fish or a sea mammal.
The final consideration takes us back to the issue of controlling animal species. It is no surprise that the authors of monotheism failed to consider the most glaring contradiction to their dominion theory, for said contradiction was unknown to mankind 2000 years ago. The existence of bacteria and viruses are highly suggestive that mankind is anything but the dominant species on earth. Not only are these creatures many times more versatile and adaptive than humans, they are capable of bringing entire continents to their knees. Only recently have scientists been able to wrest some control from the microvilli of the microscopic, and even so, our efforts fail more frequently than they succeed.
Before closing, we would like to address one counterpoint we foresee the believer raising. It is highly possible that our reading of this passage is skewed by god's lack of temporality. For, while god may not have endowed man with dominion over all of nature at his (man's) inception, perhaps there will come some time in the distant future when such unequivocal dominion shall be a reality. Certainly, god will still be "living" in the present a billion earth years from now. Thus, perhaps this dominion is more a promise than a present reality. In this regard, we the nonbelievers would level the following charge: how is it that god, in his infinite wisdom would fail to recognize that, unlike himself, his greatest creation is anything but timeless, and thus would go through a great deal of suffering at the hands of nature prior to realizing its ultimate dominion? Either he somehow failed to recognize this fact, and is thus reveals himself to be rather unintelligent, or he did perceive this unfortunate reality and yet proceeded in spite of it. If the latter turns out to be true, than god is not quite the loving father men like to imagine him to be.
Let us first look at our rule over the animal and plant life mentioned above. We will grant that in the year 2008, it would certainly seem as though mankind does indeed exact a significant degree of control over the rest of the Earth's flora and fauna. We have the power to genetically engineer livestock to better suit our dietary taste, the ability to slaughter creatures of any size using our advanced weapons, and even the capabilities to level entire habitats when we so choose. However, this control is a very recent development. Our present ability to manipulate plants and animals to suit our needs has been a long time coming, and for millions of years prior to this age people were nothing more than another type of creature struggling to compete with the myriad others. Early man was lucky to live into his ripe old thirties, and only did so through surviving his fair share of potentially fatal injuries (archeological evidence demonstrates that your average adult "caveman" usually suffered numerous fractures over the course of his/her life).
Even today, a solitary person stripped of the technology others developed over millennia stands little chance in a show down against most other animals; our bodies are soft, our muscles weak, and our agility and senses laughable. And even with all our modern technology at hand, man's dominion is at best transient and at worse a facade. We need only look to any one of the many instances in which a "domesticated" animal decides to show its true colors and attack its master.
As we turn to man's supposed "rule...over all the earth" in general, the monotheistic theory truly begins to buckle. If there is one thing than humans have failed to control, even today, it is the Earth itself. At present, we have zero ability to regulate climate or geologic phenomenon. Humans can only do their best to shield themselves from the onslaught of Mother Nature, and these efforts are by and large pathetic. The recent tragedy that was Hurricane Katrina provides a vivid reminder of our crippling limitations.
When one takes into account the existence of extraterrestrial threats, the situation becomes far grimmer. For example, were an asteroid of sufficient size to happen upon a course intersecting our orbit, mankind would be helpless to do anything but patiently await its destruction. Our chances of diverting the rock prior to collision are abysmal, and once it struck we would almost certainly go the way of the dinosaurs. Even if a few straggling tribes were capable of eking out a living, who could call such an existence evidence of dominion?
Yet, we really need not look to the catastrophic as evidence of the reality that man lives thoroughly under nature's thumb. Simply consider the fact that the Earth is 70% water; salt water no less! This means that the majority of the Earth is utterly uninhabitable by the human race; when taken into consideration, this fact makes it much more likely that god, if he exists, is either a fish or a sea mammal.
The final consideration takes us back to the issue of controlling animal species. It is no surprise that the authors of monotheism failed to consider the most glaring contradiction to their dominion theory, for said contradiction was unknown to mankind 2000 years ago. The existence of bacteria and viruses are highly suggestive that mankind is anything but the dominant species on earth. Not only are these creatures many times more versatile and adaptive than humans, they are capable of bringing entire continents to their knees. Only recently have scientists been able to wrest some control from the microvilli of the microscopic, and even so, our efforts fail more frequently than they succeed.
Before closing, we would like to address one counterpoint we foresee the believer raising. It is highly possible that our reading of this passage is skewed by god's lack of temporality. For, while god may not have endowed man with dominion over all of nature at his (man's) inception, perhaps there will come some time in the distant future when such unequivocal dominion shall be a reality. Certainly, god will still be "living" in the present a billion earth years from now. Thus, perhaps this dominion is more a promise than a present reality. In this regard, we the nonbelievers would level the following charge: how is it that god, in his infinite wisdom would fail to recognize that, unlike himself, his greatest creation is anything but timeless, and thus would go through a great deal of suffering at the hands of nature prior to realizing its ultimate dominion? Either he somehow failed to recognize this fact, and is thus reveals himself to be rather unintelligent, or he did perceive this unfortunate reality and yet proceeded in spite of it. If the latter turns out to be true, than god is not quite the loving father men like to imagine him to be.
The government of the Netherlands is worried.
Leader of the right-wing Freedom Party, Geert Wilders says he will release a ten minute anti-Qur’an film at the end of this month. Mr. Wilders...
Friday night found the Holy Prepuce channel surfing over to the Christian Broadcasting Network membership telethon. My interest in Pat Robertson's flagship media organ had been piqued by Robertson's Charles Foster Kane-worthy plan to buy the Virginian-Pilot newspaper, presumably in order to shut down its critical coverage of him. (Among other topics, the Virginian-Pilot has exposed Robertson's non-profit Operation Blessing as a front for his commercial diamond mining enterprise.)
The segment in progress as I tuned into the telethon concerned the proprietor of a Florida-based Karaoke entertainment company, who attributed his growing success to the favor of Jesus Christ. A few years ago, this fellow had been nearly bankrupt. God had spoken to this man and told him to spend his last dollars not on, say, rent, but instead as a "seed offering" to CBN. Sure enough, within a few months the karaoke business took off, and three short years later he employed eighteen DJs and a fleet of as many mobile karaoke units. And all because he had "sown" his cash with CBN--a practice he now continued through tithing, which he emphasized was "not about the money, but about obedience."
Following a brief intermission of typical telethon fare (donation thermometer rising, bells ringing, operators cheering) a new segment began. This vignette concerned a young couple who had been scrounging to make ends meet. But after sending one dollar, just one dollar to CBN, the wife found a ten dollar bill in the laundry. She sent this money to CBN, and three weeks later, her grandmother's estate settled (it had been tied up in the courts for over a year) and she received $10,000. God then spoke to the husband "in that way that God speaks to you," and directed that 10% of this windfall be "sown" with CBN. Flash forward one year, and the couple now lives in a beautiful home, with new cars, a thriving business, etc., etc.
Occasionally the program would cut away to a segment about the relief work performed by Operation Blessing in some developing nation, but clearly such details about what CBN planned to do with the money were secondary to the monetary payback the almighty had planned for viewers who would only pick up the phone and "seed."
This was not the first time I had encountered the sow/reap metaphor from a Christian "ministry"--I have received several appeals in the mail from an Arizona outfit known as the Don Stewart Association, promising me "an Unveiling of Money Blessings" if I would "stretch [my] faith and Prove God with a Seed Faith Gift of $30." One of the mailings even included a packet of oil, with which I was instructed to anoint my "purse or wallet, some financial papers, or bills."
But something else struck me as familiar about CBN's appeal--a feeling that I had seen all of this before on cable television. And then it dawned on me where: those "No Money Down" real estate infomercials! The plot lines were nearly identical: an impoverished protagonist makes a small investment, and through some mysterious process (the details of which are never very clear), winds up rolling in dough. The visual elements are interchangeable--well-coiffed white people in big houses with oversized furniture, interspersed with cutaways of expensive cars driving along the ocean. Of course, the paths to riches being sold are different--I'll leave it to the reader to predict whether slipping Jehovah a sawbuck for some Karaoke bookings has greater prospects for success than hitting up complete strangers for seller-financing--but the central concepts are the same.
Part of me feels that anyone credulous enough to believe the creator of the entire universe will go to bat for them in probate court if they send $20 to some cable channel deserves to go broke. But another part of me, the part with empathy for those less fortunate, wishes there were a way to shut down these con men who wrap themselves in the mantle of spirituality while shaking down the desperate for their last dollars.
I am all for religiously-based charitable appeals when there is some trace of theological content to the request. If you want to get on the air and ask for money to feed the children of Madagascar because that's what Jesus would have done, more power to you (assuming the money goes where you say it will.) But the telethon I saw was strictly a dollars-and-cents proposition: lay a C-note on God (who doesn't handle cash directly, so CBN will gladly accept it on his behalf), and the big guy will hit you back with a grand. If CBN's message were directed at rich people, I would shrug and say a fool and his money are soon parted. But when it is so obviously targeted at people struggling to ends meet, I say it's nauseating.
The segment in progress as I tuned into the telethon concerned the proprietor of a Florida-based Karaoke entertainment company, who attributed his growing success to the favor of Jesus Christ. A few years ago, this fellow had been nearly bankrupt. God had spoken to this man and told him to spend his last dollars not on, say, rent, but instead as a "seed offering" to CBN. Sure enough, within a few months the karaoke business took off, and three short years later he employed eighteen DJs and a fleet of as many mobile karaoke units. And all because he had "sown" his cash with CBN--a practice he now continued through tithing, which he emphasized was "not about the money, but about obedience."
Following a brief intermission of typical telethon fare (donation thermometer rising, bells ringing, operators cheering) a new segment began. This vignette concerned a young couple who had been scrounging to make ends meet. But after sending one dollar, just one dollar to CBN, the wife found a ten dollar bill in the laundry. She sent this money to CBN, and three weeks later, her grandmother's estate settled (it had been tied up in the courts for over a year) and she received $10,000. God then spoke to the husband "in that way that God speaks to you," and directed that 10% of this windfall be "sown" with CBN. Flash forward one year, and the couple now lives in a beautiful home, with new cars, a thriving business, etc., etc.
Occasionally the program would cut away to a segment about the relief work performed by Operation Blessing in some developing nation, but clearly such details about what CBN planned to do with the money were secondary to the monetary payback the almighty had planned for viewers who would only pick up the phone and "seed."
This was not the first time I had encountered the sow/reap metaphor from a Christian "ministry"--I have received several appeals in the mail from an Arizona outfit known as the Don Stewart Association, promising me "an Unveiling of Money Blessings" if I would "stretch [my] faith and Prove God with a Seed Faith Gift of $30." One of the mailings even included a packet of oil, with which I was instructed to anoint my "purse or wallet, some financial papers, or bills."But something else struck me as familiar about CBN's appeal--a feeling that I had seen all of this before on cable television. And then it dawned on me where: those "No Money Down" real estate infomercials! The plot lines were nearly identical: an impoverished protagonist makes a small investment, and through some mysterious process (the details of which are never very clear), winds up rolling in dough. The visual elements are interchangeable--well-coiffed white people in big houses with oversized furniture, interspersed with cutaways of expensive cars driving along the ocean. Of course, the paths to riches being sold are different--I'll leave it to the reader to predict whether slipping Jehovah a sawbuck for some Karaoke bookings has greater prospects for success than hitting up complete strangers for seller-financing--but the central concepts are the same.
Part of me feels that anyone credulous enough to believe the creator of the entire universe will go to bat for them in probate court if they send $20 to some cable channel deserves to go broke. But another part of me, the part with empathy for those less fortunate, wishes there were a way to shut down these con men who wrap themselves in the mantle of spirituality while shaking down the desperate for their last dollars.
I am all for religiously-based charitable appeals when there is some trace of theological content to the request. If you want to get on the air and ask for money to feed the children of Madagascar because that's what Jesus would have done, more power to you (assuming the money goes where you say it will.) But the telethon I saw was strictly a dollars-and-cents proposition: lay a C-note on God (who doesn't handle cash directly, so CBN will gladly accept it on his behalf), and the big guy will hit you back with a grand. If CBN's message were directed at rich people, I would shrug and say a fool and his money are soon parted. But when it is so obviously targeted at people struggling to ends meet, I say it's nauseating.
© 2010. Visit Holy Prepuce! to read and post comments, to search archived posts by topic (e.g. Culture, Smut), and for "fair use" disclaimer regarding use of copyrighted works.
Why do white kids need to learn about Black History Month? Where is the value in it?
Folks will have their own opinions on the subject, but I think I know one of the most important reasons. It occurred to me while my daughter and my wife were working on organizing my daughter’s report on Dr. Maya Angelou.
Maybe you have your own ideas about why it is important for a white girl like my daughter to study the life of Dr. Angelou. I have heard all sorts of things about what a white person can understand about the life and struggle of a black person in this country. The most disturbing things I have heard focus on an inability to understand, to the point of impossibility.
That mindset is an obstacle in itself.but I want to answer people who say “why isn’t there an X history month” where you insert whatever for X. Certainly, the history of African Americans in this country is part of the history of this country, and there are many important moments in our history that are intertwined with the struggle for rights that people have endured. Just from an American history perspective, I think it is appropriate to examine “black history” in America. You could make a similar argument for other groups, but I think you would not have as strong an argument.
But I still don’t think that is the most important reason.
I don’t think I had given it much thought before. Yesterday I might have said to my daughter that her studies this month are important because we need to understand what happened to African Americans so that we can better understand their struggle. But that is a superficial explanation of something that needs to happen at a much deeper level. It smacks of preaching. it is not inspiring.
My daughter’s answer to “Why is Maya Angelou famous?” focuses on how her writing became popular, and how so many people read her story about the struggles she endured. If her writing did not connect with people, she would not be the figure she is today. And I think this is the key to this story.
Because every person endures his or her own struggle, and faces challenges, uncertainty, peril, fear and despair. We read the works of others to learn about them, but young people also need stories so that they can learn about themselves, the people they are becoming, and the people they could become.
By reading Dr. Angelou’s biographies, my daughter is learning what she has in common with this woman, not looking for differences. And so she is learning about herself, how she will deal with struggles. It barely matters that her struggles will be different; we all face our own. What matters is how we face them, and we can learn something from people who faced their struggles with dignity. What matters is not that we learn that we can never truly understand what she has gone through, but rather that we can understand because of what we share.
Learning about ourselves and our connection to other people improves us. We learn how we are alike, not just in our situations, or ancestry, or struggles, but in our ability to have pride in what is best about ourselves and keep dignity in our actions and interactions. When we internalize these lessons and they shape our behavior, we will have gained a deeper understanding that transcends one race or another. We won’t need to be taught the same lessons for this group or that group.
Some see a month of education as a sort of trophy (for good or ill, with pride or with disdain). Maybe we should forgive both of them their shortsightedness. We will learn human history during Black History Month.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
Thomas Jefferson
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
Thomas Paine
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions."
George Washington
"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790
"To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical."
George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
"... the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
-Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, written during the administration of George Washington, signed by President John Adams, and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate.
Thomas Jefferson
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
Thomas Paine
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions."
George Washington
"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790
"To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical."
George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
"... the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
-Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, written during the administration of George Washington, signed by President John Adams, and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate.
As we have discussed in the last post, the atheist is often asked by the believer how he can possibly look at the complexity of the universe and imagine that it all came about by some sort of cosmic accident. As we have endeavored to point out, in regard to the universe itself, complexity is far more stable, and thus energetically inevitable than simplicity. And yet, if we are to be really honest with ourselves, the believer's question stems not only from the universe around him, but to an equal if not greater extent from his very existence. We humans, vain creatures that we are, find our bodies to be quite marvelous entities indeed; so marvelous that we find it hard to imagine they came to exist outside of some creator's grand scheme.
Before getting to the fallacies inherent in this line of thinking, it should first be pointed out that said theory is so rife with selfish motivation it almost need not be considered. Human beings spend very little time marveling at the complexity of a rooster or a palm tree. Likewise, we rarely concern ourselves with the possibility that the universe in its entirety was created so as to provide a home for black holes (which I should say are equally if not more impressive entities than human beings). Granted, all of the non-human pieces of the universe are supposedly part of God's overarching creation. However, the general religious theory holds that this myriad of parts exists merely to support and supplement human life, thus suggesting that ultimately it is the wonder known as man which begs the issue of a creator. This would be akin to one particular American citizen imagining that the entire historical course of the particular land mass now known as America was but a lead up to his personal, somehow uniquely significant existence. Such a theory is so obviously, pathetically arrogant that one could easily dismiss it as a vain mussing unworthy of logical consideration. Yet, for the sake of argument, we will consider just such a position.
We first must clearly establish two essential elements of the theory to be evaluated. First, man is such a wondrously complex, functional unit that he simply can not be explained, or is at least best explained by the actions of an intentioned creator. Secondly, this creator is an omnipotent being, perfect himself, and in accordance with his omnipotence, the greatest engineer the universe has ever or could ever know. One may take issue with the second essential element, claiming that he could easily imagine a supreme being who is not omnipotent, but only powerful enough to create the universe and man. This is most certainly true, but since this is not the supreme being passed down by religious dogma, nor the creator who plays a functional role in people's lives, it need not be considered at this juncture.
Unfortunately for the theist, the two elements which, supposedly when taken together logically point to the necessity of a creator, in fact do just the opposite. Let us first consider the marvelous complexity of man. Proponents of the intelligent design (ID) theory (which it should be noted is really no more than an idea) point to human experience with complexity as evidence for design. For example, we all know that working television sets do not simply come to be. The probability that all the requisite components of a television set would simply fall together, and in the proper configuration without the goading of an external agent, such as a TV manufacturer, is absurdly unlikely. Likewise, why would one ever imagine that the pieces of a human being would just fall into place, and in working order, without an equally necessary designing force. First of all, the ID theorist fails to recognize that evolutionary biology has provided a perfectly feasible and logical external agent: all those natural forces which exist outside of an organism or population of organisms. No one pretends that the individual cells of an organism simply coalesce into its ultimate form; rather a billions of years long process of external and internal (for let us not forget that organic compounds, unlike the parts of a TV, interact with each other according to their respective properties) influence gradually shapes the ultimate product.
Yet more important than the above consideration is the fact that the complexity of a television set is a glaring demonstration of the limitations of its designer. The skill of a designer is found not only in his producing a functional object but also in the deftness with which he produces it. Who is the more skilled engineer, he who makes a toaster of 300 parts or he who produces one made of only 3? Clearly the latter, assuming that the toast is equally delicious. Apparently, there are two ways to go about making a toaster, and one of these is one hundred times more efficient. More importantly, the latter design has 297 less pieces to be worried about replacing or fixing. Every engineer knows that the more parts a machine has, the more likely it is to break, for not only must he worry about the failure of each and every part, but also the failure of each and every connection between adjacent pieces. The complexity of the human body, which is millions of times more complex than my example toaster, begs a creator only when we are assuming that this creator's skill is in many ways limited. The omnipotent creator is capable of doing anything, and in recognizing the dangers of overly complex machinations, would logically design his ultimate project to be as simple as possible.
It makes sense to imagine that the incredible complexity of the human body was the best that nature, a nonthinking force, could come up with, especially considering that the building blocks of life must interact with each other in ever more complex manners rather than morph into simpler structures possessing more complex functions. However, to imagine that a omnipotent, thinking entity's best shot at the human body would be as convoluted as it presently is would be utterly absurd. If the creator truly were all powerful, a man would likely be no more than a solid figure with an attached soul. Thus, in regard to man's complexity, we must either accept the reality that such complexity is much more likely to come about by accident rather than intention, or endow our creator with limitations and flaws. Neither of these outcomes sits particularly well with religious dogma.
Lastly, it should be pointed at out that, if one attempts to cast his vanity aside, he will quickly realize that the human body is really not that much of a marvel. Modern medicine provides plenty of examples of just how flawed our bodies really are. Take birth defects for example. How can we call our bodies miraculously well designed when the reality is that they very frequently come out wrong. If one were to lump all birth defects together, she would quickly see that the odds of developing as one should are just as good if not worse than ending up with some horrible defect. Further, in the event that one does survive prenatal development unscathed, there are a myriad of conditions she can acquire in postnatal life which demonstrate the body's propensity for "screwing up." Autoimmune diseases, inflammatory disorders, cancers, and sensory deficits name only a few categories of diseases in which one's own body turns on itself and wreaks havoc from inside out. The point is this: if a manufacture produced a product with as high a malfunction rate as the human body, you would be hard pressed to find anyone preaching the godlike merits of his company. Rather, we would probably consider the manufacture a dolt and his products, well, crap. This is not to say that I consider the human body crap, however, if this thing we call man is the best that a supposedly all-powerful being could come up with, than I'd like to make a return.
Before getting to the fallacies inherent in this line of thinking, it should first be pointed out that said theory is so rife with selfish motivation it almost need not be considered. Human beings spend very little time marveling at the complexity of a rooster or a palm tree. Likewise, we rarely concern ourselves with the possibility that the universe in its entirety was created so as to provide a home for black holes (which I should say are equally if not more impressive entities than human beings). Granted, all of the non-human pieces of the universe are supposedly part of God's overarching creation. However, the general religious theory holds that this myriad of parts exists merely to support and supplement human life, thus suggesting that ultimately it is the wonder known as man which begs the issue of a creator. This would be akin to one particular American citizen imagining that the entire historical course of the particular land mass now known as America was but a lead up to his personal, somehow uniquely significant existence. Such a theory is so obviously, pathetically arrogant that one could easily dismiss it as a vain mussing unworthy of logical consideration. Yet, for the sake of argument, we will consider just such a position.
We first must clearly establish two essential elements of the theory to be evaluated. First, man is such a wondrously complex, functional unit that he simply can not be explained, or is at least best explained by the actions of an intentioned creator. Secondly, this creator is an omnipotent being, perfect himself, and in accordance with his omnipotence, the greatest engineer the universe has ever or could ever know. One may take issue with the second essential element, claiming that he could easily imagine a supreme being who is not omnipotent, but only powerful enough to create the universe and man. This is most certainly true, but since this is not the supreme being passed down by religious dogma, nor the creator who plays a functional role in people's lives, it need not be considered at this juncture.
Unfortunately for the theist, the two elements which, supposedly when taken together logically point to the necessity of a creator, in fact do just the opposite. Let us first consider the marvelous complexity of man. Proponents of the intelligent design (ID) theory (which it should be noted is really no more than an idea) point to human experience with complexity as evidence for design. For example, we all know that working television sets do not simply come to be. The probability that all the requisite components of a television set would simply fall together, and in the proper configuration without the goading of an external agent, such as a TV manufacturer, is absurdly unlikely. Likewise, why would one ever imagine that the pieces of a human being would just fall into place, and in working order, without an equally necessary designing force. First of all, the ID theorist fails to recognize that evolutionary biology has provided a perfectly feasible and logical external agent: all those natural forces which exist outside of an organism or population of organisms. No one pretends that the individual cells of an organism simply coalesce into its ultimate form; rather a billions of years long process of external and internal (for let us not forget that organic compounds, unlike the parts of a TV, interact with each other according to their respective properties) influence gradually shapes the ultimate product.
Yet more important than the above consideration is the fact that the complexity of a television set is a glaring demonstration of the limitations of its designer. The skill of a designer is found not only in his producing a functional object but also in the deftness with which he produces it. Who is the more skilled engineer, he who makes a toaster of 300 parts or he who produces one made of only 3? Clearly the latter, assuming that the toast is equally delicious. Apparently, there are two ways to go about making a toaster, and one of these is one hundred times more efficient. More importantly, the latter design has 297 less pieces to be worried about replacing or fixing. Every engineer knows that the more parts a machine has, the more likely it is to break, for not only must he worry about the failure of each and every part, but also the failure of each and every connection between adjacent pieces. The complexity of the human body, which is millions of times more complex than my example toaster, begs a creator only when we are assuming that this creator's skill is in many ways limited. The omnipotent creator is capable of doing anything, and in recognizing the dangers of overly complex machinations, would logically design his ultimate project to be as simple as possible.
It makes sense to imagine that the incredible complexity of the human body was the best that nature, a nonthinking force, could come up with, especially considering that the building blocks of life must interact with each other in ever more complex manners rather than morph into simpler structures possessing more complex functions. However, to imagine that a omnipotent, thinking entity's best shot at the human body would be as convoluted as it presently is would be utterly absurd. If the creator truly were all powerful, a man would likely be no more than a solid figure with an attached soul. Thus, in regard to man's complexity, we must either accept the reality that such complexity is much more likely to come about by accident rather than intention, or endow our creator with limitations and flaws. Neither of these outcomes sits particularly well with religious dogma.
Lastly, it should be pointed at out that, if one attempts to cast his vanity aside, he will quickly realize that the human body is really not that much of a marvel. Modern medicine provides plenty of examples of just how flawed our bodies really are. Take birth defects for example. How can we call our bodies miraculously well designed when the reality is that they very frequently come out wrong. If one were to lump all birth defects together, she would quickly see that the odds of developing as one should are just as good if not worse than ending up with some horrible defect. Further, in the event that one does survive prenatal development unscathed, there are a myriad of conditions she can acquire in postnatal life which demonstrate the body's propensity for "screwing up." Autoimmune diseases, inflammatory disorders, cancers, and sensory deficits name only a few categories of diseases in which one's own body turns on itself and wreaks havoc from inside out. The point is this: if a manufacture produced a product with as high a malfunction rate as the human body, you would be hard pressed to find anyone preaching the godlike merits of his company. Rather, we would probably consider the manufacture a dolt and his products, well, crap. This is not to say that I consider the human body crap, however, if this thing we call man is the best that a supposedly all-powerful being could come up with, than I'd like to make a return.
Currently Reading:
Zen Buddhism: A History, India and China
by Heinrich Dumoulin
The Constant Replay:
I am often plagued by my mind's insistence upon replaying old events and conversations. Sometimes I really get into it, and think things like, "Man, it would have been GREAT if I would have said ... " Sometimes I think things like, "Why did I say ..., when I should have said ... " Usually I just want it to stop, because it's already done, and there is nothing I can do about it. How many times can one relive an old conversation?
Give Up:
I heard a great quote that has been rattling around in my head for the last couple of days, and I wish I knew where it came from, "Forgiveness is giving up all hope for a better past." Forgiveness is not just something we show others, it is more often something we should show ourselves.
Cheers,
CET
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the illusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
Zen Buddhism: A History, India and China
by Heinrich Dumoulin
The Constant Replay:
I am often plagued by my mind's insistence upon replaying old events and conversations. Sometimes I really get into it, and think things like, "Man, it would have been GREAT if I would have said ... " Sometimes I think things like, "Why did I say ..., when I should have said ... " Usually I just want it to stop, because it's already done, and there is nothing I can do about it. How many times can one relive an old conversation?
Give Up:
I heard a great quote that has been rattling around in my head for the last couple of days, and I wish I knew where it came from, "Forgiveness is giving up all hope for a better past." Forgiveness is not just something we show others, it is more often something we should show ourselves.
Cheers,
CET
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the illusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
Did you catch the Tom Cruise video that was all the rage last week on the interweb? It was on Gawker (via YouTube) and the Church of Scientology is suing to take it down. Or something.
As I watched the video, I was reminded of what creeps me out the most about Scientology, and it isn’t limited to scientologists.
It’s the whole personal power gig. Now, I’m all for giving people advice to help them sort their lives out. Especially when they ask for it. But when people are on a crusade to supersize their personal power, it makes my skin crawl. That’s a visceral reaction, and I’ve had it since I first learned about est when I was in college.
With Scientology, they seem to have cranked the skincrawl factor (I like to abbreviate it to SF because it’s cool to have your own secret acronym language) up to eleven by insisting that their thoughts can change reality, something that the cult of The Secret also has latched on to.
My thoughts can change reality, too! If I think the right thoughts, like I’m going to give you noogies, and then I allow my muscles to move my arm and grind my knuckle into your scalp, then my thoughts have changed reality. The thing is, I have to use my physical body to do it. That, inconveniently enough, is the way the universe works.
Some people think that all they need to do is think, and reality bends toward their will. That’s dopey, but it’s the “drunk on your own personal power” trip that really gives me the heebie jeebies.
The idea that I keep hearing with selfish belief systems is that if you are focused enough on your success, then you will achieve it. My take is that if you are focused enough on your own success, you will be an insufferable bore, a self-absorbed ninny, possibly a danger to the world and you will make people’s skin crawl. The more focused you are on changing reality with your thoughts, the more your own brain is going to become out of synch with reality.
There are people who don’t believe that their thoughts change reality, but are self-deluded beyond the norm and craft their own versions of reality. Our president is possibly one of those people, and all you have to do is watch the news to see the results of staying focused on how you want reality to be rather than facing reality. Now imagine how much worse a situation you could get yourself into if you not only deluded yourself about reality, but also on how you interacted with reality. It’s a double dose of delusional thinking.
Something else was bugging me, this time about Buddhism. The idea that suffering comes from attachment bothered me because on the one hand it makes some sense. On the other hand, I want to be attached to certain things, like my wife and children, and I think that good comes out of those attachments. I am only superficially informed about Buddhism, though, so I looked it up for an explanation.
One explanation that I read led me to believe that my interpretation of attachment was wrong. This explanation said that our attachment is to ideas, such as an idea of how reality is. For example, you might become attached to the idea of your life being perfect. Your attachment to an idea would cause you suffering when your idea differed from reality. Or, you could have an idea about the world which brought you misery — perhaps you imagine that you are jinxed or cursed.
In any case, an attachment to an idea of something, or an idealized version of something could certainly cause you suffering when you have a “cognitive dissonance” between your thoughts and reality. Suddenly, I found this explanation of attachment to be comforting rather than troubling. A philosophy which urges you to try to see things more clearly rather than to bend reality to your thoughts is one that I can find wisdom in.
I think that facing reality, especially the reality of change which is beyond your control could help these folks who are attached to the idea that they are the shapers of reality. And maybe the rest of us can benefit from it, too, Buddhist or not.
Bonus:
Craig Ferguson practically nailed the video in this brief parody.
PS.
“You revived your blog for this?”
I've been sitting on these for almost two years, occasionally adding to them or filling them out with references. I plan to consider adding more detail and links into them eventually, but I think I'm ready to post now. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the following:
THE 20 SYNTHOPHIC PRECEPTS
Update, January 30, 2008: I have made some wording adjustments after some questions by friends to be more clear. I have also added links in the notes section.
Update, January 30, 2008: I have made some wording adjustments after some questions by friends to be more clear. I have also added links in the notes section.
I had an outline hand-written for all of my other posts. I'm only 26, though, so I'm just reflecting now on the last few years of my life. The magic years.
When I met mark I was nineteen. He was the best friend of my best friend's brother. It wasn't until I was thinking about changing who I was spending my time with, to smarter people, that I seriously thought about talking to Mark. I was traveling a lot and I would spend pretty much all my time in the hotel on the internet messaging my friends on AIM.
I started messaging Mark with a serious goal. I knew we could be friends because I knew at one point in my life I used to be really smart. Maybe that would come back to me. Maybe it was like riding a bike. (It wasn't). When Mark moved from living with his friends to an apartment alone, I decided it was time to strike. I invited myself over.
Another absolutely wonderful person to add to my collection! I went from not saying a word around him for hours to aggressively invading his head. Mark and I went through the same childhood. We could relate in a way I have never related with another person. The differences of our lives outweigh the similarities, but when it comes down to it, we were both brainwashed. We were both treated like our honest curiosity was a threat. We were treated like we were evil for asking questions. We never felt a connection with the lord on high who was and is and is to come.
My favorite memory while dating Mark was when we were at his parents' place in Eugene. His older (by 17 years) sister was there, and we were talking about when Mark lost his faith. He told them about how it felt to honestly believe for years and years and years and never feel the holy spirit. He never felt a connection to god. He believed with all his heart and never felt it. His sister mentioned that it might have been because of his doubt in god, and maybe if he gave it another try... I explained it was the other way around completely. He had no doubt that he would feel the same thing the other Christians felt, because he was told he would. He had no doubt until he had actively tried to feel it for years and didn't. He had doubt because he had not felt, not the other way around.
I asked her, "How many decades are you supposed to wait before you feel a little tiny something?" I think it meant a lot to the family to hear that. They understood that it was nothing on the part of the atheist. We tried. We gave ourselves to Jesus and he ignored us. I'm not going to live a lie and pretend that god has a plan for me. When I became atheist, and I made a plan for myself, only then did things really start to work out for me. God's plans are stupid. God's plans are awful.
I have never heard someone call something "God's plan" that wasn't something any nit-wit could have come up with. You know? God's plan is never intelligent. God's plan is never to teach really important lessons of love and compassion to all people. God's plan does not involve peace. God's plan is just man's selfishness, all dressed up like a whore.
The problem for me is when I know what different body parts do, and I know about how the human brain is capable of a panic attack... I know, then, that it is capable of feelings on the opposite end. I know what it's like to feel manic, and I do not relate that to god. It's a man-made state-of-mind. Theists refuse to recognize what the human body is capable of. They refuse to learn, and read, and study. They are extremely ignorant to any science that isn't 50 years old.
In 50 years gay marriage will be the norm. Just like woman can vote now and only a crazy person would say they shouldn't have that right. Remember how women couldn't vote? Remember how there were slaves? Remember how the Bible supported both forms of bigotry. I'm going to try to make this as obvious as possible so that Christians can understand. Woman can vote now because there is nothing about it that harms anyone. Slavery is illegal because there is nothing harmful or evil about NOT owning humans. The opposite cannot be said.
Let's look at homosexuality. It doesn't harm you. You might THINK it does, because it's against your holy text, but come on, grow up. Think. Learn. Progress. It doesn't hurt you, it only hurts them. They are the humans who are having rights taken away from them, not you. You are thinking like a bigot. You are equal to the generations that fought to keep woman from having rights. You are equal to the generations that fought to keep slavery. You are taking away the rights of other humans because you somehow are so much better than them that you get to decide based on your theistic views. That, my friend, is bigotry.
If you think gay marriage will hurt you, you are wrong. Has my marriage with my husband hurt you in any way? If your answer is yes, then perhaps you have a case. My marriage is exactly what you are afraid of letting them have. It's godless. It's an expression of love and nothing else. We made no promises to god nor man. We did it on purpose, too. The reason we got marriage was to prove that a godless marriage hurts no one. We are here to show you what it will be like if gays marry. It will be no different. Our marriage has affected your faith, your marriage, your relationship with god, in no way.
Please, let's stop filling our hearts with hate in the name of god. I don't think that's what he was going for.
When I met mark I was nineteen. He was the best friend of my best friend's brother. It wasn't until I was thinking about changing who I was spending my time with, to smarter people, that I seriously thought about talking to Mark. I was traveling a lot and I would spend pretty much all my time in the hotel on the internet messaging my friends on AIM.
I started messaging Mark with a serious goal. I knew we could be friends because I knew at one point in my life I used to be really smart. Maybe that would come back to me. Maybe it was like riding a bike. (It wasn't). When Mark moved from living with his friends to an apartment alone, I decided it was time to strike. I invited myself over.
Another absolutely wonderful person to add to my collection! I went from not saying a word around him for hours to aggressively invading his head. Mark and I went through the same childhood. We could relate in a way I have never related with another person. The differences of our lives outweigh the similarities, but when it comes down to it, we were both brainwashed. We were both treated like our honest curiosity was a threat. We were treated like we were evil for asking questions. We never felt a connection with the lord on high who was and is and is to come.
My favorite memory while dating Mark was when we were at his parents' place in Eugene. His older (by 17 years) sister was there, and we were talking about when Mark lost his faith. He told them about how it felt to honestly believe for years and years and years and never feel the holy spirit. He never felt a connection to god. He believed with all his heart and never felt it. His sister mentioned that it might have been because of his doubt in god, and maybe if he gave it another try... I explained it was the other way around completely. He had no doubt that he would feel the same thing the other Christians felt, because he was told he would. He had no doubt until he had actively tried to feel it for years and didn't. He had doubt because he had not felt, not the other way around.
I asked her, "How many decades are you supposed to wait before you feel a little tiny something?" I think it meant a lot to the family to hear that. They understood that it was nothing on the part of the atheist. We tried. We gave ourselves to Jesus and he ignored us. I'm not going to live a lie and pretend that god has a plan for me. When I became atheist, and I made a plan for myself, only then did things really start to work out for me. God's plans are stupid. God's plans are awful.
I have never heard someone call something "God's plan" that wasn't something any nit-wit could have come up with. You know? God's plan is never intelligent. God's plan is never to teach really important lessons of love and compassion to all people. God's plan does not involve peace. God's plan is just man's selfishness, all dressed up like a whore.
The problem for me is when I know what different body parts do, and I know about how the human brain is capable of a panic attack... I know, then, that it is capable of feelings on the opposite end. I know what it's like to feel manic, and I do not relate that to god. It's a man-made state-of-mind. Theists refuse to recognize what the human body is capable of. They refuse to learn, and read, and study. They are extremely ignorant to any science that isn't 50 years old.
In 50 years gay marriage will be the norm. Just like woman can vote now and only a crazy person would say they shouldn't have that right. Remember how women couldn't vote? Remember how there were slaves? Remember how the Bible supported both forms of bigotry. I'm going to try to make this as obvious as possible so that Christians can understand. Woman can vote now because there is nothing about it that harms anyone. Slavery is illegal because there is nothing harmful or evil about NOT owning humans. The opposite cannot be said.
Let's look at homosexuality. It doesn't harm you. You might THINK it does, because it's against your holy text, but come on, grow up. Think. Learn. Progress. It doesn't hurt you, it only hurts them. They are the humans who are having rights taken away from them, not you. You are thinking like a bigot. You are equal to the generations that fought to keep woman from having rights. You are equal to the generations that fought to keep slavery. You are taking away the rights of other humans because you somehow are so much better than them that you get to decide based on your theistic views. That, my friend, is bigotry.
If you think gay marriage will hurt you, you are wrong. Has my marriage with my husband hurt you in any way? If your answer is yes, then perhaps you have a case. My marriage is exactly what you are afraid of letting them have. It's godless. It's an expression of love and nothing else. We made no promises to god nor man. We did it on purpose, too. The reason we got marriage was to prove that a godless marriage hurts no one. We are here to show you what it will be like if gays marry. It will be no different. Our marriage has affected your faith, your marriage, your relationship with god, in no way.
Please, let's stop filling our hearts with hate in the name of god. I don't think that's what he was going for.
Using our random verse finder and the basic methodology:
So last time God said I was to be his messenger (or something like that). Now this has *got* to be the message.
I wonder if God has any more important messages to give to me (and to the world by me). I guess we'll find out next time on the next installment of A Random Walk Through the Bible!
Hosea 7:4 (New International Version)
They are all adulterers, burning like an oven whose fire the baker need not stir from the kneading of the dough till it rises.
So last time God said I was to be his messenger (or something like that). Now this has *got* to be the message.
- discern the spiritual principle in this verse
- God hates adulterers
- ask what was god trying to get across to these people when he spoke these words
- you are going to experience the powers of a convection oven, up close and personal like
- ask how does this apply to me
- I'm not an adulterer (that you can prove) so, *whew*.
I wonder if God has any more important messages to give to me (and to the world by me). I guess we'll find out next time on the next installment of A Random Walk Through the Bible!
When I became agnostic I was having a hard time shaking off the guilt. I started studying the history of religion to gain some perspective. I didn't know why, as a Christian, I hadn't already received this education, until I read it. Either history is a lie or the bible is a lie. I choose to believe what the nerds come up with, they're usually right. And they're constantly in competition with each other to know more facts. They're pretty strict with each other about using the word fact. You can only use it when something is a fact. So right there you see proof that you can trust them. Simply observe them and use your brains, people. They aren't evil liars.
You know who are evil liars? Nevermind.
I didn't date these two years. I flirted and went on a few dates, but few got a second chance. I decided I'm not going to settle. There absolutely is someone out there who I will want to spend a lot of time with. I'm not going to settle for a pretty face.
Instead I spend my time going on blind dates debating religion with theists who don't dare ask me on a second date. They don't understand why I need to know up front what kind of magic they believe in. I eventually trade blind dates for more time searching for atheist friends. I want a community. I'm agnostic, but only because I didn't really understand what it meant to be atheist. And because magic is poetic so I enjoyed hanging on to that. It helped with the loss of Jesus and the fact that people were wasting their lives for gods. I would continue to be agnostic until I experienced the magic in atheism. That's another post. Quit distracting me.
I was still rebuilding my self esteem when I met #3. He didn't much like talking about deep stuff. He was maybe agnostic, but refused to talk about it because it didn't matter. I kinda liked that idea. What I didn't know turned out to be dangerous with him. I still had had no good example of how a decent man treats a woman. I had no way of seeing the signs, and I was brainwashed again. He made me feel selfish for wanting to be a photographer. A job that kept me from being in town for more than a week out of every month. It was not a straight week, it was three days here and four days there. I wanted to be an artist. I was making A LOT of money. I was good at it and people remembered my name and requested I come to their town the next time my company sent a photographer. I climbed to the top. I was a manager, training other photographers. I set my own schedule, I got to pick whatever place in the United States that I wanted to travel to. I liked Alaska best.
He made me feel terrible for not choosing to be poor and be with him instead of doing what I love and what I'm good at. It's not like he made it worth my time. He liked to smoke and play guitar. He didn't like reading. He didn't like to talk about thinky stuff. My friends told me to dump him. I told me I was not worth loving so it didn't matter. No matter what I do I just make boys that love me mad. I'm just trying to do my best. No one else will ever be better than what I have now. I can't do any better. I am a failure.
When I felt my worst he waited until I left for a month-long trip. I called him after the two-day drive to tell him I got there safe and he dumped me. He wouldn't tell me why and changed his phone number and blocked me from e-mailing or messaging him. A while later he posted on his livejournal that he did some research and decided I was a Narcissistic Sociopath. He even joined a support group.
I felt like life was not worth living. Not because I could not be with #3, but because life was not getting any better. I didn't want to play the game anymore.
I spent a lot of time traveling after that. Town to town. No relationships. I spent six months alone in my thoughts. In the first month I became an atheist. I decided magic was getting me nowhere, and I needed to learn more about myself and how I can stop making these mistakes. I needed to self-actualize, and let no man get in my way. My photography changed and I started capturing pictures with crazy facial expressions. I started making a lot more money. I started feeling lonely. I wanted to make more friends that I thought were smarter than me so that I could continue to be challenged and gain some much needed wisdom. That's when I remembered Mark.
You know who are evil liars? Nevermind.
I didn't date these two years. I flirted and went on a few dates, but few got a second chance. I decided I'm not going to settle. There absolutely is someone out there who I will want to spend a lot of time with. I'm not going to settle for a pretty face.
Instead I spend my time going on blind dates debating religion with theists who don't dare ask me on a second date. They don't understand why I need to know up front what kind of magic they believe in. I eventually trade blind dates for more time searching for atheist friends. I want a community. I'm agnostic, but only because I didn't really understand what it meant to be atheist. And because magic is poetic so I enjoyed hanging on to that. It helped with the loss of Jesus and the fact that people were wasting their lives for gods. I would continue to be agnostic until I experienced the magic in atheism. That's another post. Quit distracting me.
I was still rebuilding my self esteem when I met #3. He didn't much like talking about deep stuff. He was maybe agnostic, but refused to talk about it because it didn't matter. I kinda liked that idea. What I didn't know turned out to be dangerous with him. I still had had no good example of how a decent man treats a woman. I had no way of seeing the signs, and I was brainwashed again. He made me feel selfish for wanting to be a photographer. A job that kept me from being in town for more than a week out of every month. It was not a straight week, it was three days here and four days there. I wanted to be an artist. I was making A LOT of money. I was good at it and people remembered my name and requested I come to their town the next time my company sent a photographer. I climbed to the top. I was a manager, training other photographers. I set my own schedule, I got to pick whatever place in the United States that I wanted to travel to. I liked Alaska best.
He made me feel terrible for not choosing to be poor and be with him instead of doing what I love and what I'm good at. It's not like he made it worth my time. He liked to smoke and play guitar. He didn't like reading. He didn't like to talk about thinky stuff. My friends told me to dump him. I told me I was not worth loving so it didn't matter. No matter what I do I just make boys that love me mad. I'm just trying to do my best. No one else will ever be better than what I have now. I can't do any better. I am a failure.
When I felt my worst he waited until I left for a month-long trip. I called him after the two-day drive to tell him I got there safe and he dumped me. He wouldn't tell me why and changed his phone number and blocked me from e-mailing or messaging him. A while later he posted on his livejournal that he did some research and decided I was a Narcissistic Sociopath. He even joined a support group.
I felt like life was not worth living. Not because I could not be with #3, but because life was not getting any better. I didn't want to play the game anymore.
I spent a lot of time traveling after that. Town to town. No relationships. I spent six months alone in my thoughts. In the first month I became an atheist. I decided magic was getting me nowhere, and I needed to learn more about myself and how I can stop making these mistakes. I needed to self-actualize, and let no man get in my way. My photography changed and I started capturing pictures with crazy facial expressions. I started making a lot more money. I started feeling lonely. I wanted to make more friends that I thought were smarter than me so that I could continue to be challenged and gain some much needed wisdom. That's when I remembered Mark.
Though extremely late coming, here is John Edwards reply to the question of the faithless in America:
Dear Elena,
Thank you for writing John Edwards about faith in America. We
appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts and concerns
with us. We enjoy the opportunity to hear ideas from people all over
the country about issues that are important to them.
Faith has played a huge role in John's life. It does every single day;
it's what gives him strength to keep going. He grew up in the Southern
Baptist church and was baptized in the Baptist Church at a very young
age.
But, we have a strong tradition of separation of church and state in
America and Senator Edwards would not, under any circumstances, try to
impose his personal faith and beliefs on the rest of the country. He
doesn't think that's right. The president of the United States should
not use his or her belief system to govern or impose that belief system
on the rest of the country.
John Edwards has seen faith-based organizations all across the country
working on poverty. In many places, there would be no support for the
poor if there were no faith-based groups. He thinks religious
organizations should be eligible for federal funding consistent with our
civil rights laws. Many are making an incredible difference in their
communities. We shouldn't shy away from supporting what works,
consistent with those laws and with the Constitution.
And finally, the decision about whether to bear a child is one of the
most difficult and personal decisions that a woman can face. It is a
decision every woman should make with her family, her doctor, and in the
context of her religious or ethical values, but it is not a decision for
the government. John Edwards firmly believes that a woman's right to
choose is constitutionally protected. And at the same time, we should
support measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies, including improved
access to birth control and family planning services for all women.
Again, your thoughts on faith are important to us and we appreciate
hearing from you.
Sincerely,
The Edwards Team
Mike Huckabee gave a speech this week in Michigan. When he got to talking about a ban on abortion, gay marriage and other fun “family” values, the republican frontrunner had this to say.
I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do – to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.
Why not, Huck? Your god sure did a great job coming up with standards in the Old Testament. How about we ban physical labor on Sundays, kill homosexuals and stone disobedient children while we’re at it? Maybe your pal Chuck Norris could be in charge of the blood sacrifices.
This man is absolutely insane. Not only does he believe that teaching the fact of evolution is “indoctrination” – he’s open about his theocratic intentions and a good number of people want him to be leader of the most powerful country in the world.
What’s strange is that unlike his revisionist counterparts, it appears Huckabee hasn’t bought into the lie of America being founded on “Judeo-Christian principles.” He acknowledges the Constitution as a secular document as well as the government’s responsibility to remain neutral in the realm of religion. Make no mistake: he is the one wanting to change things.
The thought of a possible president with such perverted views of religious liberty would make our nation’s founders roll in the grave. It’s time America realizes the dangers of electing a theocrat salivating over the idea of instituting canon law.
I don't know what to say about this, but I can't say I'm surprised since it's coming from a former Baptist preacher. Here's a bit from the article at The Raw Story (they even have video if you don't believe me):
So basically this bastard came out and said we need to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. What's worse is the nitwits who cheered him for it.
Do these people not realize that favoring no religion in government is the best way to protect all religion? More importantly, do they not realize that freedom of religion is one of this nation's most important principles and an essential component of our liberty?
I've said it before and I'm saying it again, Mike Huckabee becoming president is the worst thing that could happen to this nation. What terrifies me is the fact that this man actually has a chance even after publicly declaring that he would work to deprive us all of an essential freedom. There's so much I could say, but I think the man's words speak for themselves and no rational person should want this potential theocrat in office.
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
So basically this bastard came out and said we need to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. What's worse is the nitwits who cheered him for it.
Do these people not realize that favoring no religion in government is the best way to protect all religion? More importantly, do they not realize that freedom of religion is one of this nation's most important principles and an essential component of our liberty?
I've said it before and I'm saying it again, Mike Huckabee becoming president is the worst thing that could happen to this nation. What terrifies me is the fact that this man actually has a chance even after publicly declaring that he would work to deprive us all of an essential freedom. There's so much I could say, but I think the man's words speak for themselves and no rational person should want this potential theocrat in office.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
