[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
Monthly Archive for December, 2008Page 2 of 5
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
In one of the most holy weeks in the Christian calendar, a report says that in just over a generation the number of people attending Church of England Sunday services will fall to less than a tenth of what they are now.
Christian Research, the statistical arm of the Bible Society, claimed that by 2050 Sunday attendance will fall below 88,000, compared with just under a million now.
The controversial forecast, based on a "snapshot" census of church attendances, has been seized upon by secular groups as proof that the established church is in decline. But the Church of England has rejected the figures, saying they were incomplete and ignored new ways of worshipping outside the church network.
According to Dr Peter Brierley, former executive director of Christian Research, by 2030 just under 419,000 people will attend an Anglican Sunday service. By 2040 the number will be down to 217,200, falling to 153,800 five years later. By 2050, if the trend prediction is correct, only 87,800 will be attending.
The figures stand in contrast to the picture of faith described by the prime minister earlier this month. In a preface to a new report, Faith in the Nation, Gordon Brown said: "Faith in Britain today is very much alive and well. At the last census, more than three-quarters of the population said they belonged to a faith ... people's religious identities go right to the heart of their sense of themselves and their place in society and the world."
Keith Porteous-Wood of the National Secular Society said: "Church attendance has already been in decline for over 60 years, all over Britain, in all major denominations and across all age groups, except the over-65s. Independent statisticians now have enough data to predict confidently that the decline will continue until Christianity becomes a minority sect of largely elderly people, in little more than a generation."
Emphasis mine.
Glad he didn't make money on the interviews at CNN and Fox, at least.
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
Humans have always been fascinated with death. Death with a capital D. Since the dawn of consciousness, human tribes have had one form or another of cult of the dead. Early paleolithic tribes would bury their dead with some belongings – this custom extended into the tombs of the Egyptian pharaohs and nowadays, most cultures have some form of ritual worship of the dead[1] which brings closure and finality to a process which, by definition, is not understood by anyone on Earth!
In the realm of the human consciousness, however, there is also guilt. A lot of it. Religion plays to the existence of this guilt and appropriates it and encourages it, in order to yield submission.
Catholics will tell you to feel guilty for having been born (since everyone bears the mark of shame of original sin), Islam will tell you to feel guilty for thought crime, and a long etc. Many of the more repressive religions share among them a morbid obsession and infatuation with ‘sexual sins’, telling followers to basically abstain from sex, hoping to control humans by controlling one of the most basic human instincts.
What does guilt have to do with death?
A lot.
In early Judaean culture, on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, people would literally gather a goat, laden him symbolically with their sins and drive it into the desert to die in the wilderness, thereby removing themselves of responsibility for their actions. The rite is described in Leviticus 16:10[2]. The parallel with the medieval Catholic notion of indulgences is striking.
So by driving an innocent animal to its death, early Middle Eastern cultures relieved themselves of the guilt for having done something wrong. A legal loophole, of sorts, in a book which commands people in unambiguous terms how to behave. So you can sin, if you like, because all you need to do is load up your guilt, your shame and your sins onto a poor goat and drive him into the desert.
Christian mythology is strongly infused with this same sense of death as a liberator. Christians morbidly celebrate the death of Jesus of Nazareth – his sole purpose on Earth being to save humanity for its sins.
Speaking personally, I would never have agreed to let a man die for the sins I myself have committed. The passion and the fervour with which this event is celebrated is, on cursory examination, sickly and plain wrong. Conservative-smut peddler Anne Coulter famously referred to Christians as ‘improved Jews’ (the terrifying implication being that Jews can be ‘improved’). In one sense, this can only mean that instead of taking responsibilities for themselves for the sins they have committed, Christians 1-up the Jews, not by murdering a goat for liberation from guilt, but by letting a perfectly healthy (although questionably sane) man be executed gruesomely.
Christians morbidly celebrate the death of Jesus of Nazareth – his sole purpose on Earth being to save humanity for its sins.
It raises, of course, the question: if the Son of God himself sacrificed himself for the sins of his puny human followers, why in god’s name are Christian denominations still obsessed with sin in every form? This will perhaps lead to a series of inane and vacuous theological interchanges so I hope that I’m going to spare myself the trouble by tackling this question on another occasion.
The morbid fascination with the grisly torture and execution of Jesus of Nazareth does not stop the moment his heart ceases to beat. Because then, in possibly Jesus’ most spectacular ‘miracle’, he returns to life.
Or does he? Because nowhere in the New Testament does it specifically note that Jesus resurrected. The women who were mourning him open the tomb (for some reason) and find there is no body, which they find hard to explain as there was a guard mounted throughout the night.
Later on, chronologically, bible verses talk about the return from death of Jesus but at no point did they actually explain how or indeed whether. We only have their word to take much after the alleged event occurred.
Unable to think of ways to smuggle out a body from a cave, the disciples decide that Jesus resurrected. Then, for the next 40 days he makes appearances to his disciples and then ascends into heaven.
One can almost see the Daily Mirror headline:
HIS BODY NOT FOUND – IS JESUS A ZOMBIE?
It’s quite surprising, within the context of the morbid obsession of later Christian cults with sin and with guilt, that they allow in their stories for the ultimate scapegoat to return. But perhaps it isn’t so surprising. If a scapegoat ever made it out alive from the desert he would bring back with him all the sins he was meant to take away to the Underworld and with it all the guilt it bore.
So, a light, superficial analysis of Christian mythology such as mine brings to the surface a number of interesting happenings which tell us a lot about the preoccupations of the human consciousness. We’re desperately guilty and we’re worried about our death.
To humankind, death is a moment of closure and grief… but it can also be a moment of burial of secrets, an expression for turning the page on unfortunate occurrences and shameful events. Burying a dead body is as much a sign of respect as it is a prison – the body is placed under the weight of the Earth itself to stop it from ever returning.
Fear of Death is as much a fear of the unknown as it is a fear of exposure of one’s secrets. Most human cultures have a moment of judgment after death, of some form or another. Even Buddhism requires one to be in a state of material nothingness – there’s nothing left to be guilty for if you renounce the reality of the material world, an escapist philosophy of sorts.
The world’s largest religion reveres what can only be described as a zombie, it’s not surprising we’re terrified of them.
Zombies are therefore a powerful allegory for the return of our sins, for the monstrosity of our shameful actions and the brutality of the consequences were they ever to return. The world’s largest religion reveres what can only be described as a zombie, it’s not surprising we’re terrified of them.
Zombie apocalypses are as much stories of B-movie horror films as they are metaphors for a gigantic cashing in of guilt, the consequences if everyone’s secrets and sins were let out to the surface at once.
Wade Davis is a Canadian anthropologist and ethnobotanist who is famous for a number of essays and a book about his experience in Haiti, visiting actual zombies[3].
According to Davis, shamans hold an enormous power over villagers. It takes only to cross the path of the shaman for him to zombify a person – void them of their humanity and transform them into submissive slaves – after killing them!
It turns out that debtors and adulterers would get poisoned with two powders – the first, the coup de poudre, consists of tetrododoxin (which is the poison found in the famously poisonous pufferfish) and the second would include dissociatives such as datura. The combination of these two allegedly drops the pulse of the victim to near undetectable levels and bring them into dead, zombie like trances where they would submit entirely to the will of the shaman.
Of course, the powders are merely complimentary to the real poison – the religious and shamanic conditioning from birth, the psychological effect of which being far more potent than any powder.

Haitian zombification is a crude yet effective means of expressing absolute power, as a shaman. A shaman’s authority is left unquestioned, lest villagers start becoming mortified into inhuman husks, shells of former beings.
Popularly, the supernatural component to the existence of zombies hinders taking them seriously. To be honest, this is entirely sound.
But it’s when we examine the meaning of zombies to us on an immaterial level, when we ask ourselves about a zombie’s inherent hostility (the feeling is usually mutual), when we analyse the roots of our fascination for death and for people and things who have seen the other side and returned to tell the tale, we stumble on a deeper examination of a collective human consciousness.
Zombies are the headaches after the rise of human intelligence. They’re unevolved spasms of a primitive guilt and a primitive fear. We’re still incapable, as a species, to owning up and taking responsibility for our actions – we’re terrified should they ever come back to haunt us.
Fear-mongering and guilt-mongering in religions appeal perhaps inadvertently to these base instincts because deep down, all figures of authority in religion know, just like the Haitian shaman, what happens next.
One day, hopefully, we humans will collectively realise it’s not going to take the sacrifice of an animal to rid us of our shameful actions, or the execution of an innocent human being (the Son of God no less!) to his death to cure all and end all. It’s going to take work and effort and balls to own up to one’s past deeds. Only once we’re capable of lifting our gaze to look each other in the eye, to take responsibility for what we’ve done in our lives, the clergyman will preside over empty pews indeed.

Beginning after Thanksgiving, my son's class learned about different cultural celebrations around the world. Each child made a passport and they pretended to travel to other countries. Not only did they learn about the holidays that these cultures celebrate, they also made the country's flag as an art project and wrote a recount about what they had learned as a writing project. I have been really impressed with my son's teacher this year.
As I've looked through his projects, I've been excited to see that he is learning about cultures other than his own. Since my kids were tiny, we've read them stories about Hanukkah, Ramadan & Eid ul Fatr, Kwanzaa, and ancient solstice celebrations. We wanted them to see that all people have different beliefs and different ways of celebrating. There is no such thing as the "right" way to celebrate or the "wrong" way to celebrate. We need to appreciate each other's differences.
Some of our friends and relatives were offended by this. They were appalled that we were teaching our kids to be tolerant of other cultures. Not only that, we weren't teaching our children that our way is the right way and those other people are wrong. This makes me wonder how other parents might react to their children bringing home projects about other cultures. Does the teaching of other views threaten them? Or are most of them as thrilled as I am that our kids are learning things in elementary school that we didn't learn until we were adults?
We celebrate Christmas every year simply because that is what our families celebrate. For me, that is what the holiday is about...family, friends, caring for others, helping people out. In a time that could be depressing because of the hours of darkness, these are the things that help us overlook the darkness. We look beyond our differences and come together to celebrate.
I am lucky to have a very tolerant family. My mom & sister are quite religious and were surprised when I first told them that I was an atheist. However, that has not changed the way that they treat me. We are able to look past the differences we have and find common ground. Actually, it's amazing how many things we do have in common and it's quite easy to overlook our religious differences. They are respectful of us and the way we raise our children and we are respectful of them. We all realize that disagreements do not equal attacks or disrespect.
I guess that is why I find it sad that many people see the holiday as a time to fight over who is right or wrong. There is no such thing as a "War on Christmas" in the real world...it's all in peoples' heads. Each person may celebrate how he/she wishes. When someone celebrates differently than someone else, that does not mean they are attacking that person. If I like white bread and you like wheat, am I attacking you when I eat white bread? How ridiculous!
My hope is that one day people will realize that our differences make the world more interesting. Just because I am not like you, does not mean that everything I do is an attack on you. Celebrate the differences....don't be afraid of them.
You highlight the things you have done- simple :)
1. Started my own blog
2. Slept under the stars
3. Played in a band
4. Visited Hawaii
5. Watched a meteor shower
6. Given more than I can afford to charity
7. Been to Disneyland/world
8. Climbed a mountain
9. Held a praying mantis
10. Sung a solo
11. Bungee jumped
12. Visited Paris
13. Watched lightning at sea
14. Taught myself an art from scratch
15. Adopted a child
16. Had food poisoning
17. Walked to the top of the Statue of Liberty
18. Grown my own vegetables
19. Seen the Mona Lisa in France
20. Slept on an overnight train
21. Had a pillow fight
22. Hitchhiked
23. Taken a sick day when you’re not ill
24. Built a snow fort
25. Held a lamb
26. Gone skinny dipping
27. Run a Marathon
28. Ridden in a gondola in Venice
29. Seen a total eclipse
30. Watched a sunrise or sunset
31. Hit a home run
32. Been on a cruise
33. Seen Niagara Falls in person
34. Visited the birthplace of my ancestors (Denmark?)
35. Seen an Amish community
36. Taught myself a new language
37. Had enough money to be truly satisfied
38. Seen the Leaning Tower of Pisa in person
39. Gone rock climbing
40. Seen Michelangelo’s David
41. Sung karaoke
42. Seen Old Faithful geyser erupt
43. Bought a stranger a meal at a restaurant
44. Visited Africa
45. Walked on a beach by moonlight
46. Been transported in an ambulance
47. Had my portrait painted
48. Gone deep sea fishing
49. Seen the Sistine Chapel in person
50. Been to the top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris
51. Gone scuba diving or snorkeling
52. Kissed in the rain
53. Played in the mud
54. Gone to a drive-in theater
55. Been in a movie
56. Visited the Great Wall of China
57. Started a business
58. Taken a martial arts class
59. Visited Russia
60. Served at a soup kitchen
61. Sold Girl Scout Cookies
62. Gone whale watching
63. Got flowers for no reason
64. Donated blood, platelets or plasma
65. Gone sky diving
66. Visited a Nazi Concentration Camp
67. Bounced a check
68. Flown in a helicopter
69. Saved a favorite childhood toy
70. Visited the Lincoln Memorial
71. Eaten caviar
72. Pieced a quilt
73. Stood in Times Square
74. Toured the Everglades
75. Been fired from a job
76. Seen the Changing of the Guards in London
77. Broken a bone
78. Been on a speeding motorcycle
79. Seen the Grand Canyon in person
80. Published a book
81. Visited the Vatican
82. Bought a brand new car
83. Walked in Jerusalem
84. Had my picture in the newspaper
85. Read the entire Bible
86. Visited the White House
87. Killed and prepared an animal for eating
88. Had chickenpox
89. Saved someone’s life
90. Sat on a jury
91. Met someone famous
92. Joined a book club
93. Lost a loved one
94. Had a baby
95. Seen the Alamo in person
96. Swam in the Great Salt Lake
97. Been involved in a lawsuit
98. Owned a cell phone
99. Been stung by a bee
100. Ridden an elephant

Even though my relatives and I were atheist Jews in a predominantly Christian country, I rarely felt as if I was out of the mainstream. Mom, Dad, and Nanny were just as American as anybody else, although maybe just a little louder. OK, a lot louder.
Up until the time I was six, I even imagined that I believed — as much as any fundy kid did — in Santa Claus. I had already dismissed the idea of god, because it just didn’t make any sense. But Santa Claus was different. I mean, the guy was all over the TV screen. He prattled on and on about good conduct with Pinky Lee and Rootie Kazootie, paid surprise visits on cowboys and spacemen and cartoon animals, and even joked snidely about Mrs. Claus with Milton Berle and Jackie Gleason. From the comfort of my living-room, I'd actually seen him ride down Broadway in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade; every kid in New York knew that he was on the way to his big throne in the world's most famous department store. And he never said, "Ho ho ho, Merry Christmas — except for atheist Jews." He greeted us all, boys and girls of every persuasion. Santa's sole criterion for toy-distribution was a kid's behavior, not his heritage.
Mom, who was always a sucker for family togetherness as depicted in Norman Rockwell illustrations, encouraged my belief. She made a small bow to Chanukah by giving us chocolate gelt, pieces of candy money wrapped in "gold;" sometimes we even lit the menorah. But her obvious opinion, one which we kids shared, was that Chanukah couldn't hold a candle to Christmas. If it had been entirely up to her, we would have all gathered together like a perfect television family, to sing carols and drink eggnog under the mistletoe. Santa Claus was coming to town, and our household was on his itinerary.
Dad went along with her, but only because he didn't have the energy to fight. As a mailman, he worked particularly hard during the holidays when the post office was flooded with thousands of cards from those “meshuga goyim.” I think he reluctantly enjoyed the message of peace on earth, goodwill to men: "Do me something, but that Jesus must have been a real mensch. He was a Jew, d'ja know that?"
Still, Dad could never resist reminding us that we were strangers in a strange land.
"If some fat Christian in a red suit ever snuck up on my grandparents during the night, they would have thought it was a pogrom. But go ahead and believe what you wanna believe. Just remember, Santa Claus is poor this year."
In our house, we never had a Christmas tree. A few families in the community had Chanukah bushes, but not us. Dad hated Nature, and complained constantly that Mom's snake plants were stealing his air. He was sure that bringing a whole tree into the apartment would make it impossible for us to breathe. His main objection, though, was that it would be too much trouble.
"And who's gonna put it together? You?"
"There's nothing to put together, Dad. It's a tree."
"Listen, Sonny Boy, I work hard all day. I don't need to be monkeying around with all those momzer lights and doodads and that shiny stringy stuff—what do the goyim call it?—and having to remember to water the damn thing and not knock it over when I wake up in the middle of the night to pish. You want a tree, move to the forest."
Mom, who took on more and more of a "Babes in Toyland" persona the closer we got to the holidays, who walked around the apartment singing Hit Parade carols like "All I Want for Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth" and "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus," would have loved having a Christmas tree. And she probably could have prevailed easily over Dad if she'd insisted. But she worried about how she could smuggle it in without the neighbors seeing.
"Mom," I'd reason, "who cares? You buy ham and bacon at the store all the time, and we never go to shul."
"A Christmas tree is different."
"What's different about it?"
"Well, bacon is not about Jesus. But a Christmas tree ... that's a very, very Christian thing. It's a whole big megillah about stuff we don't believe in. Mrs. Tannenbaum downstairs would have a conniption if she saw us. I'll hang a stocking and we'll put out a little table for Santa to leave toys on. Nobody has to know."
And that's what she always did. On Christmas Eve, she'd tape two of her nylons, one for Risa and one for me, to the window of our bedroom. We had no chimneys in our project, which worried me. But Mom swore that Santa would ring the doorbell once we kids were asleep, and that he'd give all our toys to her. It never occurred to me to ask why we bothered going through the whole rigmarole with the stocking if he was just going to show up with the stuff at our door like an overweight version of the Seltzer Man.
What I did think to challenge, however, was the plethora of Santas. Everywhere I looked, there he was. He chatted with millions of children in every single department store in New York City. Mom's explanation, which worked for a few years, was that the guy kept running back and forth across the street between Macy's and Gimbel's, stopping this relay only occasionally to take the subway uptown to the Bronx for a stint at Alexander's. And, she added, when he wasn't holding court in some toy department, he was hopping from street corner to street corner to ring a bell for the Salvation Army, or racing to a TV studio to sit for a few minutes with Arthur Godfrey.
But by the time I was six, I was already well on the road to skepticism. I tallied up all the Clauses and thought: How can this be?
It was Nanny who came up with an intricate Santa Claus Classification System, an organizational hierarchy that sounded reasonable. She explained that the real, honest-to-goodness Santa Claus was the one at Macy's, except during the week she had a falling-out with the store because it had run out of My Sin perfume, during which time the Genuine Article had moved briefly to Gimbel's. He was also the one who appeared on prime-time television shows, as long as the star was somebody she liked.
"Oh, yeah," Nanny said, "the Jack Benny Santa Claus is definitely the real one."
"But who's at Macy's while he's on TV?"
"He puts up a sign: Out to Dinner. What, you don't think he has a nice supper every night, with that belly?"
"But if he was on with Jack Benny," I asked, "when did he eat?"
"Always with you it's questions. Listen, they gave him a tongue sandwich and a cup of red Jell-O backstage."
"So that's what happened when he visited Ed Sullivan, too?"
"No, no, use your head. That was an Actor. The real Santa Claus is gonna go on with that shmo? What are you talking?"
"What about the Santa Claus at Alexander's?"
"A Substitute. Santa has a big family, they all look like him. Y'know, like me and my sisters. His brothers go to all the stores, the managers never know the difference."
"Oh, so the one at Klein's is also a substitute, right?"
"Klein's? Feh? That one's a Faker. You'll sit on his lap, he'll try to sell you some shmatta. They're gonna get the real Santa Claus when they can't even clean their bathrooms properly? Who fills your head with such nonsense?"
"So what about the guys who ring the bells?"
"Helpers. Santa gives them a couple of bucks and they work for him."
"But they all look just like him."
"Yeah, so what? Santa's dumb? He advertises to hire, and it says they have to be fat. Except that skinny zhlub standing there by the subway entrance with his beard falling off. Listen, stop hocking me with Santa Claus and help me pick out a Chanukah present for your cousin Marty."
It was a lot of work using Nanny's elaborate taxonomy, and sorting each Santa into his proper slot nearly drove me nuts. But I was good at puzzles and games, and enjoyed the challenge of figuring out who was who. The Santa who had posed for the Coke ad in Life Magazine was, obviously, the Genuine Article; the one who had posed for Pepsi was an Actor. Canada Dry Ginger Ale's Santa was an acceptable Substitute, particularly when I'd had an upset stomach one day, but 7-Up's was a blatant Faker if I ever saw one.
They asked me how I knewEven Dad joined in the festive spirit, using a lit cigarette to conduct Mom. My sister, who was only a year and a half old, had caught the excitement, and kept screaming "Santa Claus, Santa Claus," a mantra that eventually conked her out in mid-shout. Shortly thereafter, she was nestled all snug in her bed, dreaming, no doubt, of sugar plums, even though no one in my family had any idea what they were.
Santa Claus was true.
I of course replied,
"Santa has to hide —
Toys get in your eyes."
But I stayed wide awake, now and then ducking under the covers to check my glow-in-the-dark watch, a practical Chanukah gift I had received from an uncle with connections in the jewelry business. A half-hour eternity must have passed while I waited and waited and waited for the sound of the doorbell announcing Santa's arrival.
Mom peeked her head into our room. "You kids asleep?" she whispered.
I had recently learned that my fake snoring fooled no one, so I just lay there, perfectly still. Mom and Dad tiptoed quietly in. Mom was frequently subject to fits of giddiness, and was evidently in the throes of one. She couldn't stop tittering. Dad banged his knee on the little table they'd put in the center of the room, dropped what sounded like a 20-megaton toy, and yelled out
"Sonuvvabitch!"
Stifled snickering from Mom, who tried unsuccessfully to turn serious. "Did it break, Hon?"
"How the hell do I know? It's wrapped."
"I mean the table. It sounded like it went flying."
"Nah. It just slid along the floor a little."
"Do you think it scratched the wood?"
"It scratched my leg, I'll tell you that."
"You're not bleeding on the toys, are you?"
"Who cares about the goddamn toys, f'cryinoutloud? I'm wounded here. You and your farkockteh Christmas."
"Sha. Die kinder."
The next thing Dad did was to pull down a curtain rod on the window when he went to fill the stocking.
"Agghhh. Shit."
"Sha." Uncontrollable giggling. "What happened?"
"I got caught on the drapes."
"Don't break the window."
"Do you wanna do this, Babe? Do you wanna do this?"
Mom made a noise that sounded like she was being tickled unmercifully.
"Don't put a run in my stocking."
"Just tell me if you wanna do this. What are you, some secret shikseh, the Christmas maven? Owww. Goddamn radiator. It's hot, f'Chrissake! These chocolate cigarettes are gonna melt before the kids wake up."
"Gimme them. I'll put them on the table."
"What else goes in here?"
"The yo-yos and the sock puppets. Can you squoosh the puppets in?"
A ripping sound revealed that he couldn't.
"What'd you rip?"
"Your stocking. Relax."
Hysterical cackling. "That's a good stocking."
"Oh, and my knee wasn't a good knee?"
"Your knee, you can cover up. My stocking, everybody sees."
"So do me something. Next time we go out, you can wear the sock puppets. Are we done with this mishegoss?"
“I think the kids are up. Are you up?”
Aha! A trap. Mom expected me to say “no,” like I usually did. But I just lay there. Miraculously, I had managed to keep totally quiet through all the mayhem. I hoped I could resist the urge to get up right away and check whether all my new toys were still intact.
Mom whispered, "Well, I guess they’re sleeping. Gut yontif" — "Happy holiday" — and I could hear kissing. I hoped it was happening far enough way from my toys that they didn’t get any lovey-dovey cooties on them. I knew that in the morning, the room was going to look like it had been attacked by an army of Subs and Zhlubs, Helpers and Actors and Fakers. But as my parents walked through the door, both chuckling now, I lay there in my bed, a real atheist at last, proud of my discovery: Mom and Dad, and they alone, were the Genuine Article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/18/religion-anglicanism

Yet another internet meme. December can be boring, and next week the country’ll have an entire week off c/o the dictatress president.
This is called the Get a Life meme. Just copy the list of movies below and type an x on the movies you’ve seen. If you’ve marked more than 85 movies, then you have no life! Let’s see how I did…
For a couple of days now, I’ve been noticing a squadron of T-41 training planes flying overhead. This is an out-of-the-ordinary occurrence since the Air Force does not usually fly over the Metropolis on training flights. Are they doing battle simulations on the off-chance that a local terrorist group would wage an aerial assault? And is this a further sign of the impending dictatorship of the current regime?
Religion has been described as a virus. This is not because it’s ‘bad for you’ necessarily, but rather due to the way it spreads.
It’s not hard to see the parallel: like viruses (and bacteria), religions exist within a population and spread from person to person.
But what about atheism? Is it a viral idea (meme) too?
I will argue that it isn’t. Perhaps it’s more like a cancer, a ‘mutation’ that kills off religious infections.
Cancers are sneaky, because they can occur spontaneously, almost by chance, and are therefore a very statistical phenomenon: your chance of getting cancer is affected by a), your exposure (to carcinogens causing mutation events), and b), your predisposition (genes affecting your ability to cope with the these mutations).
Your chance of becoming an atheist is likewise affected by a), your exposure (to information about how the world works) and b), your predisposition (intelligence, or ability to apply logic to the information).
I.e. atheism differs from religion in the same way that carcinogens differ from viruses.
Can we develop this idea? I think so.
Let’s look at how you ‘get’ atheism…
Picture it: you’ve been brought up in a good god-fearing, church-going family. You went to Sunday school, you know which of Cain and Abel was the baddy and you can explain to people about how there is good evidence for The Flood. You also have a healthy fear of sex and the other sins.
But you go to school and you learn about plate tectonics and see how well South America slots into Africa, and then you learn how European bees are not quite the same as African ones, just like Toyota Corollas aren’t, and one day, while looking at the grille of your step-mother’s 1.3GL, and daydreaming about the A-team, a thought strikes you, like a shot of cancer-causing sunshine on that patch of skin on the back of your right shoulder, that cars evolve differently in different counties and maybe that explains all the animals and perhaps God didn’t make a women out of Adam’s rib after all, cos’ that never did make much sense, because a rib is a pretty silly thing to make a women out of anyway.
Catching a dose of Christianity on the other hand, does not come from inside, as the result of reasoning, it comes from outside, from other people.
Most often you will be born into a house absolutely soaked in the infection, you will be infected soon enough, prayers will be said at mealtimes, the church is so big and grand, and the hymns are so catchy, and then they wheel out Christmas and baby Jesus (or baby ‘cheeses’ as my son says)…
But even if you’re not so lucky, there’s hope. You can drop in at a church any time (though Sundays are best I’m told) and the chances are, even if you are down on your luck, short of friends, and even if you aren’t very nice, the sweet people there are quite likely to help you. That feeling of family, of unquestioning acceptance - brings a special warmth to the cockles of the heart.
Once you’re in the door, religion, having evolved pretty niftily, can now play you like a violin. Your emotions, developed to help promote clan solidarity, are hi-jacked and kick in nicely. Did you know, that if you really listen to what these folks say, and really try to feel God’s love, you will indeed feel something! Now that’s a clever infection…

I. Evolution
a. Stimulus/Response
1. Homeostasis
One of the elements that define living organisms it that of homeostasis. Homeostasis is the property of a system whereas its internal environment is regulated to remain stable. Since the environment outside an organism is not necessarily in an equilibrium compatible with that of the organism (or in equilibrium at all) it is necessary for the organism to be able to respond to changes in its external environment in order to maintain its internal environment. This is called stimulus-response, another qualification for life.
Most often people think of stimulus-response in animalisitc terms: An event occurs in the environment that acts as a stimulus, this stimulus is percieved by the animal, the brain processes the event and formulates a response, and then organism acts out the response. While this indeed is stimulus-response it need not be this complicated. Any change in an organism in response to changes in the environment is classified as stimulus-response. While one can certainly imagine response to be random, only organisms that respond in a manner conducive to their survival would indeed survive. Stimulus-response can be as simple as the mere laws of physics, such as osmosis, which would allow a single cell to maintain its internal pressure and consistency of the chemical composition of its interior. It can be more complex even without a nervous system, as in plants where sunlight causes stems to grow asymetrically, resulting in the stem turning toward the sunlight.
Eventually, and for the purposes here, we come to animals, with nervous systems that specialize in recognizing stimuli and responding to them. Animals do utilize the more basic stimulus-response mechanisms (such as for breathing where oxygen is absorbed by the blood) but have the novel system of nerves and the brain to aid in this matter (at least most animals do). Another novelty (most) animals possess is the response of motion. To this end animals have developed special cells designed to respond to specific stimuli.
2. Receptors
In addition to other features that separate them from other organisms, most animals have nervous systems. Nervous systems are generally divided into two parts: 1) The Peripherial nervous system which collects information about the environment and sends signals to 2) the Central nervous system, which processes these signals and sends responses to muscles and glands affecting a response in the organism that either alters its internal functioning (through hormones) or causes the animal to move (through muscles).
The structures by which an animal receives input about its environment are known as sensory receptors. Sensory receptors are very specialized and different ones are needed to react to different types of stimulus. Some examples of these are:
Electroreceptors (electric fields), baroreceptors (pressure), chemoreceptors (chemicals), mechanoreceptors (mechanical stress), nociceptors (cellular damage), osmoreceptors (osmolarity), photoreceptors (light), proprioceptors (position), thermoreceptors (hot and cold).
How these receptors detect the appropriate stimuli varies from receptor to receptor but all produce eletrochemical impulses that travel to the central nervous system for processing. While many (if not most) of the functions performed are done so invountarily and independent of outside influences (such as circulation or digestion) any voluntary responses an animal is to make must be done in response to detected stimuli. Since the detection of these stimuli requires the aforementioned receptors, an animal without these receptors (or an animal with nonfunctioning receptors) would not survive long. Almost all animals must actively seek food and evade predators and this requires motion, a voluntary act. Thus an animal's survival is directly related to its ability to collect information about its environment.
3. Stimulation
The stimulus-response process can be referred to as stimulation. The amount of stimulation an animal receives is almost as important as the type of stimulation. The factors affecting the amount of stimuluation are the number of receptors for a given stimulus and their sensitivity in detecting that stimulus.
Stimulation management is an important factor in the survival of a species. If an animal perceives too little (under stimulation) it will respond less to its environment. This means it will obtain less food and avoid fewer dangers. In short, it will stagnate and die. However, if it is too sensitive (over stimulation) the animal will be under constant stress and will be responding in situations it doesn't need to and its responses will likely be stronger than they have to. In short, the animal will work itself to death.
With under and over stimulated animals dying out, this leaves animals configured to receive an amount of stimulation conducive (or at least not deterimental) to their survival. This calibration is varies among different animals. Sponges, lacking a nervous system and the ability to move, embody stagnation. But this is fine given how they obtain food (filtering moving water) and defend against predators (passive defenses). However, other organisms with more complex nervous systems, such as humans, require more stimulation. It's a balancing act. The more receptors an animal has, the more information (stimulation) it can collect about its environment. However it must have the faciliaties to cope with the amount and type of stimulation or it will get little use from it.
b. Abstract thought and memory
1. Memory
Once an animal exists in a manner where it receives adequate stimulation, it must have mechanisms by which it can respond to such stimulation. For many animals, this involves the central nervous system, or brain. The various receptors collect information from the environment and send it through nerves using electrochemical impulses to the brain. The brain processes this information, formulates a response, and sends impulses down to various parts of the body to enact an appropriate response.
The response for each set of stimuli is dictated by the programming of the brain. By far the simplest way to enact a response is reflexively and involuntarily. This can be represented by mere "IF THEN" statements. IF a certain set of stimuli are detected THEN a specific response is carried out. For example, if a fly detects a large object moving toward it (as detected by light changes in its compound eyes, and changes in air pressure on its hairs) its brain calculates the appropriate escape vector and sends signals to its legs and wings to push off and fly away.
Such reflexes and instincts represent hard coded programming in the organism's central nervous system. While efficient and reliable, these relationships cannot be altered. As such they are only useful for a finite set of stimuli. In order for an animal to survive, it must be able to respond to as many different combinations of stimuli as possible. This means it must have a large set of hard coded responses or be able to alter its programming in response to new stimuli. Hard coding is efficient in action, but becomes bulky and unwieldy when one attempts to hard code responses for all possible situations. As such, some animals evolved the ability to alter their own programming, or learn things and use that learning to formulate new responses for new situations.
To this end, animals capable of learning must possess a function where information stored so that it can be used as input for future responses. This storing of information is known as memory. There are three general types of memory animals possess: Sensory Memory, Short Term Memory, and Long Term Memory. Sensory Memory lasts for a few milliseconds after something is perceived. It is short in duration and has limits on the capacity of information "remembered". Short Term memory lasts from a view seconds up to a minute and has a higher capacity. Finally we have Long Term memory which has potentially unlimited duration and has a large capacity.
When an animal records an event in memory and that event is recalled (as in response to some familiar stimulus) it can then use the memory of that event in the formulation of a response to a given stimulus. This allows it to use experience to refine its responses to be more appropriate and to factor in the context of a stimulus as well as its content.
Memory and learning allow animals to discover threats that may not appear to be threats via other means or opportunities that may not appear to be opportunities through other means. Thus an animal with memory has the ability to exploit more opportunties and avoid more threats than organisms that do not possess memory. Memory comes at a price, however, and requires a more complex nervous system, including a brain and a cerebrum for more advance memory storage and processing.
2. Abstract Thought
In addition to memory, animals with complex brains possess the ability to peform abstraction. Abstraction is where a concept is
simplified, generalized, and removed from an actual tangible object. The general concept of a ball, for example, is an abstraction of actual spherical objects we encounter in real life. We can think about a ball without being required to think of a specific type of ball and without being required to be looking at an actual ball at the moment we are thinking about it.
Abstract thought is the basis for higher reasoning. Combining abstraction with memories allows an animal to perform thought experiments and imagine likely conclusions for a given set of possibilities. Abstraction is also required for communication. With abstraction, ideas can be conveyed independently of the objects they represent.
Abstraction helps in recognizing new things. Through experience we acquire a store of memories about our environment, including the things in it. Through this method we form abstractions about the objects we encounter. For example, if I live in a forest, I will acquire a collection of memories about specific trees. Through this I will form an abstraction about the concept of a tree. This abstraction will contain elements that are common to all the specific trees I have encountered in the past. Because of this, if I come across a new tree that I've never encountered before, I can still recognize it as a tree if it matches with my abstraction of what a tree is. This is known as pattern recognition.
c. Pattern recognition
Pattern recognition is the process by which the content and context of a set of objects currently being experienced is compared to the content and context of the sets of objects in our memory. If a match is made, then it is said that we "recognize" the pattern. Alternatively recognition could be made through comparisons against patterns that are hardcoded, rather than learned.
1. Template matching
One type of pattern recognition is template matching. Template matching is basically a 1:1 matching with little abstraction involved. The pattern to recognize is searched against the exact templates that exist in memory until one or more matches are found.
2. Prototype matching
By adding a little abstraction we can perform prototype matching. This is where a concept is generalized and defined by its
attributes. This type of recognition allows us to classify quickly objects we see based upon appearance. An object with four legs and a back that people sit on is a chair. This recognition can be made independently of other specific features (such as the material it is made out of, the existence of arms, whether it reclines, swivels, etc).
While there are more types of pattern recognition, they are more or less variations on the previous themes: The object as a whole is broken down into a series of features. The content and relative context of the features forms a general abstraction which is compared to our memory. How abstract and general an association is made depends on how specifically we can recognize and classify the object. Often times we can make multiple classifications. I can recognize something as an object (most general), as a piece of furniture (less general), as a chair (specific), and as a metal folding chair (more specific).
The ability to classify things at various levels of generality is useful for truly novel objects for which we are unable to find a more specific match. For example, the ability to recognize something as a tree, but not knowing what kind of tree it is. Once we classify something, even generaly, it gives us the ability to formulate a response based upon that classification. If I classify something as a tree, and I know that trees offer protection from some predators, I can then attempt to climb the tree for safety. If I do not recognize it as, at the very least, a tree, then I will be unable to make that association.
3. Pattern recognition Errors
While useful, the nature of pattern recognition allows room for errors, especially when confronted with new patterns. For example, if we form the abstraction that "things with wings are birds" Then we will commit an error when we are presented with a bat. Once we become aware of, and familiar with, bats, and form a more specific template to represent bats, we will no longer make this error.
Errors can be avoided, however. By restricting the ability to make more general recognitions (such as "things with wings are birds"), then the errors that come with making them are eliminated. Under this more strict way of thinking we cannot have a general rule as "things with wings are birds" and must have something more specific, like "things with feathers, beaks, talons, wings and that lay eggs are birds". If we are forbidden from making an association more general than this, we will not commit an error when confronted with a bat. So what happens when we are confronted with a bat? Such a scenario is hard to imagine given that we are wired to attempt automatically to recognize and classify anything we can sense. We can deduce what happens, though, when we realize that in order to respond to something we must recognize it (either in memory or in hard coding). If we do not recognize it, we cannot respond to it. This highlights the price that would come with such strict pattern recognition rules.
So which is better? Over recognition, or under recognition? Since the environments in which we find ourselves are dynamic, we can expect to be constantly confronted with new patterns of stimuli. Since these patterns can represent threats or opportunities, failure to recognize them would be failure to avoid a threat or failure to exploit an opportunity. In both cases our ability to survive is less than if we have the capability to recognize (even erroneously) new patterns. If we fail to respond to a threat, our very lives are put on stake. If we fail to respond to an opportunity, we are at disadvantage against those that do recognize it.
An additional benefit to this type of error is in "filling the blanks". When we are presented with a pattern and we get a partial match our brain, using fuzzy logic, can fill in the blanks with what is most likely based upon the memories and experience of that specific organism. In this manner we can make decisions and formulate responses when presented with incomplete data (which we often are).
This error is not without its own price as it can result in attempting to exploit opportunities that aren't really there or avoiding threats that aren't really there. However, when we compare the price of errors of over recognition (wasted energy) and under recognition (death), the choice is clear. While over recognition certainly *can* lead to death, it is not as likely a result as with under recognition. This means that, typically, the animal will survive and learn. Now knowing more about the pattern that made it falsely think there was an opportunity or threat it will be less likely to make that mistake in the future, if it is capable of this level of reasoning as humans are.
There is another price associated with over recognition, and that is the creation of superstitions. Superstition, technically is any irrational belief. In common usage, however, beliefs identified as superstitions are generally beliefs that certain actions can influence or portend the future without any obvious causal link. It is not known exactly how superstitions form (at least to the degree that we could predict what would cause a specific superstition to form) but this type of behavior is evident even in non-human animals, such as pidgeons. For whatever reason, a causal association is formed in the animal's mind between two events. Despite no other reason to accept this relationship. Once such a causal link is suspected the animal is already in a frame of mind sensitive to evidence to support that causal link. Evidence against the causal link is likely to be ignored or dismissed. Through this erroneous pattern of reasoning, all new information either reinforces the superstition or is ignored.
Humans have taken all of this to new and bizarre levels. Something as simple and vital as pattern recognition has resulted in believing things like: breaking a reflective surface will result in bad things happeneing for the next seven orbits around the sun. Hanging a u-shaped piece of metal worn by a horse over the entrway to a house will bring make good things happen. By clasping your hands and kneeling and thinking thoughts in your head, you are establishing a communication with an immensely powerful being who will do your bidding. By all criteria that matter, belief in miracles or the power of prayer are superstitions. Only "evidence" in support of these beliefs are ever reported on, and evidence against are ignored, dismissed or arbitrarily attributed to other causes.
c. Conclusion
In conclusion of this part we see that superstition is the result of an error inherent in the pattern recognition abilities of animals that allow us to survive. It is unfortunate, but unavoidable. As humans we can use rationality to explain them away, but we cannot prevent their creation. The next part will show how humans, with their innate pattern recognition abilities and high levels of abstraction form superstitions that lay the foundation for religion.
by Drafterman of AvC

Listening to a classic Filipino rock album, which conveniently has ten songs (and an unlisted eleventh track). It’s from the local group The Youth, and the album is titled Album na Walang Pamagat (trans. Album With no Title), released in 1994:
- Kapag Nagunaw Ang Mundo (trans. If the world ends)
- The Alphabet Song (Mother Funker)
- Supernova Scum
- Multo Sa Paningin (Multong Bakla) (trans. Ghost in Appearance (Gay Ghost))
- Payo (trans. Advice)
- Anak Ka Ng Ina Mo (trans. You are Your Mother’s Child)
- Magulo Buhay Ng Tao (trans. Life is Chaotic)
- Mukha Ng Pera (trans. Look of Money)
- Takbo (trans. Run)
- Basura (trans. Rubbish)
It’s an odd mix of hard rocking beats and light-hearted (even comedic) lyrics. Really great stuff. I watched the band perform live just once, in 1994 or 1995 at the Ateneo de Manila University gymnasium. The production wasn’t top notch, the show had a garage-band type feel, and the venue was thrashed by people jumping over fences to get to better seats and the mosh pit. But it was still very entertaining. They brought the house down as they belted their hits from this album.
<Soapbox>Times have changed. Fourteen years on, we’re subjected to manufactured bubblegum "rock" music on the radio. Sure, the newer acts are good musicians, and some of their hits are tolerable to listen so. But I really miss the Pinoy bands of the 90s. Edgier lyrics, "raw" sounds, eccentric personalities. I guess Pinoy rock sold its soul just to be admitted to the mainstream. </soapbox>
Back to the album. Kapag Nagunaw ang Mundo is my favorite track. The Alphabet Song is just that, the letters of the alphabet sung to rock music. Supernova Scum is the only English track. Multo sa Paningin was their most popular single. The rest are standard fare rock songs.
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
A few days ago, I asked, as an experiment, which of these two statements was more offensive: “there is a god” and “there is no god”. While most of the replies I got were perfectly reasonable (paraphrasing vjack, neither statement is offensive, but one of them is false), the lack of responses by either “normal” theists – especially of the typical, born-again, Protestant kind –, and “non-militant” atheists (the ones who have no belief themselves, but take special care not to offend believers) prevented this experiment from uncovering the kind of replies I wanted: the ones that say that “there is no god” is offensive, but can’t explain why; they just feel that it is. Having atheists say so would have been particularly interesting.
Which just shows that this blog is no Friendly Atheist. ![]()
Still, this doesn’t prevent me from answering my own question, in detail. As others said, neither statement by itself is offensive – much like “2+2=4” and “2+2=5” aren’t. One of them is right and the other is not, but a simple claim shouldn’t be offensive to anyone.
However, these statements aren’t said in a vacuum. When you say either of them, you are probably – even if unconsciously – adding something to it. How much, depends on the individual. Similarly, when you hear one of those statements – especially if it’s the one you disagree with –, you tend to add implications to it.
“There is a god”, when said to an atheist, only has no extra meanings when said by either a deist or an incredibly liberal believer (so liberal he couldn’t possibly be called a “Christian” or similar). If said by virtually every other kind of believer, it includes one or more of the following:
- I’m right and you’re wrong
- I’m saved and you’re not; you’re going to hell
- You’re immoral for not believing, and for having no source of morality
- (if in a Christian community) You’re an outsider; you’re not one of us; you’re not a real American/whatever
- Your life is incomplete; you can’t possibly be happy
- Jesus died for you, you ungrateful monster
- It’s because of people like you that evil exists
- If you don’t believe, you’re just in denial; God’s existence is obvious
- You must allow me to convert you, otherwise you’re screwed.
(note that I said “one or more of”. I don’t mean that every theist believes all of those, or means all of those.)
Meanwhile, and to be fair, when an atheist says “there is no god”, here’s what he can mean, or at least what believers hear:
- I’m right and you’re wrong
- You’re stupid
- You were conned
- You’re brainwashed
- You’re a sheep
- You only have those beliefs because you’ve never thought about them
- You’re irrational
- Your religion is a crutch, because you can’t cope with the real world
- You’ve wasted your life. Time, money, effort, hopes, fears: all of it was for nothing.
The last one is particularly poignant, and I love Dan Dennett’s take on it. When you think about it, that is perhaps the worst thing you can tell a person – which doesn’t mean that it’s not true –, and it’s understandable that many people find it utterly offensive, even if that wasn’t the goal. Incredibly, I think it can hurt people’s feelings even more than, for instance, saying “you’re immoral and you’re going to hell”, because a non-believer knows that those are not true, and that the believer is just speaking from ignorance. But “you’ve wasted your life” is a real, actual, present “threat” – one that must be fought at all costs. Because otherwise you feel like an utter failure, an utter waste of a life.
This explains why there were so many complaints about atheist / secular signs during the past months. Now, granted, some can actually be an attack on belief, and offensive to believers, but some the ones they complained about said something as inoffensive as “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone”, or, as Ebonmuse put it, “Atheists exist”. And even these were seen as personal offenses, as attacks on their faith, as “liberal Christian-bashing”, and other absurdities. Perhaps, from this angle, I can understand their otherwise incomprehensible anger: the fact that atheists exist and have a voice is a constant threat on their own perceived self-worth. “If atheists exist (and can speak out, and have normal lives), then perhaps, just perhaps, I’ve wasted my life.”
Copyright © 2010 Way of the Mind



Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription

