Monthly Archive for September, 2009
Today is Blasphemy Day.
I have no original blasphemy to contribute with, because all the clever things have already been said. Here’s a few samples.
There’s plenty more, but I think more than three videos in one post would be overkill. By the way, isn’t it odd how all my favourite comedians seem to be atheists? Is [...]
I've just found out (suppose I should have checked before) that today is International Blasphemy Day. The title of this post links to the site Blasphemy Day , which was set up to "open up all religious beliefs to the same level of free inquiry, discussion and criticism to which all other areas of academic interest are subjected." which is not only a noble cause but also gives us an extra excuse, as if one were needed, to ridicule beliefs held and proselytised without foundation in reality. Excellent.The site makes no attempt to debate the existence or non-existence of Gods of any flavour, and makes it quite clear that such topics are well outside it's remit.
The reason that September 30th has been chosen for this day of blasphemy, is that it was on this day in 2005 that those infamous cartoons of Mohammed were published in the Danish Newspaper Jyllands-Posten. As a result of this, we found out just how fragile our values of 'free speech' and 'free expression' are here in Britain, as every single one of our newspapers declined to print any of the images, ostensibly for fear of causing offence, in reality for fear of having their windows broken by ramapaging mobs of hate-filled bigots, sorry, I mean peaceful and devout Muslims whose feelings were hurt by nasty cartoonists. I don't know about you, but if somebody hurts my feelings or criticizes something I hold dear, I don't feel the need to charge through the streets shouting, throwing stones and waving placards that say 'behead those who insult x' and 'butcher those who mock x'. Maybe I just don't have a highly enough developed sense of outrage.
So as mobs of 'offended' young men threatening obscene acts of violence paraded through the streets of Europe, waving their disgusting banners, shouting insults, throwing stones, spitting bile and showing us just how much Islam truly is 'the religion of peace', our political and religious leaders lined up in condemnation - of the cartoonists and the newspapers that dared to print them. I know it's a couple of years ago now but this case is so indicative of how our culture and our freedoms are being steadily eroded as we are forced to bend over backwards by our spineless political leaders, to accommodate a tiny minority of - lets not beat around the bush - infantile, ignorant, disgusting, hate-obsessed, violent, bigoted, misogynistic pricks, whose only way of coping with 'hurt feelings' are to get truly mouth-foamingly angry and take to the streets shouting insults and waving banners of such eye-watering evil and cruelty that we simply have no choice but to wring our hands and apologise profusely for upsetting them so much. Well, I would say, grow up you sad bastards and take a peak at the real World. Are you offended by this? Good. You don't just deserve to have your feelings hurt, you poor deluded little lambs, you deserve to have that disgusting, anti-human, uncivilized excrement you call the immutable word of God shoved so far down your throat that is makes you at least as half as sick as it makes me.Now you may feel I've stepped way over the line, I've insulted you, your holy book, the very tenets by which you claim to live your life, and of course that it is me who is being bigoted and hate-filled. I strongly suspect that the word 'Islamaphobe' has flashed across your consciousness several times, closely followed perhaps, if not preceded by, 'infidel', 'fatwa' and 'death threat'. You may even now be chalking up your banner and sharpening your scimitar in preperation for a march to show just how offended you are. Well, I'll be honest with you, I do hate you. I hate what you beleieve, and I hate what you stand for, but crucially, I don't want to kill you for it, and however much I dislike it, I have to accept that you have a right to believe it - can you say the same about me? I hope you'll change your mind, you'll grow up and see the real world, you'll see that beliefs founded in reality do not need violence to succeed, unless they are threatened by it, but I suspect it is too late for you, that you are so corrupted by hate and medieval bullshit that any chance of you using the mind that (you say) God gave you to actually think about this is lost. For this reason, I feel deeply sorry for you.
But of course Blasphemy day isn't just about the Muslims, it's about everyone who thinks their 'beliefs' should be above criticism (its' just that the Muslims are the only ones insecure enough to feel the need to threaten doubters with death) so without being gratuitously offensive, well not too much, here is my attempt at a little light-hearted blasphemy for each of the major faiths.Judaism: Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look headbutting that silly wall? Do you really think God would make you his 'chosen people'? Why on Earth does God want you to have such ridiculously curly hair? Just what is God planning to do with that mountain of foreskins? Seems a bit daft that he would make you so perfectly in his image, then order you to cut off a bit of your knob.
Catholicism: Ah, a monotheism. With three Gods. Who are also one God. Mmm, you drink the blood of your God - if it really was blood and not just cheap plonk, do you have any idea how disgusting that would make you? Yes, a monotheism whose followers worship a pantheon of saints. Bit odd, eh? So hows that mile-high true cross coming along, have you collected all the splinters yet?
Greek and Russian Orthodox: - as above, just can't agree on the dates. Oh, and much nicer priestly outfits, those hats are great.
Protestantism - mainstream denominations: Catholics are wrong, of course, you got it right. So right that ther're literally thousands of different churches, all interpreting the 'word of God' differently. You'd think God would be a bit more careful when writing his truths, not to make them so ambiguous eh? Well who am I to judge, you're the experts...
Protestantism - evangelical denominations: Yes, thats right, the Bible is true, all true, ALL OF IT! Especially those bits that contradict each other, they're especially true. So, are you rapture ready? Its coming, you know, any day now. Any day. Any day now... Well, OK we're still waiting, but seriously, it is coming... any day...
Islam: I hardly need say anything, you're just a complete joke. A lethal joke, but funny none the less. Take a look at the images I've included to see just how incredibly funny you really are. So fucking funny that you make me puke.
Mormonism: Oh no thats offensive isn't it? I mean Church of Jesus Christ of The Latter Day Saints: Well, the mind boggles, just reading the history of your 'religion' had me rolling in the aisles. A holy book dictated to an illiterate con-man (keep up people, I've done Islam already) telling the story of the lost tribe of Israel who somehow made it to the Americas. Gold-tabletted commandments that could only be seen by a convicted fraudster and magically disappeared into heaven afterwards... truly beyond satire. Thanks for helping me out with my genealogy research, by the way, but you need to go back through it again as you put one of my Carsberg relatives in the wrong family. I'd hate it if, come judgement day, God got all confused when reading your records and left my great great great grandfather in limbo.
Hinduism: Well take your pick, we've got a God for all occasions, and one of our holiest Gods is the one we drink from, bathe in, wash our clothes in, drain our sewerage in and of course scatter our dead in. Yummy.
Buddhism: Ah the ultimate path to enlightenment, the only way by which our essences may leave this mundane plane and escape the endless cycle of reincarnation. All you need to do is sit very still and think about it until you stop thinking about anything. And shave your head, of course, one cannot achieve spiritual enlightment with the weight of hair pressing down on you.
Sikhism: - The only path to God is to never cut your hair. What??
I think thats enough for now, as tempting as it is to rain down insults on the faithful, I'd hate to sink to their level of peurility, so I will close now by simply quoting from the Blasphemy Day website:
"Blasphemy Day, because your god is a joke."
Today is the fourth anniversary of the publication of Muhammad cartoons in Jyllands-Posten that created an international event, and the Center for Inquiry is commemorating the date as International Blasphemy Day as part of its Campaign for Free Expression. I'm happy to support this anti-holy-day.
According to some Christian theology, it's not possible to commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as described in Matthew 12:31-32 while living because it's understood as disbelief until the moment of death. I suppose it gives me something to look forward to! (No, not really.) Of course, it's still possible to commit other kinds of garden-variety blasphemy here and now. Though I'm rather less belligerent than some other bloggers, this anti-theistic blog is itself inherently blasphemous, and plenty of my previous comments would offend a great number of believers despite my never having the specific intention to do so. It's just that I've never hesitated to speak my negative opinion of religion here, fearing that it might offend someone. But of course that's not at all difficult with an anonymous publication and a small number of readers!
I'm sure there will be plenty of blasphemous cartoons, songs, poems and videos posted today, but I don't have anything special to contribute. I'm loath to say something with the sole intention of causing offense, so I'll just say something true the general population doesn't hear often enough: If Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah really existed, as portrayed in their respective scriptures, they would be absolutely evil and worthy of every ounce of contempt and derision we could muster toward them.
Today is the day that we remember that blasphemy is victimless, but that government censorship is not. Let's not forget it.
According to some Christian theology, it's not possible to commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as described in Matthew 12:31-32 while living because it's understood as disbelief until the moment of death. I suppose it gives me something to look forward to! (No, not really.) Of course, it's still possible to commit other kinds of garden-variety blasphemy here and now. Though I'm rather less belligerent than some other bloggers, this anti-theistic blog is itself inherently blasphemous, and plenty of my previous comments would offend a great number of believers despite my never having the specific intention to do so. It's just that I've never hesitated to speak my negative opinion of religion here, fearing that it might offend someone. But of course that's not at all difficult with an anonymous publication and a small number of readers!
I'm sure there will be plenty of blasphemous cartoons, songs, poems and videos posted today, but I don't have anything special to contribute. I'm loath to say something with the sole intention of causing offense, so I'll just say something true the general population doesn't hear often enough: If Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah really existed, as portrayed in their respective scriptures, they would be absolutely evil and worthy of every ounce of contempt and derision we could muster toward them.
Today is the day that we remember that blasphemy is victimless, but that government censorship is not. Let's not forget it.
Today is the fourth anniversary of the publication of Muhammad cartoons in Jyllands-Posten that created an international event, and the Center for Inquiry is commemorating the date as International Blasphemy Day as part of its Campaign for Free Expression. I'm happy to support this anti-holy-day.
According to some Christian theology, it's not possible to commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as described in Matthew 12:31-32 while living because it's understood as disbelief until the moment of death. I suppose it gives me something to look forward to! (No, not really.) Of course, it's still possible to commit other kinds of garden-variety blasphemy here and now. Though I'm rather less belligerent than some other bloggers, this anti-theistic blog is itself inherently blasphemous, and plenty of my previous comments would offend a great number of believers despite my never having the specific intention to do so. It's just that I've never hesitated to speak my negative opinion of religion here, fearing that it might offend someone. But of course that's not at all difficult with an anonymous publication and a small number of readers!
I'm sure there will be plenty of blasphemous cartoons, songs, poems and videos posted today, but I don't have anything special to contribute. I'm loath to say something with the sole intention of causing offense, so I'll just say something true the general population doesn't hear often enough: If Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah really existed, as portrayed in their respective scriptures, they would be absolutely evil and worthy of every ounce of contempt and derision we could muster toward them.
Today is the day that we remember that blasphemy is victimless, but that government censorship is not. Let's not forget it.
According to some Christian theology, it's not possible to commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as described in Matthew 12:31-32 while living because it's understood as disbelief until the moment of death. I suppose it gives me something to look forward to! (No, not really.) Of course, it's still possible to commit other kinds of garden-variety blasphemy here and now. Though I'm rather less belligerent than some other bloggers, this anti-theistic blog is itself inherently blasphemous, and plenty of my previous comments would offend a great number of believers despite my never having the specific intention to do so. It's just that I've never hesitated to speak my negative opinion of religion here, fearing that it might offend someone. But of course that's not at all difficult with an anonymous publication and a small number of readers!
I'm sure there will be plenty of blasphemous cartoons, songs, poems and videos posted today, but I don't have anything special to contribute. I'm loath to say something with the sole intention of causing offense, so I'll just say something true the general population doesn't hear often enough: If Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah really existed, as portrayed in their respective scriptures, they would be absolutely evil and worthy of every ounce of contempt and derision we could muster toward them.
Today is the day that we remember that blasphemy is victimless, but that government censorship is not. Let's not forget it.
In my previous post, Polish Catholic Magazine Ordered to Pay Damages to Abortion Woman I mentioned that the editor of the magazine, Father Marek Gancarczyk, was accused of comparing abortion to the Nazi and other fascist exterminations of Jews carried out in Europe in the 1930's and 40's. When discussing many societies' growing acceptance of abortion, at least on medical grounds, he wrote that "They had become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp. And what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible." A clear statement to the effect that all those who tolerate abortion are no different to the citizens of the Third Reich and other fascist regimes who made no attempt to stop the exterminations of Jews, Romany, Homosexuals, the mentally ill and other minorities during the darkest years of our continent's recent history. By stating "what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible." he clearly means to say that the abortion of foetuses for any reason is comparable to rounding up, imprisoning, torturing, starving, raping, beating and eventually shooting or gassing millions of people.
After my initial anger at reading this had subsided, I tried to think about why and how he could make this comparison, and really mean it. I tried to understand it from his point of view, but I just can't. Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of abortion, one cannot possibly reasonably compare the killing, even 'murder' if you insist, of an embryo with little or no feeling or sensation of pain, and absolutely no comprehension of it, that exists only as a potential life, to the brutal torture and incarceration of a fully grown human being with thoughts, feelings, a full understanding of what pain means, living in hell in the full knowledge that at any time they are likely to be shot or gassed.
So even when I attempt to be reasonable I cannot forgive Father Gancarczyk for making such a disgusting comparison.
But I'm not going to be reasonable, because of course Father Gancarczyk is a Catholic. And that means that whatever he and his fellow Catholics feel about the Holocaust now, and however much they may like to say that murdering lots of Jews is really bad (at least as bad as abortion, anyway) the Church as an organisation was, shall we say, somewhat less bothered by the murder of around 6 million people at the time.
Before Hitler rose to power in 1933, the Church frowned on membership of the Nazi party, and threatened excommunication to clergy who joined it. Dismayed by the erosion of Church authority (specifically in the areas of education and culture) under the Weimar republic however, the Vatican was pleased to negotiate the Reichskonkordat with Hitler's new government in 1933, and although the Church retained certain 'reservations' about the Nazi party, the threat of excommunication for those who wanted to join it was lifted.
Fact: - The first international treaty signed by Hitler's government was with the Vatican.
Fact: - Parishes were ordered by the Church to hand over their records to the Nazi authorities, greatly assisting them in their quest to identify Jews.
Relations between the Vatican and Germany were strained at best during the 30's, and the Vatican made frequent protestations to Hitler's government about the treatment of Jews and other minorities. What really annoyed the Church though, enough to request every priest to deliver a sermon on the subject, was the Nazi party's use of pagan symbolism.
Pope Pius XI died in 1939, and with him died any possibility of the Church taking any kind of strong, meaningful stand against Hitler's regime. The Cardinal, who as Vatican foreign secretary had negotiated and signed the Concordat with Hitler in 1933, was elected Pope Pius XII. The Vatican took a resolutely neutral position throughout the war.
Whilst the Church's official position was ambiguous at best, of course many Catholics risked their lives to speak out against Nazism, or to take direct action by saving Jews from certain death, and this is of course commendable, but set against the fact that so many of Hitler's high command were devout Catholics, and that approximately 30% of Germany's population were Catholic (from which you can pretty easily infer that around 30% of concentration camp guards were probably also Catholic) the actions of a few decent people hardly weighs against the complicity of a few millions.
So Catholics had not only "become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp" but were in fact responsible for many of those murders in the first place, from the whole conception of the Holocaust (Himmler) to the people responsible for implementing it (notably Rudolf Hoss and others) right down to the ordinary foot-guards in the firing squads and gas chambers.
Fact: - No Catholic, from the leaders of the Nazi party or the SS, right down to ordinary foot soldiers and civilians, no matter how many deaths and how much misery they were responsible for, was excommunicated for their part in the Holocaust.
Fact: - Any Catholic who wished to join the Italian communist party after the war, was threatened with excommunication.
Fact: - The Vatican helped several war criminals escape to south America by issuing passports to them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for this particular instance of the murder of millions of innocents, just that it was at least as complicit, if not more so, as anybody else. I would like it therefore if flat-footed ignorant cretins like Father Marek Gancarczyk would pause for a moment and bear this in mind before they ever, ever attempt to invoke the greatest crime of all time in support of their pathetic, half-baked, knee-jerk, ill-conceived and anti-intellectual positions.
The picture I include at the top of this article is deliberately provocative, but I hope it will serve to remind Catholics of why they should keep their ignorant mouths shut, and rest their bilious writing hands without setting pen to paper, next time the thought of invoking the Holocaust in favour of their 'argument' occurs to them.
Only a cold-hearted scientist can take their friends and turn them into numbers. Courtesy of the Friend Facts Facebook app, I have the following statistics regarding my Facebook friends:
Gender breakdown: 33% female / 67% male
Relationship status: 57% single / 43% taken
Political breakdown: 97% democrats / 3% republicans
Geographic distribution: 12 countries, 24 states
Most common zodiac sign: Aries (20 friends)
Favorite music: Pink Floyd (16 friends)
Favorite TV show: House (17 friends)
Favorite movie: Fight Club (12 friends)
Favorite book: The God Delusion (21 friends)
Favorite activity: Reading (23 friends)
Now, my Facebook friends are pretty much entirely comprised of skeptical people because they come seeking me because I’m mildly Internet-”famous”. Of course, these are mostly skeptics who like me (there are some who don’t) so it’s biased in that way, but humor me for a little bit.
I’m unsurprised but highly amused by the most common activity, book, and TV show. I’m mildly surprised by the political distribution although I’d have suspected it. However, since this app does not take into account the Libertarians I must be friends with, I’m going to go ahead and assume I generally only piss off the socially conservative of the fiscally conservative population.
But I suspected all along that you shifty Aries were more disposed towards skepticism of astrology!
What’s really bothering me, though, is the gender ratio. From what I’ve heard, TAM 7 (or was it 6? I’ve forgotten already) also had a similar ratio. Most skeptics were saying that was only because women aren’t as inclined towards going to conferences and that outside of the conference the ratio was more balanced, but I didn’t meet all these people at TAM.
Seeing that I’m a blogger, however, perhaps it is true that the number of skeptics in general has a balanced gender ratio but women are less interested in skeptical activism.
But, of course, this is just my Facebook and I’m but one person. I can only speculate a little.
Now, this isn’t very scientific, but I’m just a little bit curious. I’d like anybody reading this with a Facebook to use this app and post your stats in the comments.
I have had many worthwhile discussions with Demian Farnworth of the Christian blog Fallen and Flawed. Our most recent exchange began with his description of writer A.N. Wilson's reconversion to religion.
I found several of the statements made in Farnworth's analysis to be provocative. Perhaps the most intriguing statement I found was this claim:
I decided to enter the fray, and set my naturalistic beliefs side by side with Christianity, and attempt to compare which view could actually better explain the complexities of our existence.
I made a brief argument against Christian theism via the origin of suffering.
Traditionally, almost all Christians have interpreted the text in the Genesis creation stories to imply that their god originally created a paradise on Earth, and that only the disobedient sin of Adam and Eve introduced suffering into our world.
At the end of the video, Current's character states:
"You know, it's almost like, here on Earth, it's every species for itself.
Humans don't get any special treatment at all, do they?
It's because life evolves - through natural selection, not Intelligent Design."
I found several of the statements made in Farnworth's analysis to be provocative. Perhaps the most intriguing statement I found was this claim:
Materialism can not adequately explain our complex world. Christianity, on the other hand, as a working blueprint for life, can.Since a substantial portion of my deconversion from Christianity has hinged upon the exact opposite argument - that while Christianity cannot adequately explain our complex world, naturalism can provide a working blueprint for life, to paraphrase the structure of Farnworth's claim - I was intrigued to see a discussion of this argument from a viewpoint distinct from my own.
I decided to enter the fray, and set my naturalistic beliefs side by side with Christianity, and attempt to compare which view could actually better explain the complexities of our existence.
I made a brief argument against Christian theism via the origin of suffering.
Traditionally, almost all Christians have interpreted the text in the Genesis creation stories to imply that their god originally created a paradise on Earth, and that only the disobedient sin of Adam and Eve introduced suffering into our world.
If suffering is inherent in the nature of the world, and not brought into the world by the transgressions of humanity – if the evil that happens in the world cannot possibly be the direct result of a Biblical Fall as depicted in Genesis, then traditional Christianity is falsified. Do you agree?Here's an excerpt from Demian's reply, which he made shortly after my original comment:
I have found that suffering persisted in our world for an incredibly long time before the first existence of humanity, therefore I believe it is impossible that humanity is the direct cause of evil and injustice in our world, and that therefore almost all types of Christianity are either absurd or implausible.
Second, your argument for naturalism hinges on suffering existing before man. I don’t quite understand that. How could suffering exist before mankind? And how do you know? Furthermore, how do you define suffering in terms of naturalism? In other words, if the natural state of things is beast eat beast, how can you say “that’s suffering?” How are you defining suffering, that’s really what’s at stake.Those are good questions. How should suffering be defined? How could suffering exist before humanity? Here's a hint to what I believe, courtesy of YouTube satirist Edward Current:
At the end of the video, Current's character states:
"You know, it's almost like, here on Earth, it's every species for itself.
Humans don't get any special treatment at all, do they?
It's because life evolves - through natural selection, not Intelligent Design."
A Roman Catholic magazine by the name of Gosc Niedzielny, published by the Polish archdiocese of Katowice, was ordered on Wednesday to pay damages of 30,000 Zloties (approx. $11,000 US or 7,400 Euros) and issue a written apology to a woman who sought an abortion on medical grounds, after likening her to a child murderer and comparing abortion to Nazi war crimes.
Alicje Tysiac, now 38, was not allowed to abort her third child back in 2000 despite being told by doctors that giving birth could cost her her sight. Abortion is illegal in Poland except in extreme circumstances, such as if the life of the mother is threatened, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and even then only up to the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
As a result of the birth, Ms Tysiac suffered a retinal haemorraghe and her eyesight is now irreversibly damaged.
Ms Tysiac took her case to the European Court of Human Rights and in 2007 the Polish Government were ordered to pay her 25,000 Euros in compensation.
Following this ruling the magazine's editor, Father Marek Gancarczyk, wrote: "We live in a world where a mother receives an award for very much wanting to kill her child, but not being allowed to do so."
In a clear comparison between the acceptance of abortion and the Nazi extermination of Jews his article also stated that: "They had become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp. And what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible."
Judge Ewa Solecka ruled that the article (whose text I am unfortunately unable to find; I'm sure its a delightful read) had shown "contempt, hostility and malice" toward Ms Tysiac and ordered the magazine to compensate her and issue an apology. The judge also said that Catholics have the right to express their disapproval of abortion, and to call it murder, but they do not have the right to vilify (IE libel) individuals.
The magazine is planning an appeal on grounds of "infringement of freedom of speech". The editor also denied comparing abortion to Nazi exterminations, as well he might, as I'll come to shortly.
OK, we all know that there are many good reasons for being opposed to abortion as simply a choice, fewer for being opposed to it in cases such as this where there are medical grounds for seeking one. I would state categorically that religious belief, and adherence to religious doctrine, do not count as legitimate reasons for anything at all. In any circumstances, for any reason, ever. If your opinion - no matter how deeply and passionately held, however genuinely and even well-intentioned it is - is based upon a belief; based upon what you have been told by an authority, whose own authority rests simply on belief and tradition; based upon a random interpretation of an old book (that you almost certainly have not read from cover to cover) that you believe to be the word of God, a God you cannot prove or in fact feel any need to prove because you know he exists, and you know your opinion comes from doing what he wants, then quite frankly, your opinion is worth about as much as one of my farts, so kindly keep it yourself.
I'll say it again - opinions derived from religion are worth nothing. Absolutely nothing at all, because they are based upon nothing. If you want to bring real morality to a discussion, to invoke (in this instance) science, medicine, or give a real reason why this lady should have been forced to have a child that could've blinded her, then I'm sure you could find lots of decent things to say and have a really good, mature discussion about it - perhaps even win the debate. If you want to say that you think abortion is simply murder, in any circumstances, but hide behind an invisible man in the sky (or all-too visible Nazi in the Vatican) rather than actually think (if you are capable of it) why you really hold this opinion, then you need to have your bible (large print, naturally) inserted width-ways into the aperture you normally use to speak out of. Alternatively, shut the fuck up until you have something constructive to bring to the discussion, you faith-obsessed simpleton.
OK, first rant over, and I know before you say it that I'm not being very constructive here either, and you will have noticed by now that I've not actually stated what I think about abortion as a whole, or this case in particular. Well sorry to disappoint, but my personal opinion on the subject is worth very little too, and will remain hidden unless you want to contact me and really find out. (Don't bother, it's almost certainly not worth it.)
Does this disqualify me from commenting on this case? I think not, because whilst my opinion on this particular case is largely worthless, the continuing damage done to all and sundry by the witless witterings of the Catholic clergy compels me to speak out, and roundly condemn the Church and all its minions and followers as deluded, dangerous and deeply damaging. (Yes, I am experimenting with alliteration, well spotted.)
In this instance you might have little or no sympathy for Ms Tysiac because she was told after the birth of her second child that having another could blind her. How foolish, you may say, to get pregnant again - she should have used contraceptives... No, of course not, that isn't allowed by the Catholic church either. Perhaps she should have abstained from sex, after all, if male priests can control all their sexual urges and remain celibate... Best not go there for now eh? There's a whole blogs-worth of comments on that score. No, of course the Church would not force her to abstain from sex; it doesn't deal in cruelty and misery, after all... they would probably recommend 'natural' methods of contraception such as hoping for the best and coitus interruptus, well known to work of course, and who better to advise you on this subject than an organisation entirely made up of men who have never had sex (well, consensual sex with an adult, anyway)?
I'm slightly puzzled as to why the Church does not allow contraception, and yet thinks that pulling your wang out before you ejaculate would not frustrate God's plans. Or why cunningly working out which days you'll (probably, unless your unlucky) be ovulating and not having sex on those days does not go against God's grand design of filling up the world with even more Catholics. I know I haven't been educated enough in the ways of divinity to understand the difference, so I apologise for being such an ignorant heathen, but it just seems a bit daft to me.
If you'll just indulge me a while: - pull out your head from your pious arsehole, wipe the excrement of papal dogma from your eyes and take a quick peak at the real World, allowing what you see to penetrate the mush of musty old stories gathering dust in what could have been your brain, now - see more clearly? Good... tell me what is the difference between not conceiving by wearing a johnny, and not conceiving by not having sex at every single opportunity? Why is it wrong in the Pope's eyes to crack one off, but OK to pull out at the last minute? Why do I produce enough sperm with each ejaculation to repopulate half of Europe? If each human embryo produced is a sacred and blessed life, a little miracle granted the gift of life by God, why do so many of them spontaneously abort? A few other questions spring to mind but you get my point. Can you answer me without saying 'God'? Can you? Can you give me an answer based in reality? I doubt it, but don't worry, it's OK, panic over, you may now replace your head... feel the walls of your religious rectum close over your eyes and ears... yes, that's better, isn't it? Now you can give me a really good, if slightly muffled, answer from the comfort of your own intestines, or perhaps even issue a challenge. Who am I to question Papal authority? To question the rulings of Christ's Vicar on Earth? Who indeed.
I said earlier that I would turn to Father Gancarczyk's comparison between abortion and the Holocaust, but actually I've decided to put that in a separate post. Many of you will be aware of the Church's almost gleeful collaboration with the Nazis, and why any Catholic figure should know better than ever to even allude to them, far less try to use them to further their cause, regardless of how far up their gastro-intestinal tract their head may be.
Comments and abuse welcome.
Alicje Tysiac, now 38, was not allowed to abort her third child back in 2000 despite being told by doctors that giving birth could cost her her sight. Abortion is illegal in Poland except in extreme circumstances, such as if the life of the mother is threatened, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and even then only up to the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
As a result of the birth, Ms Tysiac suffered a retinal haemorraghe and her eyesight is now irreversibly damaged.
Ms Tysiac took her case to the European Court of Human Rights and in 2007 the Polish Government were ordered to pay her 25,000 Euros in compensation.
Following this ruling the magazine's editor, Father Marek Gancarczyk, wrote: "We live in a world where a mother receives an award for very much wanting to kill her child, but not being allowed to do so."
In a clear comparison between the acceptance of abortion and the Nazi extermination of Jews his article also stated that: "They had become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp. And what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible."
Judge Ewa Solecka ruled that the article (whose text I am unfortunately unable to find; I'm sure its a delightful read) had shown "contempt, hostility and malice" toward Ms Tysiac and ordered the magazine to compensate her and issue an apology. The judge also said that Catholics have the right to express their disapproval of abortion, and to call it murder, but they do not have the right to vilify (IE libel) individuals.
The magazine is planning an appeal on grounds of "infringement of freedom of speech". The editor also denied comparing abortion to Nazi exterminations, as well he might, as I'll come to shortly.
OK, we all know that there are many good reasons for being opposed to abortion as simply a choice, fewer for being opposed to it in cases such as this where there are medical grounds for seeking one. I would state categorically that religious belief, and adherence to religious doctrine, do not count as legitimate reasons for anything at all. In any circumstances, for any reason, ever. If your opinion - no matter how deeply and passionately held, however genuinely and even well-intentioned it is - is based upon a belief; based upon what you have been told by an authority, whose own authority rests simply on belief and tradition; based upon a random interpretation of an old book (that you almost certainly have not read from cover to cover) that you believe to be the word of God, a God you cannot prove or in fact feel any need to prove because you know he exists, and you know your opinion comes from doing what he wants, then quite frankly, your opinion is worth about as much as one of my farts, so kindly keep it yourself.
I'll say it again - opinions derived from religion are worth nothing. Absolutely nothing at all, because they are based upon nothing. If you want to bring real morality to a discussion, to invoke (in this instance) science, medicine, or give a real reason why this lady should have been forced to have a child that could've blinded her, then I'm sure you could find lots of decent things to say and have a really good, mature discussion about it - perhaps even win the debate. If you want to say that you think abortion is simply murder, in any circumstances, but hide behind an invisible man in the sky (or all-too visible Nazi in the Vatican) rather than actually think (if you are capable of it) why you really hold this opinion, then you need to have your bible (large print, naturally) inserted width-ways into the aperture you normally use to speak out of. Alternatively, shut the fuck up until you have something constructive to bring to the discussion, you faith-obsessed simpleton.
OK, first rant over, and I know before you say it that I'm not being very constructive here either, and you will have noticed by now that I've not actually stated what I think about abortion as a whole, or this case in particular. Well sorry to disappoint, but my personal opinion on the subject is worth very little too, and will remain hidden unless you want to contact me and really find out. (Don't bother, it's almost certainly not worth it.)
Does this disqualify me from commenting on this case? I think not, because whilst my opinion on this particular case is largely worthless, the continuing damage done to all and sundry by the witless witterings of the Catholic clergy compels me to speak out, and roundly condemn the Church and all its minions and followers as deluded, dangerous and deeply damaging. (Yes, I am experimenting with alliteration, well spotted.)
In this instance you might have little or no sympathy for Ms Tysiac because she was told after the birth of her second child that having another could blind her. How foolish, you may say, to get pregnant again - she should have used contraceptives... No, of course not, that isn't allowed by the Catholic church either. Perhaps she should have abstained from sex, after all, if male priests can control all their sexual urges and remain celibate... Best not go there for now eh? There's a whole blogs-worth of comments on that score. No, of course the Church would not force her to abstain from sex; it doesn't deal in cruelty and misery, after all... they would probably recommend 'natural' methods of contraception such as hoping for the best and coitus interruptus, well known to work of course, and who better to advise you on this subject than an organisation entirely made up of men who have never had sex (well, consensual sex with an adult, anyway)?
I'm slightly puzzled as to why the Church does not allow contraception, and yet thinks that pulling your wang out before you ejaculate would not frustrate God's plans. Or why cunningly working out which days you'll (probably, unless your unlucky) be ovulating and not having sex on those days does not go against God's grand design of filling up the world with even more Catholics. I know I haven't been educated enough in the ways of divinity to understand the difference, so I apologise for being such an ignorant heathen, but it just seems a bit daft to me.
If you'll just indulge me a while: - pull out your head from your pious arsehole, wipe the excrement of papal dogma from your eyes and take a quick peak at the real World, allowing what you see to penetrate the mush of musty old stories gathering dust in what could have been your brain, now - see more clearly? Good... tell me what is the difference between not conceiving by wearing a johnny, and not conceiving by not having sex at every single opportunity? Why is it wrong in the Pope's eyes to crack one off, but OK to pull out at the last minute? Why do I produce enough sperm with each ejaculation to repopulate half of Europe? If each human embryo produced is a sacred and blessed life, a little miracle granted the gift of life by God, why do so many of them spontaneously abort? A few other questions spring to mind but you get my point. Can you answer me without saying 'God'? Can you? Can you give me an answer based in reality? I doubt it, but don't worry, it's OK, panic over, you may now replace your head... feel the walls of your religious rectum close over your eyes and ears... yes, that's better, isn't it? Now you can give me a really good, if slightly muffled, answer from the comfort of your own intestines, or perhaps even issue a challenge. Who am I to question Papal authority? To question the rulings of Christ's Vicar on Earth? Who indeed.
I said earlier that I would turn to Father Gancarczyk's comparison between abortion and the Holocaust, but actually I've decided to put that in a separate post. Many of you will be aware of the Church's almost gleeful collaboration with the Nazis, and why any Catholic figure should know better than ever to even allude to them, far less try to use them to further their cause, regardless of how far up their gastro-intestinal tract their head may be.
Comments and abuse welcome.
I was fifteen or so when my book-lust started in earnest. That is the stage when one makes the discovery that these little rectangular paper miracles will be the among the most important things in your life, because they are so much more than mere things.
I recall starting the never-ending process of compiling a list of all the important books I’d have to read. This generally consisted of perusing the bookstore shelves, noting the total number of volumes of a given title, and absorbing the back-cover copy–and always, in my case, scanning for the keyword “classic.” Ah, the important books, the ones that were not mere ephemera; those that had endured.
High on the list, then, were the two famous books of George Orwell, 1984 and Animal Farm. I read them, I loved them, I recommended them, and in the case of the latter, re-read it several more times over the years (and have now had my own fifteen year-old son read it). But to my mind, that was all that Orwell ever really wrote. I vaguely knew of other titles, but given that they were never mentioned in the same breath as his two great books, I assumed they were second-rate.
I have just learned that there is absolutely nothing second-rate about his novel Burmese Days. Quite the contrary, I found that it towers over the other works I reflexively associate with Orwell. Set in a small British colonial village in what is now Myanmar, the story traces the repercussions of the political and social scheming and machinations that both the English and the natives constantly engage in. The main character, John Flory, suffers from the same boredom and dipsomania as the handful of xenophobic Europeans that gather nightly at the whites-only “Club” – but his innate fairness and desire for a more meaningful life set him at odds with the others. The arrival of a single young woman, the attractive but shallow, soulless Elizabeth Lackersteen, is the catalyst that sets off what feels like an inexorable march toward disaster.
The writing is lean, rich and honest – Orwell is a master of that parsimonious use of language that is the first prerequisite of a great novel. His similes are abundant and spot-on. (I particularly liked like his description of Flory awaking with a hangover such that his “head felt as though some large, sharp-cornered metal object were bumping about inside it.”)
Often brutal, occasionally very funny, it relentlessly exposes human ugliness and weakness, and the consequences that seem inevitable when an occupying imperial class stagnates and festers in the midst of people they consider subhuman. The story never flags and the pacing is perfect. Every major character is so well-drawn that each rapidly becomes something like an archetype.
One aspect that might pose difficulty for some readers is Orwell’s continuous use of the common vernacular of the time and place of the novel. There are many terms and names that few readers will recognize. I just let the words flow over me and avoided the urge to stop and find somewhere to look up their definitions; I found that this did not diminish my appreciation at all. Eventually the foreign terms began to make themselves clear. Perhaps some other edition exists that has a glossary – it would be an attractive addition to the book. In any case, I cannot recommend this novel highly enough, and I cannot wait to read all of Orwell’s other lesser-known books.
This is the story of my deconversion from Christianity. I originally posted this account on the Forum of the blog "Unreasonable Faith". I hope you'll enjoy it.
I have been raised as a Christian, having attended services for most of my life at a small ELCA Lutheran congregation. I was baptized as a baby, and I was confirmed around the time I entered high school. I attended Sunday school, Bible studies, and church camps. I sang in the choir and I was an acolyte, usher, and greeter.
However, despite my active involvement in the church, I had not thought much about the basic essentials of my beliefs. I had read large portions of the Bible (I still haven't gotten myself to read it all - I've been meaning to do it), and I prayed often, but while I grew up, I was never confronted by any serious challenges to my perspective. I had friends who went to other churches, but I didn't really know anyone who was non-religious. I had this default assumption that there was a God, and that most of things I had been told in church were true.
I was never really one to question authority, and I enjoyed church greatly, and I had a lot of friends there at first. I wish I had a higher voice so I could sing "I Wander As I Wonder" in the proper key. That hymn is eerie, and that is why it was always one of my favorites.
Many things happened to me when I was in junior high and high school. Several rifts developed in my church, attendance lowered, and we had some pastoral changes. I also first learned that some of my friends were atheists or agnostics. It actually shocked me at first -- I grew in a fairly conservative community. Every time I drive on the highway, I spy a large billboard which declares "Trust In The LORD With All Your Heart". I thought to myself, 'atheist?! I don't believe that.'
But I didn't really know them that well, so I shrugged it off.
When I was a junior in high school, one of my closer friends let me know that he is an atheist when we were discussing religion. I started debating (casually) with him and his friends about religion during our study hall period. I was the Christian, and there were two others who were atheists.
Some of the questions he asked made me reflect for a bit, but I wasn't very phased. I didn't have a literal interpretation of the Bible, and I accepted evolution, so we actually agreed on a lot. I wasn't affected by a lot of the arguments he used in the areas that we agreed. However, looking back on the experience, I think if my friends had spent more time on how those points specifically apply to religion, I would've been more receptive. But I also realize that they didn't want to push me too hard, because we were friends, and they didn't want to ruin our friendship, which I also appreciate and understand.
He did ask me why God would create homosexuality and condemn it in the Bible? I didn't know - I was unsure. I didn't think he would. My friend referenced Leviticus, and I pretty much ignored it, I have to admit. I could've been more open-minded.
He also wanted to know if I didn't take the Bible literally, how did I *know* which parts were metaphorical and which were not? I gave an answer I had already heard, that the Holy Spirit guides the believer in the interpretation of the Bible. If I were my friend now, I would've emphasized the divisions in church history. I do remember that my friend emphasized the corruption of certain church leaders, but I always brushed these criticisms away by saying that God's church was for imperfect people, as everything human in this world was imperfect. Maybe I would've been more receptive if he had argued specifically that the existence of so many divisions on interpretation and meaning of scriptures, which accord with cultural practices, makes it supremely unlikely that the texts are divinely inspired. However, that is a complicated argument and hard to fit into a 25-minute study hall period, and I know that when atheists talk to Christians, the harder they argue, the more militant or harsh they seem. I know this can be the case, so I can again understand why my friend didn't press me harder, and I do appreciate his willingness to put our friendship ahead of mere ideological differences.
When I was a senior, my English teacher exposed me to existentialism - I started reading Camus and Sartre. However, I maintained that this was fully compatible with my Christianity, and in retrospective, I don't think that this was a contributing factor to my deconversion.
I also began reading a lot of Vonnegut when I was in high school. I read Player Piano, Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse Five, and Slapstick. Those are all excellent, and I also read Vonnegut's brief essay autobiography, the title of which I cannot recall. I <3 Billy Pilgrim! But I hated the ending of Cat's Cradle - I despised it. It was so irredeemably depressing and gloomy. Somehow, Slapstick was the most amusing and intriguing book of the four, though it seems to be the least popular and the least well-known. There are many excerpts about tribal and community ties which really hit home what it means to be part of a group of people with the same feelings and the same beliefs. I think that book did lay some of the groundwork for my later epiphanies.
Finally, last year I was a freshmen in college. The summer before I left, I had to arrange a schedule of coursework. I was trying to fill my schedule with general education requirement classes, and I wanted to take World Politics very badly. Instead, my counselor stuck me with Forms of the Sacred, a class on Eastern religion. This would prove to be quite fateful.
The second or third week of school, we also had an activities fair. I was out walking after lunch one day, and I strolled along the path in the main common area to visit the booths for all of the clubs on campus.
I spied a banner for a non-religious group. Intrigued, I stumbled over to the display, and asked the volunteer about the nature of the club. I was told that this was a new club for discussing religion, which would primarily be focused on atheists and agnostics. Since I had discussed religion with my friends in high school, I added my information to the mailing so I could stay in contact with the club.
So two or three weeks afterward, I am sitting in my religion class, nonchalantly scribbling notes. We're talking Hinduism, and my professor is going off on a tangent. My ears perked up. The tangents were what made that class - I loved my professor's sense of humor and offbeat commentary.
So anyway, he's talking about all of the different religions in the East, and how they relate, and he casually lets out that some scholars speculated that there might be a link between the proto-religions of the East and some of the western religions. Normally, that would just be an interesting tidbit, a typically inane musing which may fascinate those students who are paying attention.
But that careless slight, that unintended observation -- it struck me. I really had an existential crisis. I felt a surge of doubt paralyze me at that very moment; thoughts of "what if this (my beliefs that I had grown up with) isn't true??!!"
"What if this isn't true?!"
Doubt. I was struck by doubt. Nagging, overwhelming, unceasing, terrifying doubt.
I suddenly realized that I had no idea why I believed what I did.
That was the beginning - that was the day I quit believing in "faith".
And of course, one of the first ever meetings of the atheists and agnostics organization was scheduled later that very week. So I went, not knowing what would happen. All I knew was uncertainty.
So I went. The chairs were arranged in a circular fashion. One of the first things that occurred, since everyone was just getting to know each other, was that each individual in the circle was supposed to say a little bit about themselves: what year they were in, where they were from, something cool about themselves, and if they were an atheist or agnostic, when they became one.
I was one of the last people to be reached, so I got to hear almost everyone else's accounts first.
I was quite nervous at that moment, I must admit. I really didn't know what to say -- I hadn't really reached out to anyone by that point. When I first told my Catholic roommate that I was going to go to the meeting, he looked at me with suspicion because I had already told him that summer that I was a Christian. I told him that I was a Christian, but that I was going anyway because I was interested in the group.
It was sort of a fib. I wasn't sure anymore if I was a Christian or not, because of the doubt that I was experiencing at that time.
Finally, it was my turn to speak. I related my year, where I was from, my hobbies, and my name. Then I stammered something like this:
"Well, I'm not really sure what I believe right now. I was raised as a Christian, but since I've gone to college..."
My brain fizzled. What was I going to say?
"I think my faith has..."
I couldn't say anymore, but I took my hand and made a downwards motion.
In the days before the meeting, I had begun to do some additional research about religion, and I continued this after I returned from the meeting.
Every time I examined my old beliefs, they made less and less sense to me.
The Bible seemed incomprehensible to me. I started asking a lot more questions about it that I couldn't answer. The evidence for a historical Jesus who did the things the Bible claimed was less than I would have liked to believe (I had never actually thought about whether he actually had existed and did the things the Gospels said he did.) It seemed there was too much cruelty and suffering in the world. Evolution and naturalism seemed to be performing spectacularly. Christianity was failing miserably. Everywhere I turned, it appeared that the answer could be better explained if there were no all-good, all-loving, interventionary god.
Finally, there was one particular area that seemed to be the nail in the coffin for my prior religious beliefs.
All the other religions in the world. I had heard Krishna call for grace - I had heard Buddha call for compassion in the wake of suffering - I had heard creation stories which sounded more plausible than the ones I heard growing up. "There was a time when there was neither nothing, nor something". That's a real creation story.
Frankly, Christianity became just another religion, just another faith, and just another mythology. People who believed in other religions seemed to be just as moral as Christians. People who were Christian based their moral ideas on the same principles that non-Christian people used.
And almost all of the so-called religious experiences claimed were more similar than they were different, no matter what the religion.
I remember reading of Near Death Experiences where Native Americans saw a vision of a great chief, where some Hindus saw a great bureaucracy in the sky, and Christians saw heaven and hell.
And even if that weren't enough, I began reading about neuroscience. I became convinced that there is no such entity as the soul. If I needed yet another nail in the coffin, that was definitely it.
The experiments demonstrate that when the brain is harmed, all of the things which have traditionally been identified with the soul are damaged.
What is the soul? Isn't the soul the essence of who you are? And what is the essence of who you are? When the brain is damaged, the essence of who you are changes irrevocably. So when the brain is damaged, is your soul damaged, or is your soul the brain? But we know what happens to the brain when you die -- it rots. So much for the after-life? How can you have a soul to be judged without the brain? It's not plausible.
Lastly, I was already an agnostic atheist for many months before I read "The Evolution of God", but it really cemented many of the conclusions which I had already reached. The evidence which emerges from the sections about political influences on the Old Testament, why the Israelites came out of Canaan and not out of Egypt, and why Paul sold Christianity the way he did in the days of the early faith really make it difficult for me to revert to Christianity or any religion similar to it.
I am an agnostic atheist. I believe that most, if not all, of the gods ever worshiped by humanity are implausible. I do not know if there are ultimately any gods or higher powers. However, I live as if there are none.
Even if there are gods or higher powers in or outside of the universe, I believe that I am living more deeply in communion with them by not adopting a set of beliefs which I am 99% sure are false, and by trying my best to live a moral life based on empathy and respect.
I know that I have prattled on at great length, but I thank all of you for sharing in my journey and my experiences. Thank you.
I have been raised as a Christian, having attended services for most of my life at a small ELCA Lutheran congregation. I was baptized as a baby, and I was confirmed around the time I entered high school. I attended Sunday school, Bible studies, and church camps. I sang in the choir and I was an acolyte, usher, and greeter.
However, despite my active involvement in the church, I had not thought much about the basic essentials of my beliefs. I had read large portions of the Bible (I still haven't gotten myself to read it all - I've been meaning to do it), and I prayed often, but while I grew up, I was never confronted by any serious challenges to my perspective. I had friends who went to other churches, but I didn't really know anyone who was non-religious. I had this default assumption that there was a God, and that most of things I had been told in church were true.
I was never really one to question authority, and I enjoyed church greatly, and I had a lot of friends there at first. I wish I had a higher voice so I could sing "I Wander As I Wonder" in the proper key. That hymn is eerie, and that is why it was always one of my favorites.
Many things happened to me when I was in junior high and high school. Several rifts developed in my church, attendance lowered, and we had some pastoral changes. I also first learned that some of my friends were atheists or agnostics. It actually shocked me at first -- I grew in a fairly conservative community. Every time I drive on the highway, I spy a large billboard which declares "Trust In The LORD With All Your Heart". I thought to myself, 'atheist?! I don't believe that.'
But I didn't really know them that well, so I shrugged it off.
When I was a junior in high school, one of my closer friends let me know that he is an atheist when we were discussing religion. I started debating (casually) with him and his friends about religion during our study hall period. I was the Christian, and there were two others who were atheists.
Some of the questions he asked made me reflect for a bit, but I wasn't very phased. I didn't have a literal interpretation of the Bible, and I accepted evolution, so we actually agreed on a lot. I wasn't affected by a lot of the arguments he used in the areas that we agreed. However, looking back on the experience, I think if my friends had spent more time on how those points specifically apply to religion, I would've been more receptive. But I also realize that they didn't want to push me too hard, because we were friends, and they didn't want to ruin our friendship, which I also appreciate and understand.
He did ask me why God would create homosexuality and condemn it in the Bible? I didn't know - I was unsure. I didn't think he would. My friend referenced Leviticus, and I pretty much ignored it, I have to admit. I could've been more open-minded.
He also wanted to know if I didn't take the Bible literally, how did I *know* which parts were metaphorical and which were not? I gave an answer I had already heard, that the Holy Spirit guides the believer in the interpretation of the Bible. If I were my friend now, I would've emphasized the divisions in church history. I do remember that my friend emphasized the corruption of certain church leaders, but I always brushed these criticisms away by saying that God's church was for imperfect people, as everything human in this world was imperfect. Maybe I would've been more receptive if he had argued specifically that the existence of so many divisions on interpretation and meaning of scriptures, which accord with cultural practices, makes it supremely unlikely that the texts are divinely inspired. However, that is a complicated argument and hard to fit into a 25-minute study hall period, and I know that when atheists talk to Christians, the harder they argue, the more militant or harsh they seem. I know this can be the case, so I can again understand why my friend didn't press me harder, and I do appreciate his willingness to put our friendship ahead of mere ideological differences.
When I was a senior, my English teacher exposed me to existentialism - I started reading Camus and Sartre. However, I maintained that this was fully compatible with my Christianity, and in retrospective, I don't think that this was a contributing factor to my deconversion.
I also began reading a lot of Vonnegut when I was in high school. I read Player Piano, Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse Five, and Slapstick. Those are all excellent, and I also read Vonnegut's brief essay autobiography, the title of which I cannot recall. I <3 Billy Pilgrim! But I hated the ending of Cat's Cradle - I despised it. It was so irredeemably depressing and gloomy. Somehow, Slapstick was the most amusing and intriguing book of the four, though it seems to be the least popular and the least well-known. There are many excerpts about tribal and community ties which really hit home what it means to be part of a group of people with the same feelings and the same beliefs. I think that book did lay some of the groundwork for my later epiphanies.
Finally, last year I was a freshmen in college. The summer before I left, I had to arrange a schedule of coursework. I was trying to fill my schedule with general education requirement classes, and I wanted to take World Politics very badly. Instead, my counselor stuck me with Forms of the Sacred, a class on Eastern religion. This would prove to be quite fateful.
The second or third week of school, we also had an activities fair. I was out walking after lunch one day, and I strolled along the path in the main common area to visit the booths for all of the clubs on campus.
I spied a banner for a non-religious group. Intrigued, I stumbled over to the display, and asked the volunteer about the nature of the club. I was told that this was a new club for discussing religion, which would primarily be focused on atheists and agnostics. Since I had discussed religion with my friends in high school, I added my information to the mailing so I could stay in contact with the club.
So two or three weeks afterward, I am sitting in my religion class, nonchalantly scribbling notes. We're talking Hinduism, and my professor is going off on a tangent. My ears perked up. The tangents were what made that class - I loved my professor's sense of humor and offbeat commentary.
So anyway, he's talking about all of the different religions in the East, and how they relate, and he casually lets out that some scholars speculated that there might be a link between the proto-religions of the East and some of the western religions. Normally, that would just be an interesting tidbit, a typically inane musing which may fascinate those students who are paying attention.
But that careless slight, that unintended observation -- it struck me. I really had an existential crisis. I felt a surge of doubt paralyze me at that very moment; thoughts of "what if this (my beliefs that I had grown up with) isn't true??!!"
"What if this isn't true?!"
Doubt. I was struck by doubt. Nagging, overwhelming, unceasing, terrifying doubt.
I suddenly realized that I had no idea why I believed what I did.
That was the beginning - that was the day I quit believing in "faith".
And of course, one of the first ever meetings of the atheists and agnostics organization was scheduled later that very week. So I went, not knowing what would happen. All I knew was uncertainty.
So I went. The chairs were arranged in a circular fashion. One of the first things that occurred, since everyone was just getting to know each other, was that each individual in the circle was supposed to say a little bit about themselves: what year they were in, where they were from, something cool about themselves, and if they were an atheist or agnostic, when they became one.
I was one of the last people to be reached, so I got to hear almost everyone else's accounts first.
I was quite nervous at that moment, I must admit. I really didn't know what to say -- I hadn't really reached out to anyone by that point. When I first told my Catholic roommate that I was going to go to the meeting, he looked at me with suspicion because I had already told him that summer that I was a Christian. I told him that I was a Christian, but that I was going anyway because I was interested in the group.
It was sort of a fib. I wasn't sure anymore if I was a Christian or not, because of the doubt that I was experiencing at that time.
Finally, it was my turn to speak. I related my year, where I was from, my hobbies, and my name. Then I stammered something like this:
"Well, I'm not really sure what I believe right now. I was raised as a Christian, but since I've gone to college..."
My brain fizzled. What was I going to say?
"I think my faith has..."
I couldn't say anymore, but I took my hand and made a downwards motion.
In the days before the meeting, I had begun to do some additional research about religion, and I continued this after I returned from the meeting.
Every time I examined my old beliefs, they made less and less sense to me.
The Bible seemed incomprehensible to me. I started asking a lot more questions about it that I couldn't answer. The evidence for a historical Jesus who did the things the Bible claimed was less than I would have liked to believe (I had never actually thought about whether he actually had existed and did the things the Gospels said he did.) It seemed there was too much cruelty and suffering in the world. Evolution and naturalism seemed to be performing spectacularly. Christianity was failing miserably. Everywhere I turned, it appeared that the answer could be better explained if there were no all-good, all-loving, interventionary god.
Finally, there was one particular area that seemed to be the nail in the coffin for my prior religious beliefs.
All the other religions in the world. I had heard Krishna call for grace - I had heard Buddha call for compassion in the wake of suffering - I had heard creation stories which sounded more plausible than the ones I heard growing up. "There was a time when there was neither nothing, nor something". That's a real creation story.
Frankly, Christianity became just another religion, just another faith, and just another mythology. People who believed in other religions seemed to be just as moral as Christians. People who were Christian based their moral ideas on the same principles that non-Christian people used.
And almost all of the so-called religious experiences claimed were more similar than they were different, no matter what the religion.
I remember reading of Near Death Experiences where Native Americans saw a vision of a great chief, where some Hindus saw a great bureaucracy in the sky, and Christians saw heaven and hell.
And even if that weren't enough, I began reading about neuroscience. I became convinced that there is no such entity as the soul. If I needed yet another nail in the coffin, that was definitely it.
The experiments demonstrate that when the brain is harmed, all of the things which have traditionally been identified with the soul are damaged.
What is the soul? Isn't the soul the essence of who you are? And what is the essence of who you are? When the brain is damaged, the essence of who you are changes irrevocably. So when the brain is damaged, is your soul damaged, or is your soul the brain? But we know what happens to the brain when you die -- it rots. So much for the after-life? How can you have a soul to be judged without the brain? It's not plausible.
Lastly, I was already an agnostic atheist for many months before I read "The Evolution of God", but it really cemented many of the conclusions which I had already reached. The evidence which emerges from the sections about political influences on the Old Testament, why the Israelites came out of Canaan and not out of Egypt, and why Paul sold Christianity the way he did in the days of the early faith really make it difficult for me to revert to Christianity or any religion similar to it.
I am an agnostic atheist. I believe that most, if not all, of the gods ever worshiped by humanity are implausible. I do not know if there are ultimately any gods or higher powers. However, I live as if there are none.
Even if there are gods or higher powers in or outside of the universe, I believe that I am living more deeply in communion with them by not adopting a set of beliefs which I am 99% sure are false, and by trying my best to live a moral life based on empathy and respect.
I know that I have prattled on at great length, but I thank all of you for sharing in my journey and my experiences. Thank you.
This morning I watched Andrew Marr interviewing Gordon Brown, or rather receive virtually identical replies to each and every question - Yes I'm the right man for the job; I'm single-handedly responsible for saving the world from bankers; Labour will bring us out of recession faster than the Tories (by borrowing more money that my grandchildren will be paying off) etc. Gordon Brown's a hero - no really - it takes some balls to be so unpopular, so bloody useless, and yet remain so determined and bloody-mindedly confident that he really, really is doing our country the best service he can by fighting on to the bitter end and consigning Labour to at least ten to fifteen years in opposition. Good on you Gordon.
When he first took over I thought he'd be alright, there is after all no doubting that he is a very intelligent and determined chap; a career politician, even if he is bit on the dour side. This even seemed a redeeming feature for a while after the unspeakable irritation engendered by watching Blair grin as his leadership hit the rocks.
Two years of his sheer bloody awfulness however has convinced me that actually, he's got barely half a clue what he's doing. I can't help remembering how, as Chancellor, he sold off our gold reserves when the price was at it lowest for years, just to pour a few more billion into public services whose expenditure has rocketed whilst efficiency has dropped by 5%. That gold would certainly come in useful now...
I could go on for a while but actually thinking about Super-Gordon for too long just makes me want to curl into a small ball and cry. And that fake smile (shudders) is enough to give me nightmares.
So we'll only have to deal with him for another few months, at which time I suspect a lot of pundits will be asking this question:
Is Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain? And no, before you ask, I haven't forgotten about Jim Callaghan.
Deconversion:
More playlists about biblical errors and contradictions:
Bart Ehrman - 2007 lecture at Stanford
Misquoting Jesus - Edited Edition
>Transcription Errors in a Total Invention
holysinecure
Search for Truth about the Bible
More videos and playlists about deconversion
Another Great Escape : a series of videos by a Brit.
Dissonant Discomfort : a very good video that examines, within the framework of theoretical psychology, the emotional stages of deconversion.
More playlists about biblical errors and contradictions:
Bart Ehrman - 2007 lecture at Stanford
Misquoting Jesus - Edited Edition
>Transcription Errors in a Total Invention
holysinecure
Search for Truth about the Bible
More videos and playlists about deconversion
Another Great Escape : a series of videos by a Brit.
Dissonant Discomfort : a very good video that examines, within the framework of theoretical psychology, the emotional stages of deconversion.
A-Deism describes a rational view based on all the evidence that points to the nonexistence of supernatural entities.
The other night, I had a dream in which I was visiting the US, where I met Sarah Palin. She brought her daughter into the room where we were conversing - her daughter was called Britney Spears and looked exactly like Hayden Panettiere - and asked me if I couldn’t hang out with her for [...]
Yesterday I read an article that suggested that Unitarian Universalism is farther from traditional religion than even atheism despite the use of religious language, symbolism and ritual because UUism isn't focused on whether gods really exist whereas atheism is defined solely by its stance (or lack thereof) toward this question. Of course, many, if not most, UUs have an opinion whether any gods exist, and some may even think the answer important, but UUism as an ideology simply doesn't address the issue. I can appreciate the author's point, but I don't think this difference necessarily makes UUism farther from traditional religion; it may just make it equally far in a different dimension. Atheism retains the definition of “god” — even if only to argue that definition is incoherent — but denies that it corresponds to anything in reality whereas UUism, to the extent that UUs indeed use divine terminology, retains the word “god” but frequently changes its meaning to something other than a supernatural entity such as the universe itself or an abstract concept such as altruism. I argue that Humanism is farther from traditional religion than either atheism or UUism because it doesn't use the word “god” at all, and it also encompasses much more than an view on one particular topic.
But it's not a competition, and we have to remember there's significant overlap between the various groups. Over half of UUs consider themselves at least small-H humanists, a third agnostic, and almost a fifth atheist. (The choices weren't exclusive on the survey in question.) All big-H Humanists are by definition atheists, though I have no idea what percentage of explicit atheists consider themselves Humanists.
I know that some people dislike, or at least claim to dislike, personal labels, but I myself find them useful. (I refer to those other people as anti-labelists!) My blog certainly attests to my tendency to change and think about changing labels relatively often. I find that it helps me think more clearly about myself and my relationship to the world.
But it's not a competition, and we have to remember there's significant overlap between the various groups. Over half of UUs consider themselves at least small-H humanists, a third agnostic, and almost a fifth atheist. (The choices weren't exclusive on the survey in question.) All big-H Humanists are by definition atheists, though I have no idea what percentage of explicit atheists consider themselves Humanists.
I know that some people dislike, or at least claim to dislike, personal labels, but I myself find them useful. (I refer to those other people as anti-labelists!) My blog certainly attests to my tendency to change and think about changing labels relatively often. I find that it helps me think more clearly about myself and my relationship to the world.
Yesterday I read an article that suggested that Unitarian Universalism is farther from traditional religion than even atheism despite the use of religious language, symbolism and ritual because UUism isn't focused on whether gods really exist whereas atheism is defined solely by its stance (or lack thereof) toward this question. Of course, many, if not most, UUs have an opinion whether any gods exist, and some may even think the answer important, but UUism as an ideology simply doesn't address the issue. I can appreciate the author's point, but I don't think this difference necessarily makes UUism farther from traditional religion; it may just make it equally far in a different dimension. Atheism retains the definition of “god” — even if only to argue that definition is incoherent — but denies that it corresponds to anything in reality whereas UUism, to the extent that UUs indeed use divine terminology, retains the word “god” but frequently changes its meaning to something other than a supernatural entity such as the universe itself or an abstract concept such as altruism. I argue that Humanism is farther from traditional religion than either atheism or UUism because it doesn't use the word “god” at all, and it also encompasses much more than an view on one particular topic.
But it's not a competition, and we have to remember there's significant overlap between the various groups. Over half of UUs consider themselves at least small-H humanists, a third agnostic, and almost a fifth atheist. (The choices weren't exclusive on the survey in question.) All big-H Humanists are by definition atheists, though I have no idea what percentage of explicit atheists consider themselves Humanists.
I know that some people dislike, or at least claim to dislike, personal labels, but I myself find them useful. (I refer to those other people as anti-labelists!) My blog certainly attests to my tendency to change and think about changing labels relatively often. I find that it helps me think more clearly about myself and my relationship to the world.
But it's not a competition, and we have to remember there's significant overlap between the various groups. Over half of UUs consider themselves at least small-H humanists, a third agnostic, and almost a fifth atheist. (The choices weren't exclusive on the survey in question.) All big-H Humanists are by definition atheists, though I have no idea what percentage of explicit atheists consider themselves Humanists.
I know that some people dislike, or at least claim to dislike, personal labels, but I myself find them useful. (I refer to those other people as anti-labelists!) My blog certainly attests to my tendency to change and think about changing labels relatively often. I find that it helps me think more clearly about myself and my relationship to the world.
Warning. It's late I can't sleep and I'm not doing much editing for spelling, content, factual errors or reasoning. Enjoy!
A friend got me thinking about memories. I thought of how it's usually imposible to know, what is really a memory and what is just remembering the story. It's part of the computer code, it saves the data but just like how text takes less space than video. Anyway she talked about specific things, like colors, stand out for her. My memory is pretty vague. I just remember some basic rough draft type info and a feeling, maybe an image or two. It's the feelings though that really stand out. Feelings, they're so primal and simple. I can't always tell you why I like something, wine and movies come to mind. I can't always explain why one stupid comedy is hillarious and another is just stupid. But there is a difference. My dad has a great method for judging a live singing of the star spangled banner. Side note for all the shit I give our country for not living up to our own ideals I must say we have a pretty bad ass national anthem, done right it's impressive. You can tell a good rendition of it because the hair on your arms and neck stand up. Which is my fathers test. Feelings, they're strange things, sometimes they're a real pain in the ass. But sometimes they're great. Didn't mean to sound emo there, most of my life is reasonably happy, some things are great. And because as I already said most of my memories are just vague images attached to feelings it's really easy to sort the ones to keep, the good days, from the less important ones, the bad days. Then again that means I could have a pretty terrible life and barely even know it. Nah my life doesn't seem terrible, Oh no! Trapped in my own pointless lodgic.
I was about to say that I lost track of the point of this a while ago, but I'm not sure this post ever really had a point. I think I'm just confused as to why I'm not asleep.
Well thank you to the person who made me think about the past. You know who you are.
And thank you to ABC for being mostly awesome.
Or was it amazing?
A friend got me thinking about memories. I thought of how it's usually imposible to know, what is really a memory and what is just remembering the story. It's part of the computer code, it saves the data but just like how text takes less space than video. Anyway she talked about specific things, like colors, stand out for her. My memory is pretty vague. I just remember some basic rough draft type info and a feeling, maybe an image or two. It's the feelings though that really stand out. Feelings, they're so primal and simple. I can't always tell you why I like something, wine and movies come to mind. I can't always explain why one stupid comedy is hillarious and another is just stupid. But there is a difference. My dad has a great method for judging a live singing of the star spangled banner. Side note for all the shit I give our country for not living up to our own ideals I must say we have a pretty bad ass national anthem, done right it's impressive. You can tell a good rendition of it because the hair on your arms and neck stand up. Which is my fathers test. Feelings, they're strange things, sometimes they're a real pain in the ass. But sometimes they're great. Didn't mean to sound emo there, most of my life is reasonably happy, some things are great. And because as I already said most of my memories are just vague images attached to feelings it's really easy to sort the ones to keep, the good days, from the less important ones, the bad days. Then again that means I could have a pretty terrible life and barely even know it. Nah my life doesn't seem terrible, Oh no! Trapped in my own pointless lodgic.
I was about to say that I lost track of the point of this a while ago, but I'm not sure this post ever really had a point. I think I'm just confused as to why I'm not asleep.
Well thank you to the person who made me think about the past. You know who you are.
And thank you to ABC for being mostly awesome.
Or was it amazing?
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
