It's been a while since I made a post... and I feel a bit guilty about that, I've just had busy shit going on in my life recently.
Anyways, in lieu of anything important, I'm attempting a submission for a catchphrase for VA:
If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.
I had a t-shirt once that said that, and it seems to suit VA's style well.
Author Archive for new.atheist
Classically Liberal has an interesting post about the motives behind the seemingly recent atheist upheaval.
I would tend to agree that atheists don't normally have anything to bring them together, a lack of belief isn't something that binds people together. But then, just because a group of people were born Christian or Jewish, does that give them any more of a reason to band together? Perhaps just cuz they hold meetings once a week?
I think that atheists actually tend to be of a mindset that we aren't as socially needy. To be an atheist most often requires a bit of independent thought to begin with, and there seems to be a genetic predisposition to a belief in a deity, so perhaps those things go together. Group-think & atheism do not mesh.
But, given a common enemy, atheists are joining together, and raising their voices louder, and hopefully we can continue to speak for everyone's rights to be free from religious oppression.
I would tend to agree that atheists don't normally have anything to bring them together, a lack of belief isn't something that binds people together. But then, just because a group of people were born Christian or Jewish, does that give them any more of a reason to band together? Perhaps just cuz they hold meetings once a week?
I think that atheists actually tend to be of a mindset that we aren't as socially needy. To be an atheist most often requires a bit of independent thought to begin with, and there seems to be a genetic predisposition to a belief in a deity, so perhaps those things go together. Group-think & atheism do not mesh.
But, given a common enemy, atheists are joining together, and raising their voices louder, and hopefully we can continue to speak for everyone's rights to be free from religious oppression.
I love V of violentacres.com. Today her post of crazy holy-rollers had me in stitches.
If you haven't seen her site, it's often a delightful read, and always captivating. Aside from her professions of being an atheist herself, she has a point of view on the world that I often agree with, or woefully sympathize with. I often wish I knew her, that we could go get lunch together and bitch about the world together. Though I'm sure she'd tire of my bitching quick enough. It's just that the few female friends I have are often too caught up in themselves, or how the world perceives them, to be their own woman, and I imagine V to be someone more inspiring to hang out with.
If you haven't seen her site, it's often a delightful read, and always captivating. Aside from her professions of being an atheist herself, she has a point of view on the world that I often agree with, or woefully sympathize with. I often wish I knew her, that we could go get lunch together and bitch about the world together. Though I'm sure she'd tire of my bitching quick enough. It's just that the few female friends I have are often too caught up in themselves, or how the world perceives them, to be their own woman, and I imagine V to be someone more inspiring to hang out with.
"Can you believe this shit? Hell has frozen over. Suck it, Jesus, this award is my god now."
I normally find Kathy Griffin quite annoying, but hooray for her to stand up & say this. I really didn't think there was much that would shock the American public these days, but apparently, I was wrong. The broadcast will be censored.
Edited for my bad links!
I normally find Kathy Griffin quite annoying, but hooray for her to stand up & say this. I really didn't think there was much that would shock the American public these days, but apparently, I was wrong. The broadcast will be censored.
Edited for my bad links!
This is a powerful documentary by the BBC. I encourage you to watch both parts. In summary, it's an in-depth summary of the religious & political motivations that lead to Sept 11th & the current occupation of Iraq. The parallels between Radical Islam and Neo-Conservatives in the U.S., how each side uses religion as justification for their atrocities, and uses the religious beliefs of the masses to control them politically, are made obvious.
The Power of Nightmares Part 1: Baby it's Cold Outside
The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory
Religious people are being used, many by virtue of their unwillingness to look outside their field of view for answers. The Bible/Koran has the answers for them, and by extension, those who teach the Bible/Koran have answers for them. A powerful few who think they know what's best for the masses use the religious as their warriors & voters. While the politicians promise us earthly salvation, the religious promise us eternal salvation. By using the religious beliefs of the masses to further their political means, and then blaming those that don't think like them for the downfall of society, those in power are attempting to turn their ideology into laws for the masses.
It's hard to avoid mixing thoughts on religion & politics, especially when they're so obviously mixed these days. And it's hard to see the good people do in the name of their religious beliefs when we're blinded with the truth of who really benefits from the group-think of the christian masses.
The Power of Nightmares Part 1: Baby it's Cold Outside
The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory
Religious people are being used, many by virtue of their unwillingness to look outside their field of view for answers. The Bible/Koran has the answers for them, and by extension, those who teach the Bible/Koran have answers for them. A powerful few who think they know what's best for the masses use the religious as their warriors & voters. While the politicians promise us earthly salvation, the religious promise us eternal salvation. By using the religious beliefs of the masses to further their political means, and then blaming those that don't think like them for the downfall of society, those in power are attempting to turn their ideology into laws for the masses.
It's hard to avoid mixing thoughts on religion & politics, especially when they're so obviously mixed these days. And it's hard to see the good people do in the name of their religious beliefs when we're blinded with the truth of who really benefits from the group-think of the christian masses.
I was reading this article on "How Propaganda Works," which I somewhat assume is directed at how governments use propaganda to manipulate the masses, but this seems to apply just as much to organized religions.
The article states the key to good propaganda is to appeal to 3 key human characteristics; emotionalism, tribalism, and narcissism.
Religion appeals to people's emotional needs through the imaginary solution of prayer; just talk to god and he'll tell you what to do. People don't have enough faith in themselves so they turn to a leader to make decisions for them. That leader may be their imaginary god, their holy book, or their local shaman/priest/rabbi/sheik. This often eliminates one's need to think for one's self.
People are best unified by their dislike for a common enemy, whether that enemy is real or imagined doesn't so much matter. The enemy of religion is not really the devil, or evil in itself. The enemy of religion is people of a different religion whom the leaders classify as the devil or evil-incarnate. A tribe might fight amongst itself, but it finds a cohesive force in it's want to fight outsiders.
And the last appeal of religion to a person's narcissistic side is to tell them that god loves them, god thinks they are special, god has a plan for them. Heaven is waiting for you, because you are part of this group. And while you are part of the group, you are an individual & special in the eyes of god!
Heaven provides an emotional coution for the devastation that is death that we must all eventually face. Muslim tribes may be fighting eachother in the middle east, but they'll often get together to fight the Jews or Christians. Christianity fights evolution not just because of the fairy tales in the bible, but on the grounds that they believe humans are better than and different from all of the the other animals on this planet.
I would never venture to deny any person their individual spirituality, but organized religion is pure propaganda and I only wish more people could see it as such.
The article states the key to good propaganda is to appeal to 3 key human characteristics; emotionalism, tribalism, and narcissism.
Religion appeals to people's emotional needs through the imaginary solution of prayer; just talk to god and he'll tell you what to do. People don't have enough faith in themselves so they turn to a leader to make decisions for them. That leader may be their imaginary god, their holy book, or their local shaman/priest/rabbi/sheik. This often eliminates one's need to think for one's self.
People are best unified by their dislike for a common enemy, whether that enemy is real or imagined doesn't so much matter. The enemy of religion is not really the devil, or evil in itself. The enemy of religion is people of a different religion whom the leaders classify as the devil or evil-incarnate. A tribe might fight amongst itself, but it finds a cohesive force in it's want to fight outsiders.
And the last appeal of religion to a person's narcissistic side is to tell them that god loves them, god thinks they are special, god has a plan for them. Heaven is waiting for you, because you are part of this group. And while you are part of the group, you are an individual & special in the eyes of god!
Heaven provides an emotional coution for the devastation that is death that we must all eventually face. Muslim tribes may be fighting eachother in the middle east, but they'll often get together to fight the Jews or Christians. Christianity fights evolution not just because of the fairy tales in the bible, but on the grounds that they believe humans are better than and different from all of the the other animals on this planet.
I would never venture to deny any person their individual spirituality, but organized religion is pure propaganda and I only wish more people could see it as such.
Atheism is more often coming to the forefront of mainstream news.
This week cbsnews had a piece on atheism that somewhat centered around the fact that Julia Sweeny is an atheist.
Honestly though, this article didn't bring up any new arguments, or ground-breaking atheist revelations. Julia Sweeny has been quite open with her beliefs in the past, and I hope she continues to be so. I'm sure there is much more to her life than her beliefs about religion; none of us should be defined by our beliefs, each of us must define our beliefs on our own.
Again though the comments at the bottom of the page make me cringe. The believers saying all we need is Jesus. The atheists calling all believers morons. And the people who are playing the odds by pointing out something like "if there is no god, no harm; but if there is a god, I win!" I actually respect the Jesus freaks a bit more because, at least they're just saying what they believe in their hearts. Anyone trying to make an argument that god is a better bet probably doesn't really believe in god, or they really just don't understand that believing in something that big isn't as much a decision as a conclusion.
I would much rather approach a religious person with logic & facts about the world. I really don't think, for many people, being uninformed about how the world really works is a choice. People don't know what they don't know.
There's also a recent article in Scientific American on Rational Atheism, and it has a good list of pitfalls & possibilities for atheists taking a stand. I think more atheists who are randomly commenting online about the whole debate should take a step back & read this article just so they themselves aren't accused of making science a religion, or being atheist evangelicals.
This week cbsnews had a piece on atheism that somewhat centered around the fact that Julia Sweeny is an atheist.
Honestly though, this article didn't bring up any new arguments, or ground-breaking atheist revelations. Julia Sweeny has been quite open with her beliefs in the past, and I hope she continues to be so. I'm sure there is much more to her life than her beliefs about religion; none of us should be defined by our beliefs, each of us must define our beliefs on our own.
Again though the comments at the bottom of the page make me cringe. The believers saying all we need is Jesus. The atheists calling all believers morons. And the people who are playing the odds by pointing out something like "if there is no god, no harm; but if there is a god, I win!" I actually respect the Jesus freaks a bit more because, at least they're just saying what they believe in their hearts. Anyone trying to make an argument that god is a better bet probably doesn't really believe in god, or they really just don't understand that believing in something that big isn't as much a decision as a conclusion.
I would much rather approach a religious person with logic & facts about the world. I really don't think, for many people, being uninformed about how the world really works is a choice. People don't know what they don't know.
There's also a recent article in Scientific American on Rational Atheism, and it has a good list of pitfalls & possibilities for atheists taking a stand. I think more atheists who are randomly commenting online about the whole debate should take a step back & read this article just so they themselves aren't accused of making science a religion, or being atheist evangelicals.
Seriously, how the fuck do some people get off calling themselves Christians?
This article, about a how a church took back their offer to hold funeral services for a veteran when they found out he was gay, just really pisses me off.
Now, if Jesus died for everyone's sins, doesn't that mean many Christians believe that just believing saves them, despite their sins on earth? And didn't Jesus himself hang out with the "sinners" of his time? While the church doesn't need to condone anything it considers a sin, if churches turned away all of those sinners, there'd be nobody at their service.
And if they believe all sin is equal in the eyes of god, then just admitting to living a gay lifestyle can't be any worse than the person who consistently lies about their age.
It's just complete nonsense in my eyes. Lets make up a club that celebrates love & diversity so that we can exclude people we don't like! Yayy!
This article, about a how a church took back their offer to hold funeral services for a veteran when they found out he was gay, just really pisses me off.
Now, if Jesus died for everyone's sins, doesn't that mean many Christians believe that just believing saves them, despite their sins on earth? And didn't Jesus himself hang out with the "sinners" of his time? While the church doesn't need to condone anything it considers a sin, if churches turned away all of those sinners, there'd be nobody at their service.
And if they believe all sin is equal in the eyes of god, then just admitting to living a gay lifestyle can't be any worse than the person who consistently lies about their age.
It's just complete nonsense in my eyes. Lets make up a club that celebrates love & diversity so that we can exclude people we don't like! Yayy!
When I spot an interesting article that causes a bunch of people to reply with really stupid comments, I can't help but reply to them! So of course, when I spotted "Faith, Reason and Science, Part X: Some Humor and Serious Ponderings By A Thoughtful Atheist" on A Guy in the Pew, I knew there'd be trouble. You can check there for my ramblings.
I do find his thoughts on science and faith a bit interesting, it seems to me he is one of those people who works his faith around reality as best he can. But the main problem is; those who want to believe mostly seek out books/articles that affirm that faith. I'm not sure if he's ever seen The God Who Wasn't There, just as I haven't read Jesus of Nazareth as he has.
He is prepared to reshape his faith based on evidance, and I think it here that I ask "how then can you have faith at all if it is so easy to change?" If you call yourself a Christian and yet pick & choose what makes sense from the bible, what happened to the rest of it? I had to say it needs to be an all or nothing choice, for while I can take some intellectual & spiritual guidance from the bible, I don't believe any of it to be divine. But can faith in religious doctrine lie on such a continuum?
I do find his thoughts on science and faith a bit interesting, it seems to me he is one of those people who works his faith around reality as best he can. But the main problem is; those who want to believe mostly seek out books/articles that affirm that faith. I'm not sure if he's ever seen The God Who Wasn't There, just as I haven't read Jesus of Nazareth as he has.
He is prepared to reshape his faith based on evidance, and I think it here that I ask "how then can you have faith at all if it is so easy to change?" If you call yourself a Christian and yet pick & choose what makes sense from the bible, what happened to the rest of it? I had to say it needs to be an all or nothing choice, for while I can take some intellectual & spiritual guidance from the bible, I don't believe any of it to be divine. But can faith in religious doctrine lie on such a continuum?
While we aspire to be a tolerant society in the U.S., that also means we all have to tolerate people saying this we don't like, or that we disagree with. This is a good commentary by Rabbi Aryeh Spero on the subject of how fear of offense shouldn't lead us to criminally prosecute those expressing free speech.
Also, I wanted to link to a really good Q&A on the definition of Atheism & Agnosticism, as well as other common questions about atheism as a belief system.
And an interesting article on why evolution hasn't gotten rid of ugly people. It basically surmises that what makes men and women attractive are very different traits; yet we inherit our physical features from both our parents. I would also think that this would be a logical rebuttal to why homosexuality persists, despite it's obvious evolutionary flaw; gay animals aren't naturally reproducing. (I have heard religious people ask how homosexuality can be genetic if it wouldn't be passed on, or on the other side that evolution can't be real because homosexuality persists within the population.) While it's really great for men to be attracted to women, perhaps there is some factor to that attraction that can be passed from fathers to daughters, resulting in females with strong attraction to females. It'd be interesting to know if there are any studies in that area of sexuality & inheritance.
Also, I wanted to link to a really good Q&A on the definition of Atheism & Agnosticism, as well as other common questions about atheism as a belief system.
And an interesting article on why evolution hasn't gotten rid of ugly people. It basically surmises that what makes men and women attractive are very different traits; yet we inherit our physical features from both our parents. I would also think that this would be a logical rebuttal to why homosexuality persists, despite it's obvious evolutionary flaw; gay animals aren't naturally reproducing. (I have heard religious people ask how homosexuality can be genetic if it wouldn't be passed on, or on the other side that evolution can't be real because homosexuality persists within the population.) While it's really great for men to be attracted to women, perhaps there is some factor to that attraction that can be passed from fathers to daughters, resulting in females with strong attraction to females. It'd be interesting to know if there are any studies in that area of sexuality & inheritance.
I spent most of my free time the past week with my nose between the pages of the latest & last Harry Potter Book. I promise not to give away anything here.
I did not wait in line at midnight, but even the next day when I did pick up the book, I noted that the woman in front of me in line had a painted wand & broom on her cheeks. Why do people feel the need to do that?
The Harry Potter releases seem to echo of Star Wars and Star Trek conventions, or Rocky Horror, where people attend dressed as a character. I wondered; is this a modern phenomenon, a side-affect of a society of too much time on it's hands? It is often referred to as a cult-phenomenon, is this a substitute religion? Are people trying to be more like their "gods"?
I also found this humorous take on Harry Potter by some Satan-seekers. The depth with which she finds meaning where there is none, or even mis-reads parts of the book to suit her theories that Potter is evil, is almost fascinating. I'm sure most 10 year olds would easily acknowledge the books are just a story, even while the paranoid adults are over-analyzing it all. Obviously the problem is they attack the books with the same fervor they examine the bible with, and while both are fairy tales, only one is even attempted to be passed off as truth by anybody.
I am guessing the reason some people are so threatened by books is because their lives are so entwined with that one particular book to begin with. If they take one book as literal truth, anyone else might pick any other old book to live their lives by! And we can't have that, now can we?
I did not wait in line at midnight, but even the next day when I did pick up the book, I noted that the woman in front of me in line had a painted wand & broom on her cheeks. Why do people feel the need to do that?
The Harry Potter releases seem to echo of Star Wars and Star Trek conventions, or Rocky Horror, where people attend dressed as a character. I wondered; is this a modern phenomenon, a side-affect of a society of too much time on it's hands? It is often referred to as a cult-phenomenon, is this a substitute religion? Are people trying to be more like their "gods"?
I also found this humorous take on Harry Potter by some Satan-seekers. The depth with which she finds meaning where there is none, or even mis-reads parts of the book to suit her theories that Potter is evil, is almost fascinating. I'm sure most 10 year olds would easily acknowledge the books are just a story, even while the paranoid adults are over-analyzing it all. Obviously the problem is they attack the books with the same fervor they examine the bible with, and while both are fairy tales, only one is even attempted to be passed off as truth by anybody.
I am guessing the reason some people are so threatened by books is because their lives are so entwined with that one particular book to begin with. If they take one book as literal truth, anyone else might pick any other old book to live their lives by! And we can't have that, now can we?
This seems a little old, but I just came across it more recently:
In the video, Eugenie C. Scott gives a very good explanation of scientific theories.
And of course, if listening to Scientists doesn't convince anybody, perhaps we can all watch the Simpsons!
In the video, Eugenie C. Scott gives a very good explanation of scientific theories.
And of course, if listening to Scientists doesn't convince anybody, perhaps we can all watch the Simpsons!
Do you believe it? It seems to me to be a form of the liar's paradox. There is no way to assign a true/false value to such a statement.
The bible asserts itself as true, and many churches state as the first part of their beliefs to be that the bible is true and unchanging, because the bible says it is. For example:
We believe that The Holy Bible is The Word of The Living God; true, immutable, steadfast, unchangeable, as it's author, The Lord Jehovah; that it was written by Holy men of old as they were moved upon and inspired by The Holy Spirit.
This is all based on 2 Timothy, chapter 3, verse 16:
Paul's Charge to Timothy
10 You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
This came to mind today as I was reading a rather interesting review of Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, a book about some of the history of the bible, where Brown compairs the bible to Wikipedia.
Of course I am already well aware that the bible has many versions, was compiled by different scribes at different times from different written & oral traditions. But upon checking the reviews on Amazon for Misquoting Jesus, it is clear that many people are willing to stretch their faith a little; even if all the words aren't the same, they're still inspired, written by inspired men, goddamnit!
History and physics clearly conflict with the bible in more than a few passages. What I want to know is; how do people rectify their statement of faith with the facts? Of course, this is a silly question on my part, the obvious answer is just that many people ignore the facts. It's either that, or they don't really believe in their heart the bible is perfect.
People seem to think that their faith in the bible is all-or-nothing. Believers are assumed to believe it all; atheists are assumed to think it's all BS.
When their own declaration of faith declares that the bible is infallible, and when many believers look down on those who treat the bible as a buffet (picking what they like from it), I can see how all-or-nothing becomes a natural conclusion for many people. They conclude that they either ignore the facts of the world, or they don't truly believe.
What if I were to give you the following statement:
Bunnies are cute, one plus one is equal to three, there is life on Mars, an objects speed is the distance it travels over time, and this sentance is true.
Of course, not everyone agrees on bunnies, 1+1=2, we don't know for sure about life on Mars, speed does equal d/t, and that statement isn't completely true. But can't we say it's true since it was partially true? If it's not completely true, does that make it completely false? Can we even know for sure?
Even being atheist, I can't discount everything the bible says; I like some of the moral stories, I like some of the songs/poetry, I even like a lot about Jesus with his whole do-unto-others philosophy and I always liked many of the parables. But I can't see it as any more inspired than Harry Potter, The Odyssey, or Macbeth. A little truth, a little myth, a little magic, a bit of death, and a lesson for all of us to learn from.
Still I wonder why there are so many christians still so afraid to acknowledge that their chosen version of the bible has any faults at all? Is their faith so unsteady that one gust of wind might reduce it all to rubble?
The bible asserts itself as true, and many churches state as the first part of their beliefs to be that the bible is true and unchanging, because the bible says it is. For example:
We believe that The Holy Bible is The Word of The Living God; true, immutable, steadfast, unchangeable, as it's author, The Lord Jehovah; that it was written by Holy men of old as they were moved upon and inspired by The Holy Spirit.
This is all based on 2 Timothy, chapter 3, verse 16:
Paul's Charge to Timothy
10 You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
This came to mind today as I was reading a rather interesting review of Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, a book about some of the history of the bible, where Brown compairs the bible to Wikipedia.
Of course I am already well aware that the bible has many versions, was compiled by different scribes at different times from different written & oral traditions. But upon checking the reviews on Amazon for Misquoting Jesus, it is clear that many people are willing to stretch their faith a little; even if all the words aren't the same, they're still inspired, written by inspired men, goddamnit!
History and physics clearly conflict with the bible in more than a few passages. What I want to know is; how do people rectify their statement of faith with the facts? Of course, this is a silly question on my part, the obvious answer is just that many people ignore the facts. It's either that, or they don't really believe in their heart the bible is perfect.
People seem to think that their faith in the bible is all-or-nothing. Believers are assumed to believe it all; atheists are assumed to think it's all BS.
When their own declaration of faith declares that the bible is infallible, and when many believers look down on those who treat the bible as a buffet (picking what they like from it), I can see how all-or-nothing becomes a natural conclusion for many people. They conclude that they either ignore the facts of the world, or they don't truly believe.
What if I were to give you the following statement:
Bunnies are cute, one plus one is equal to three, there is life on Mars, an objects speed is the distance it travels over time, and this sentance is true.
Of course, not everyone agrees on bunnies, 1+1=2, we don't know for sure about life on Mars, speed does equal d/t, and that statement isn't completely true. But can't we say it's true since it was partially true? If it's not completely true, does that make it completely false? Can we even know for sure?
Even being atheist, I can't discount everything the bible says; I like some of the moral stories, I like some of the songs/poetry, I even like a lot about Jesus with his whole do-unto-others philosophy and I always liked many of the parables. But I can't see it as any more inspired than Harry Potter, The Odyssey, or Macbeth. A little truth, a little myth, a little magic, a bit of death, and a lesson for all of us to learn from.
Still I wonder why there are so many christians still so afraid to acknowledge that their chosen version of the bible has any faults at all? Is their faith so unsteady that one gust of wind might reduce it all to rubble?
So, there's a "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death Museum" run by the CCHR (which is really just a Scientology group) and watching the video tour, I can't help but soon see the similarities to Creationists fighting the idea of Evolution.
Note that they are sure to give you a history lesson, and in doing so, point out how bad things used to be. Pointing out that psychiatrists once idolized Freud is like pointing out that at one time some scientists believed in Lamarck's evolutionary theories. And the idea of eugenics is brought up when claiming the evils of both evolution-scientists & psychiatric-scientists. Apparently nobody believes there is room for improvement and learning and morals in science?
Why is psychiatry their target? Well, there's accounts that the founder of Scientology, L.R. Hubbard, was mentally unstable & spent some time in psychiatric wards. He became resentful and wrote a bunch of new-age self-help books that bashed the psychiatric industry. I'm interested in how extreme the "church" view has become though. Granted, I do tend to think that our society is a bit over-drugged, but this video clearly shows their HATRED for psychiatry and desire to brain-wash their own believers, not just a desire to truthfully inform the public.
While Scientologists don't worship a god that I'm aware of, though they do consider themselves a religious group, and their messages clearly show the dangers of organized religion. I almost think that they're even worse with no god to account to. They don't have any moral code I could find plus they discourage their believers from thinking on their own. At least the Judeo-Christians have the 10 commandments, so if they don't want to think about morals, there's some guidelines. There's something to it very reminiscent of the Catholic Church back in the day. A Catholic used to be able to buy his way out of hell with a few alms to the church, and Scientologists are constantly having to pay the "church" in order to advance in the hierarchy.
Nobody should have to pay cash for spiritual enlightenment.
Note that they are sure to give you a history lesson, and in doing so, point out how bad things used to be. Pointing out that psychiatrists once idolized Freud is like pointing out that at one time some scientists believed in Lamarck's evolutionary theories. And the idea of eugenics is brought up when claiming the evils of both evolution-scientists & psychiatric-scientists. Apparently nobody believes there is room for improvement and learning and morals in science?
Why is psychiatry their target? Well, there's accounts that the founder of Scientology, L.R. Hubbard, was mentally unstable & spent some time in psychiatric wards. He became resentful and wrote a bunch of new-age self-help books that bashed the psychiatric industry. I'm interested in how extreme the "church" view has become though. Granted, I do tend to think that our society is a bit over-drugged, but this video clearly shows their HATRED for psychiatry and desire to brain-wash their own believers, not just a desire to truthfully inform the public.
While Scientologists don't worship a god that I'm aware of, though they do consider themselves a religious group, and their messages clearly show the dangers of organized religion. I almost think that they're even worse with no god to account to. They don't have any moral code I could find plus they discourage their believers from thinking on their own. At least the Judeo-Christians have the 10 commandments, so if they don't want to think about morals, there's some guidelines. There's something to it very reminiscent of the Catholic Church back in the day. A Catholic used to be able to buy his way out of hell with a few alms to the church, and Scientologists are constantly having to pay the "church" in order to advance in the hierarchy.
Nobody should have to pay cash for spiritual enlightenment.
I guess, if I didn't care before that they opened the Senate with a prayer every morning, I guess I can't really complain about it now. But in case you haven't seen, a few Christians weren't too happy that this morning a Hindu was invited to pray.
Video at Breitbart.tv, & more info at CNN.com.
Video at Breitbart.tv, & more info at CNN.com.
Since I've been procrastinating so long, my google-reader got really full, and so I'm just checking the latest posts of those blogs near & dear to my heart. I apologize that I'll be ignoring some pretty good stuff that's just too late to comment on at this point.
Honest Doubter has a post on Fear Mongers, where the original video is down, but from the comments, I presume the video Brother Micah, and so I checked youtube for other videos of him. Boy... is it just sad to watch this guy rant:
The problem is, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar; the way he's yelling at everyone, he's not going to convince anyone of his beliefs. He doesn't want to discuss his beliefs, he just wants to talk/yell about them... if he's really a Christian, why wouldn't he act a bit more like Jesus?
Also, Irreverent Musings has an interesting post on Reason, Faith, & Country. Some people say they put god before country, should atheists put reason before country? I note that some people want to put god IN government, and it's definitely hard get reason in there. I'm not sure how political I want to get in this blog just yet, but with the debates for the election in '08 already started, I'm bound to have a few posts political positions soon enough.
Honest Doubter has a post on Fear Mongers, where the original video is down, but from the comments, I presume the video Brother Micah, and so I checked youtube for other videos of him. Boy... is it just sad to watch this guy rant:
The problem is, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar; the way he's yelling at everyone, he's not going to convince anyone of his beliefs. He doesn't want to discuss his beliefs, he just wants to talk/yell about them... if he's really a Christian, why wouldn't he act a bit more like Jesus?
Also, Irreverent Musings has an interesting post on Reason, Faith, & Country. Some people say they put god before country, should atheists put reason before country? I note that some people want to put god IN government, and it's definitely hard get reason in there. I'm not sure how political I want to get in this blog just yet, but with the debates for the election in '08 already started, I'm bound to have a few posts political positions soon enough.
The article states: she went to the computerized card catalogue and typed in the keywords "homosexuality," "abortion" and "atheism." She was shocked by the dozens of titles that popped up.
Hooray for somebody with too much time on their hands! Now, even though I firmly believe in a separation of church & state, I don't think I'd object to any religious books that might be found in the school library. Yes, kids are going to school to learn, and religion is something I think all kids need to learn about, even if I wouldn't want my own kids to become religious, I'd like them to learn about religion.
But the best is the last line of the article:
"My oldest son doesn't believe in God," she said. "I guess he kind of thinks I'm stupid."
I get the feeling her oldest is supremely embarrassed at her actions.
Hooray for somebody with too much time on their hands! Now, even though I firmly believe in a separation of church & state, I don't think I'd object to any religious books that might be found in the school library. Yes, kids are going to school to learn, and religion is something I think all kids need to learn about, even if I wouldn't want my own kids to become religious, I'd like them to learn about religion.
But the best is the last line of the article:
"My oldest son doesn't believe in God," she said. "I guess he kind of thinks I'm stupid."
I get the feeling her oldest is supremely embarrassed at her actions.
Ok, I've procrastinated long enough.
And then I found the best way to say "I'm back!"
Actual content will follow shortly. I've been saving up stuff, be prepared for a deluge.
And then I found the best way to say "I'm back!"
Actual content will follow shortly. I've been saving up stuff, be prepared for a deluge.
I wish this video was longer:
I'm pretty sure this is how my father would have reacted (and still would react even though I'm at least 10 years older than this kid) if I told him I'm an atheist. Hence, I just don't tell him. It's odd...the kid obviously lied to her & the bishop & whoever else because he wanted to keep it happy, and he probably knew this would be her reaction. And would this mother rather her child keep up the lie than express how he really feels? It's something I still struggle with; do I lie to fit in? Or do I make my beliefs obvious and piss people off?
Granted, the kid may just be rebelling... kids at that age do that... but yelling and threatening church is obviously not the answer (and not the Christian response either.... she needs to re-read her WWJD bracelet and think about what that means).
The part about threatening to take away Chirstmas presents is also hilarious.... ya know, cuz Christmas (with the Santa and the shopping and the electricity-hogging lights everywhere) is all about Jesus.
I'm pretty sure this is how my father would have reacted (and still would react even though I'm at least 10 years older than this kid) if I told him I'm an atheist. Hence, I just don't tell him. It's odd...the kid obviously lied to her & the bishop & whoever else because he wanted to keep it happy, and he probably knew this would be her reaction. And would this mother rather her child keep up the lie than express how he really feels? It's something I still struggle with; do I lie to fit in? Or do I make my beliefs obvious and piss people off?
Granted, the kid may just be rebelling... kids at that age do that... but yelling and threatening church is obviously not the answer (and not the Christian response either.... she needs to re-read her WWJD bracelet and think about what that means).
The part about threatening to take away Chirstmas presents is also hilarious.... ya know, cuz Christmas (with the Santa and the shopping and the electricity-hogging lights everywhere) is all about Jesus.
I think I've been defining my own Atheism as coming from my rejection of the super natural. With the recent death of my grandmother, I have been reflecting a bit on my own ideas that perhaps there's a dimension of sorts where our souls still live.
In case any one thinks I've been expressing a belief in the supernatural, I want to make it clear that this isn't a belief I hold; it is just an idea. And my idea is that this might happen completely within the realm of what might be possible in the universe/multiverse; as I do not expect anything super-natural to happen to our "souls". There is a scientific theory that information can not be destroyed, and while this may apply to physical information, I do often wonder how far this idea could be taken. But I am no physicist to test this, and I wouldn't disagree if someone could knowingly/truthfully explain to me that this is just absolutely not possible.
But my ideas about what might happen to the information that makes up us as individuals still is without a god. Why not have ideas about a god that could fall within the natural laws of the universe? Well, as we define god as an all knowing and all seeing, what I know about the universe says this is impossible.
I present as exhibit number one an explanation of the Double Slit Experiment:
Observation changes the outcome. If a god existed then the probability wave would not be observed because he would be watching, and he would know which slit the particle would go through, and therefore eliminate the probability. As it is, only our direct observation eliminates the probability, so I would conclude that nobody else is watching.
In case any one thinks I've been expressing a belief in the supernatural, I want to make it clear that this isn't a belief I hold; it is just an idea. And my idea is that this might happen completely within the realm of what might be possible in the universe/multiverse; as I do not expect anything super-natural to happen to our "souls". There is a scientific theory that information can not be destroyed, and while this may apply to physical information, I do often wonder how far this idea could be taken. But I am no physicist to test this, and I wouldn't disagree if someone could knowingly/truthfully explain to me that this is just absolutely not possible.
But my ideas about what might happen to the information that makes up us as individuals still is without a god. Why not have ideas about a god that could fall within the natural laws of the universe? Well, as we define god as an all knowing and all seeing, what I know about the universe says this is impossible.
I present as exhibit number one an explanation of the Double Slit Experiment:
Observation changes the outcome. If a god existed then the probability wave would not be observed because he would be watching, and he would know which slit the particle would go through, and therefore eliminate the probability. As it is, only our direct observation eliminates the probability, so I would conclude that nobody else is watching.
I was glad not to be there when my grandmother passed, bodies creep the beejebus out of me. (I'm not sure if this is due to instinct or childhood trauma. I've almost always had someone else dispose of dead pets because I don't want to touch the bodies.)
My mother said, before she left the room after my grandmother had passed, a nurse came in to open the window. She said they do this to let the soul out. I liked the idea of that ritual, although I don't think souls (if they existed) could be confined that way. I found comfort in this ritual, despite knowing it's pointless. Despite my efforts of purging supernatural superstitions from my life, it's hard when there is still that flicker of hope somewhere within my mind that our existence is more meaningful.
I went with my mother to prepare for the funeral, and meeting with a funeral director is quite an experience. I've watched 6 Feet Under, and Family Plots, so I thought I new what to expect.
If it was up to just my mother and myself, Grandmom would have been cremated, end of story. But some of the family felt need for closure, which meant a church service and possibly a viewing. This means picking out prayer cards, caskets, and clothing for the deceased. We still wished to have her body cremated, and the funeral director said we could "borrow" a casket, but then before burning, her body would be removed from it, and he didn't think that was respectful. In my own mind, I was thinking; really, how respectful is the process of embalming a body to begin with? And why would it matter? As for my own body, aside from someone molesting it, or stealing parts of it, I really wouldn't care, and definitely wouldn't care if someone burned my body without a casket.
The services included a church ceremony the night before the "viewing", with bible readings and remembrances said. I've always believed a funeral is for the living, not the dead, so if some find comfort in a church service, I cannot justify begrudging them that at this time. The service at the funeral home the next morning turned out to be closed casket. When my mother and uncle went to check out the mortician's handy-work, they decided against it. My mother said "it just wasn't Mom." We had brunch after the services at the funeral home, as she was being cremated and buried at some other time.
Times like this spark conversation about our own deaths. My husband and I discussed our wishes for what would be done with our bodies at the time of our death. That conversation basically ended with, "you'll be dead, and I get to do what I want with it." To me, it would depend on the time in life and circumstances of death what I would do to my husband's body. I would only find a viewing of him necessary for his family, or if we had children, but not for myself.
On the other hand, he had very set ideas of how a funeral should go down. All funerals he'd ever been to were the same, and he thought that was the way they all should be. A wake the night before, viewing the next morning where nobody says anything, a church service, and then brunch as nobody visits the grave site at that time. With all this in mind, he thought that my grandmother's funeral was quite strange, but I found that having the ability to order things however we wanted made it much more meaningful for everyone.
Hopefully I won't be the one making these types of decisions for many years to come.
My mother said, before she left the room after my grandmother had passed, a nurse came in to open the window. She said they do this to let the soul out. I liked the idea of that ritual, although I don't think souls (if they existed) could be confined that way. I found comfort in this ritual, despite knowing it's pointless. Despite my efforts of purging supernatural superstitions from my life, it's hard when there is still that flicker of hope somewhere within my mind that our existence is more meaningful.
I went with my mother to prepare for the funeral, and meeting with a funeral director is quite an experience. I've watched 6 Feet Under, and Family Plots, so I thought I new what to expect.
If it was up to just my mother and myself, Grandmom would have been cremated, end of story. But some of the family felt need for closure, which meant a church service and possibly a viewing. This means picking out prayer cards, caskets, and clothing for the deceased. We still wished to have her body cremated, and the funeral director said we could "borrow" a casket, but then before burning, her body would be removed from it, and he didn't think that was respectful. In my own mind, I was thinking; really, how respectful is the process of embalming a body to begin with? And why would it matter? As for my own body, aside from someone molesting it, or stealing parts of it, I really wouldn't care, and definitely wouldn't care if someone burned my body without a casket.
The services included a church ceremony the night before the "viewing", with bible readings and remembrances said. I've always believed a funeral is for the living, not the dead, so if some find comfort in a church service, I cannot justify begrudging them that at this time. The service at the funeral home the next morning turned out to be closed casket. When my mother and uncle went to check out the mortician's handy-work, they decided against it. My mother said "it just wasn't Mom." We had brunch after the services at the funeral home, as she was being cremated and buried at some other time.
Times like this spark conversation about our own deaths. My husband and I discussed our wishes for what would be done with our bodies at the time of our death. That conversation basically ended with, "you'll be dead, and I get to do what I want with it." To me, it would depend on the time in life and circumstances of death what I would do to my husband's body. I would only find a viewing of him necessary for his family, or if we had children, but not for myself.
On the other hand, he had very set ideas of how a funeral should go down. All funerals he'd ever been to were the same, and he thought that was the way they all should be. A wake the night before, viewing the next morning where nobody says anything, a church service, and then brunch as nobody visits the grave site at that time. With all this in mind, he thought that my grandmother's funeral was quite strange, but I found that having the ability to order things however we wanted made it much more meaningful for everyone.
Hopefully I won't be the one making these types of decisions for many years to come.
It's been a bit of a whirlwind in my personal life recently. As I mentioned, there's been a death in my family, that combined with a motherboard failure on my home PC put me out of blogging for a while.
A little less than two weeks ago my grandmother, who has already been dying of cancer, fell and broke her hip. She survived surgery, but stopped eating after that, and soon went into kidney failure. She was still in the hospital and placed under "comfort care," as she didn't want any feeding tubes or to be put on a ventilator. Her children flew in to be with her, staying with her 24-7 until she passed. I would visit each day, but was not there when she passed.
My one uncle is very religious, and had been praying for her, and the priest has been to visit her. I have never known my grandmother to be much of a religious person, but she did attend church in her younger days. My own mother is very science minded, and from my conversations with her, does not believe in an afterlife (at least, not the heaven/hell type place in the bible). While it is really rough on everyone, I found these different approaches to her dying somewhat fascinating. My uncle called upon the priest and god to ease her suffering, while my mother called upon the nurse and morphine. From my point of view, neither seemed all that effective, in the end, all we could do was hold her hand in her suffering.
It's a tough process watching someone's body fail them, and seeing how much pain it is causing, with almost nothing you can do for them. At her age of 88, with all of her ailments, if not for modern medicine, she would have died long ago. On another occasion, several years ago she was in the hospital and in pain, when I asked her what I could do for her, her response was "kill me." On one hand, it's really rough knowing someone is in so much pain they wish to die, and yet incapable of facilitating that on their own. It's not something I dare assist her with, out of fear of the consequences, though I somewhat wish I could have.
Watching her own suffering makes me wonder if I would be more likely, when I got to her age, especially if I knew I had a terminal illness, to take myself out while I could. Depending on their beliefs, and the situation, would death that way be any worse on the family? I often view suicide as a selfish act, but when someone is already suffering their last days, is it more selfish to deny them quick release?
Next post: Funerals and rituals.
A little less than two weeks ago my grandmother, who has already been dying of cancer, fell and broke her hip. She survived surgery, but stopped eating after that, and soon went into kidney failure. She was still in the hospital and placed under "comfort care," as she didn't want any feeding tubes or to be put on a ventilator. Her children flew in to be with her, staying with her 24-7 until she passed. I would visit each day, but was not there when she passed.
My one uncle is very religious, and had been praying for her, and the priest has been to visit her. I have never known my grandmother to be much of a religious person, but she did attend church in her younger days. My own mother is very science minded, and from my conversations with her, does not believe in an afterlife (at least, not the heaven/hell type place in the bible). While it is really rough on everyone, I found these different approaches to her dying somewhat fascinating. My uncle called upon the priest and god to ease her suffering, while my mother called upon the nurse and morphine. From my point of view, neither seemed all that effective, in the end, all we could do was hold her hand in her suffering.
It's a tough process watching someone's body fail them, and seeing how much pain it is causing, with almost nothing you can do for them. At her age of 88, with all of her ailments, if not for modern medicine, she would have died long ago. On another occasion, several years ago she was in the hospital and in pain, when I asked her what I could do for her, her response was "kill me." On one hand, it's really rough knowing someone is in so much pain they wish to die, and yet incapable of facilitating that on their own. It's not something I dare assist her with, out of fear of the consequences, though I somewhat wish I could have.
Watching her own suffering makes me wonder if I would be more likely, when I got to her age, especially if I knew I had a terminal illness, to take myself out while I could. Depending on their beliefs, and the situation, would death that way be any worse on the family? I often view suicide as a selfish act, but when someone is already suffering their last days, is it more selfish to deny them quick release?
Next post: Funerals and rituals.
I've been gone for a while, for anyone who might have noticed.
There was a death in my family, which I'll elaborate on more later. It's got me thinking quite a bit.
In the meantime, I'd like to share this with you:
As my mind is still on the loss of a loved one, this video is a good summery of what I like to contemplate, a hope without basis, for a higher dimension. Sometimes I think it's silly, but still I think how wonderful our natural universe is already and perhaps it's not beyond capability for the sum of information that makes us who we are could be preserved somewhere in spacetime.
There was a death in my family, which I'll elaborate on more later. It's got me thinking quite a bit.
In the meantime, I'd like to share this with you:
As my mind is still on the loss of a loved one, this video is a good summery of what I like to contemplate, a hope without basis, for a higher dimension. Sometimes I think it's silly, but still I think how wonderful our natural universe is already and perhaps it's not beyond capability for the sum of information that makes us who we are could be preserved somewhere in spacetime.
Recently I posted that I really need to read the Koran, after some stories in the news and seeing a video on hate-speech found in the Koran.
Here's a good rebuttal video to that.
Christianity teaches love & kindness too... but we can find slavery, rape, and god taking sides in the bible as well. It's all in what you pick & choose... and in my book a fundie-christian preaching hate is just as despicable as a fundie-muslim preaching hate.
In the end, it's not about what Christianity or Islam teaches in it's purist forms.... it's about what those who preach religion are teaching.
Here's a good rebuttal video to that.
Christianity teaches love & kindness too... but we can find slavery, rape, and god taking sides in the bible as well. It's all in what you pick & choose... and in my book a fundie-christian preaching hate is just as despicable as a fundie-muslim preaching hate.
In the end, it's not about what Christianity or Islam teaches in it's purist forms.... it's about what those who preach religion are teaching.
I wish to be an equal-opportunity skeptic. I don't like any of their religions or any of their gods. And I can take threats of going to hell in stride cuz, hell, I don't believe in hell.
Reading Doug Marlette's article on being a tool of satan, where he observes "No one is less tolerant than those demanding tolerance." I thought to myself that is a profound statement, it really struck home with me.
There is only one thing I feel I am completely intolerant of; ignorance. Now, I'm not saying that I know everything (heck, if was omnipotent, I wouldn't be an atheist, because I believe in myself...), but I do my damnedest to do a bit of research on any given topic before I wish to talk about it. And I feel infinitely embarrassed when I realize I'm mistaken on something I thought to be true that wasn't.
But stories like Doug Marlette's make me all the more protective of my points of view in my every day life. Here, I am generally anonymous, and I'd be afraid to voice some of my opinions to family, friends, neighbors, for just these reasons. The tolerance police might otherwise come after me.
Reading Doug Marlette's article on being a tool of satan, where he observes "No one is less tolerant than those demanding tolerance." I thought to myself that is a profound statement, it really struck home with me.
There is only one thing I feel I am completely intolerant of; ignorance. Now, I'm not saying that I know everything (heck, if was omnipotent, I wouldn't be an atheist, because I believe in myself...), but I do my damnedest to do a bit of research on any given topic before I wish to talk about it. And I feel infinitely embarrassed when I realize I'm mistaken on something I thought to be true that wasn't.
But stories like Doug Marlette's make me all the more protective of my points of view in my every day life. Here, I am generally anonymous, and I'd be afraid to voice some of my opinions to family, friends, neighbors, for just these reasons. The tolerance police might otherwise come after me.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
