Dear Internet Diary,
Again, the crazies have infiltrated my blog. I know that I have preached against engaging these folks in debate, as their ideas don't deserve that sort of respect. I just wanted to include this as a sort of learning tool. This diatribe lays out exactly what these screwed-up beliefs are, and why we must combat them, even when they come in seemilngly "peaceful forms.
Typical stuff. Note that it's nice to see that some Christians can write and spell well.
Thanks for listening, diary.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Is This a New One, Oh Thou who Hearest Many Arguments?
Consider this blog:
Church and State 101
Here's an excerpt from "How I Know That Atheists Don't Exist" (and no, that's not the "new" thing that I mean:
Can someone tear him a new one? I'm tired and hot today. How exactly does Atheism "rest" on the teleological argument? Or is this again another theist who simply re-defines atheism as a straw man strategy?
PS: He has no comments yet. Is he worth a moment of your time? Of my time? Of his momma's time?
Church and State 101
Here's an excerpt from "How I Know That Atheists Don't Exist" (and no, that's not the "new" thing that I mean:
Consider this: Atheism rests upon the denial of what pundits have dubbed "teleology," the very obvious notion that "design demands a designer," or that patterns imply intelligence. Denying this, of course, amounts to mere propaganda. Go into any Atheist chat room and type the words, "design demands a designer." Immediately, they will spring into action with all manner of philosophical acrobatics to show you wrong. Many will -- quite predictably -- begin quoting one "David Hume." This is when it gets downright funny.
Can someone tear him a new one? I'm tired and hot today. How exactly does Atheism "rest" on the teleological argument? Or is this again another theist who simply re-defines atheism as a straw man strategy?
PS: He has no comments yet. Is he worth a moment of your time? Of my time? Of his momma's time?
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Rapping with a Far-Out Fundie, Joseph Farah
Dear Internet Diary,
This will be fun, I hope. It's from our very most number one favorite publication of The Truth, the publication that dares to say things that They....don't want you to know....it's
WorldNetDaily! *applause* (Farah is in italics, I am in bold.)
I believe in Creation
Posted: December 16, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
This will be fun, I hope. It's from our very most number one favorite publication of The Truth, the publication that dares to say things that They....don't want you to know....it's
WorldNetDaily! *applause* (Farah is in italics, I am in bold.)
I believe in Creation
Posted: December 16, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Many people don't like it when I talk about this subject.
I'm bound to get dozens – maybe hundreds – of angry letters telling me I'm losing credibility, that I'll never be accepted into the mainstream pundit club if I keep this up, that I should lay off the religious stuff and stick to politics.
But I don't care.
You're Just Like Jesus, Joseph Farah. Do you know that? Of course you do.
Because I believe in truth. I believe in right and wrong. I believe in God. I believe in the Bible. And I believe in the biblical account of Creation.
And I believe that donkeys can talk, people can fly, and a man named Jesus lives up in the sky! Hooray!!
I tell you this because, in my opinion, Americans are becoming too timid about standing up and proclaiming the way they truly feel about this issue. And, as a result, the evolution steamroller is becoming the official religion of U.S. schools.
Americans are becoming "too timid?" That's a good one. I'm still getting ringing in my ears from all those "timid" Americans standing up and screaming that they'll be damned if little Tyler or Cassidee done come from monkeys. Why, them scien-tists up thar in Warshington, mebbee they done come from monkeys, but we ain't. I knowd it cause our family tree is straight as a arrow. Yes it 'tis.
It is now dangerous just to proclaim in a government school that evolution is a "theory."
Then how come that's all you hear from school boards and public school teachers ? This guy is a liar.
The American Civil Liberties Union is not only crushing manger scenes and burning crosses across the country,
That is the single most beautiful image I could never have come up with on my own. Picture this: 45 year-old skinny guys in pony tails with giant sledgehammers, weilding them above the holy tiny helpless fiberglass or light-up plastic baby Jesus. Then, in one mighty blow, Kurt brings down the Witch's Hammer upon the White and Precious One. Is Kurt done? Can his taste for Christian blood be sated now? No! No I tell you! ACLU Kurt will not be satisfied until he burns a cross (because it's the KKK's God-given right to do so) and hurls it at a humble live Nativity Scene. Who is that, kneeling at the manger? Why, it's his own aunt Millie! Aunt Millie! "Noooo! What have I done! My maniacal Satanic liberal crusade has cost me my family! Nooooooo!"
You see, Jesus never lets a bad deed go unpunished.
...it is also crusading to ensure evolution is the only explanation of origins permitted to be mentioned in the U.S. education system.
Well, considering that it's the only explanation we have, as Jewish Creationism is not an explanation, I don't see the problem here. But again, the man lies like a sack.
This week, for instance, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging a Pennsylvania school district that teaches alternatives to the theory of evolution alongside Darwinism.
(As if they are teaching more than one "alternative." Clever.) What alternatives?The "Talking Snake Theory?"
On Oct. 18, the Dover school board voted 6-3 to add the teaching of "intelligent design" to its ninth-grade biology curricula. Without identifying who the "designer" might be, the theory of intelligent design says the complexity and order of the universe and mankind suggest the action of an intelligent cause rather than random chance.
Teacher: OK, kids. The world had a "creator."
Kid: You mean Jesus, teacher?
Teacher: Well, um...uh...n..not..necessarily.
Yeah. That's right. The Christian teacher will say it "might not be Jesus." Sure.
Kid: You mean, it could be not a god?
Teacher: Well, what do you think?
Kid: It could be aliens!
Teacher: Go to the principal's office, Dylan.
There are atheists who believe in intelligent design. There are Buddhists who believe in intelligent design. There are agnostics who believe in intelligent design. And, yes, there are even some Christians and Jews who believe in intelligent design.
There are Raelians who believe in intelligent design. See? Intelligent design is for everybody, but mostly for all you alternative sinners who are going to hell to buuuuurn forever. Because good christians believe in the intelligent design of Jesus Christ. But we should all be assured that they would not dare to try and legislate that Jesusianism is the American Religion. Even though he just got through talking about how terrible it is that the ACLU is taking chainsaws and burning crosses to publicly funded Nativity Scenes. How about we have an Intelligent Design Nativity Scene that we all--atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Jews, and yes, even "some" christians might enjoy?
You Intelligent Design advocates can get out your crayons and draw me an "Intelligent Design Creche?" The winner will get....well, I don't know, but something.
But to hear the ACLU tell it, just offering this alternative scientific theory to schoolchildren is the equivalent of proclaiming an official state church in America – a violation of the First Amendment.
That's right, Joseph Farah. Use those words "alternative scientific." They please all the heathens! "Alternative" for those damned liberal christians, and "scientific" for the Jews! Huzzah!
When people accept the theory of evolution as an article of faith and teach it as a matter of fact and permit no dissent whatsoever from their doctrine, they are the ones who are promoting religious dogma to all students.
"You see? Evolution is a religion! They are on equal footing with us, so it's against the law for the government to teach religion in school! So you see, I'm using my crafty Christian wiles to say maybe state and church aren't seperate and never should have been in the first place. Killing a few birds with one stone. Pretty awesome if you ask me."
I'm not sure which religious views they hold. They may be atheists. They may be agnostics. They may be pagans. They may be secular humanists. I don't know which particular dogma they follow. It isn't important. But rest assured they are only disguising their narrow religious views in the language of science.
Awww. Isn't that cute? "Atheist Dogma." Will he tell us just what dogma that is, just so we can check? No. It "isn't important right now." What's important is that I say that religious views are narrow to make people think that WorldNetDaily journalists are "opem-minded." Whatever that means. I especially like that last sentence. Evolutionists are disguising their narrow religious views in the language of science." Whoa! What! Oh my god...I'm spinning in a hopeless paradox, where religion is science and science is religion! Maybe, just maybe....everything I know is backwards!
And that's what is happening all over the country. There's a new wave of sweeping intolerance and rigid conformity being required of teachers and students.
Wow. This guy needs to grow his hair out and grab a fringed suede vest, because I think we have a hippy here! Could it be that the Bible doesn't teach rigid, absolute standards? Could it be that the message of the Bible is love, peace, tolerance and science? Is this guy sure he didn't grab the wrong dogma? Maybe someone switched all the Gideons in the hotels for the Humanist Manifesto, and he just didn't notice.
It seems to me when authorities are unwilling to accept any criticism of their doctrine, there is probably good reason.
Are we talkiing about the Church here, or are we talking about The Grand Poo-Bahs of Science? The ones who cannot be criticised? It's a wonder science progresses at all, what with this heirarchy! I wonder how The Grand Scientists choose their new leader? Is there white smoke involved? Knowing how godless they are, I'm sure there's some kind of smoke involved, if you know what I mean.
Yeah, me too. They make you wear white lab coats everywhere, and force you to not walk upright. I still have nightmares about my own Indoctrination Camps. The motto for mine was
"Natural Selection Macht Frei."
Evolutionists are incapable of selling their ideas in an open marketplace. Instead, they resort to Soviet-style coercion and censorship to impose their views on others.
Evolution is anti-Capitalism? I can honestly say I have never heard that one. Unfortunately he is all wet. If there is any "open marketplace" it's sexual selection! But seriously, he couldn't be more backwards if he stuck his head up his ass.
Remember, it was the communists who made a special point of teaching that God played no role in the creation of the universe and mankind. Evolution became their god, and history is repeating itself in America's classrooms today.
No. The State was their god. In an open marketplace of ideas in Russia today, we find that Christianity still doesn't sell. It's all psychics and pseudoscience.
The truth is we don't know what we don't know.
Like about Jesus, and heaven and hell, the bible, and sin?
And that's as good reason as any not to teach what we don't know as fact to kids forced to attend government schools.
And that's as good reason as any not to teach what we don't know as fact to kids "forced" to attend religious schools, church, sunday school, and, in the case of "Intelligent Design," ("golly gee, we don't got NO idea who was that there Intelly-gent dee-ziner"), Public Schools.
Who are these gods again? And are the christians really going to teach children all - I repeat, all - the creation myths in science class? And evolution? I have to ask, are kids being taught evolution at all? Or are science teachers living in fear of losing their jobs. When weren't they?
Well, it's been fun. But I don't know how many more articles from WorldNetDaily I can read before my breakfast comes up. Thanks for listening, diary.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Saturday, June 25, 2005
What They Believe: The Soul
Dear Internet Diary,
The soul has about two dozen definitions for ever individual on eath who has ever thought about the word. Look it up on Google. It can mean anything you want, thus making it a sort of a New Age term: it's so vague any religion can claim it. And they do.
The concept of a "sort of energy" (ugh) that can carry your essence has been around at least since the Vedas were written, which makes it almost inherent to the concept of "going somewhere after we die." Some gurus have taken to saying that there are billions of souls that exist in the primary particles in the universe. Well, it's sort of clever, since we know that all organic material was born inside of stars. But then that would make all of our particles souls, getting into Scientology turf.
In the days of the bodily humours and bloodletting, even in the days of Hippocrates, they beleived that each organ had its own soul. The stomach had a soul whose job was to attract food to it, to make it work. The kidneys and liver were nothing but meat without a soul. It's a sort of "God of the gaps" argument. Since they move, the gods must have caused them to move, in this case by giving them souls. The Chinese just needed a special "human life force" to get everything going. A Qi. Somehow in the west, the qi retreated away from the body and hid up in the pineal gland in the brain. This "seat of the soul" was described as "The Cartesian Theatre," where all impulses, all stimuli was somehow presented before the body could then act. It was as if a little man, a homunculus, sat there pulling all the strings, and watching everything on a big screen. A theatre. Here on this stage was where the essence of a man lived.
To Christians, though, the soul lives on after death, and somehow manages to carry our personality with it when it escapes our mouths, all 21 grams of it, and flies "up" to Happy Land, or some other stage before happy land where it is judged. So the Essence of Us means every thought, every deed, every experience. I don't know what the point of this is, since all you have to do is make a little incantation about believing in Jesus, say we're sorry, and all those deeds and thoughts are erased, and we get a free Golden Ticket.
We had to invent a soul. We loved our parents, and they died. They stopped moving. That thing that made them move went away. Maybe we poked them and the last bit of air escaped their lungs. That was it: that was the soul leaping to freedom. Today we manage to keep that belief, theist or atheist. We moved the soul concept to the psyche, and prefer to believe in a phantom us essence that we call the mind. The problem is, the self os so important to us--of course it is--that we can't let go of the feeling that there must be something otherworldly in there besides the brain. In many cases, that otherwordly thing is the self, seated in a special place, somewhere, probably, in the middle. Thus we move from geocentrism to egocentrism.
We're funny that way.
Thanks for listening, diary.
The soul has about two dozen definitions for ever individual on eath who has ever thought about the word. Look it up on Google. It can mean anything you want, thus making it a sort of a New Age term: it's so vague any religion can claim it. And they do.
The concept of a "sort of energy" (ugh) that can carry your essence has been around at least since the Vedas were written, which makes it almost inherent to the concept of "going somewhere after we die." Some gurus have taken to saying that there are billions of souls that exist in the primary particles in the universe. Well, it's sort of clever, since we know that all organic material was born inside of stars. But then that would make all of our particles souls, getting into Scientology turf.
In the days of the bodily humours and bloodletting, even in the days of Hippocrates, they beleived that each organ had its own soul. The stomach had a soul whose job was to attract food to it, to make it work. The kidneys and liver were nothing but meat without a soul. It's a sort of "God of the gaps" argument. Since they move, the gods must have caused them to move, in this case by giving them souls. The Chinese just needed a special "human life force" to get everything going. A Qi. Somehow in the west, the qi retreated away from the body and hid up in the pineal gland in the brain. This "seat of the soul" was described as "The Cartesian Theatre," where all impulses, all stimuli was somehow presented before the body could then act. It was as if a little man, a homunculus, sat there pulling all the strings, and watching everything on a big screen. A theatre. Here on this stage was where the essence of a man lived.
To Christians, though, the soul lives on after death, and somehow manages to carry our personality with it when it escapes our mouths, all 21 grams of it, and flies "up" to Happy Land, or some other stage before happy land where it is judged. So the Essence of Us means every thought, every deed, every experience. I don't know what the point of this is, since all you have to do is make a little incantation about believing in Jesus, say we're sorry, and all those deeds and thoughts are erased, and we get a free Golden Ticket.
We had to invent a soul. We loved our parents, and they died. They stopped moving. That thing that made them move went away. Maybe we poked them and the last bit of air escaped their lungs. That was it: that was the soul leaping to freedom. Today we manage to keep that belief, theist or atheist. We moved the soul concept to the psyche, and prefer to believe in a phantom us essence that we call the mind. The problem is, the self os so important to us--of course it is--that we can't let go of the feeling that there must be something otherworldly in there besides the brain. In many cases, that otherwordly thing is the self, seated in a special place, somewhere, probably, in the middle. Thus we move from geocentrism to egocentrism.
We're funny that way.
Thanks for listening, diary.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Why Do Good Things Happen to Bad People?
Dear Internet Diary,
Culled from I Am An Atheist Blog:
I'm having trouble with a cliché, I'm afraid, and I thought perhaps you would be able to help me out. I wish I were more interesting, but it's the old question of "why do bad things happen to good people?"
I've asked this question to several friends who believe in an all-powerful and all-good deity (three Christians of varying denominations, one Jew, one self-identified "miscellaneous believer") and all have given me essentially the same answer: free will. But that doesn't make any sense to me.
The problem is category error. There are no such things as "good people" and "bad things." I think there are good actions and bad actions, good and bad intentions, and unhealthy values, and people do both. Christianity says there are good and bad people, but never explains exactly how that works.
For example, how many good acts does it take to make a good person? How many intentions that are bad does it take to make a person "bad?" Exactly what act? We know that actions don't exist in a vacuum--choices come in context, like say, killing a person.
We also know that there are certain people that go into hell in the bible that are NOT "bad." Yet this seems to be the only rationale for eternal hell. Was every single person drowned in The Flood a "bad person?" How is this possible? How were those people able to develop a culture at all, if they were all, from embryo to Great Great Grandmother, "bad?"
The question is not "why do bad things happen to good people?" People do bad things to other people, people make mistakes, and "bad things," that are simply natural phenomena, happen around people. The hilarious thing is when your Christians explain Tsunamis and Flesh-Eating bacteria as a result of Eve and her sin. Their bible has two built-in excuses for the bad things that happen to good people: The first is Covenant Theology, used when the bible fails to live up to its promises. It means "you sinned, so our contract is null." The second is Free Will, to use when the contract was otherwise upheld. It means, "Eve sinned, so by default, you sinned, therefore you`ve broken our covenant. I'm god, so I can pull these kinds of shenanigans. See ya!"
Well, that seems "fair."
Christians. They say the darndest things.
Thanks for listening, diary.
The Complicated History of the Concept of the Soul
I was setting about to write about people's concepts of the soul. I decided to do a little reasearch into the origins of the concept (what am I getting myself into?!?) when I found this interesting song.
It seems that Dr. Frank of the band The Mr. T Experience wrote a graduate philosophy thesis and set it to music. Here are the lyrics:
It seems that Dr. Frank of the band The Mr. T Experience wrote a graduate philosophy thesis and set it to music. Here are the lyrics:
Homer didn't have a comprehensive word for mind.
the psyche and the conscious self had not yet been combined.
He understood events as repetition of the past,
and individual consciousness was not a part of that.
But early Greek thought played a role in the complicate history
of the concept of the soul.
By the time of Plato these ideas had taken shape.
The Phaedo and Timaeus are works which demonstrate
the consious separation of the knower from the known
and the dual nature of the body and the soul.
Modern thought was possible:
the complicated history of the concept of the soul.
Whoa!
Pythagoras and Orphic doctrines all came into play,
because Plato was a mystic in his own Platonic way.
The pre-Socratic Naturalists saw things in terms of "stuff".
But Plato's metaphysics showed that this was not enough.
This is the incredible complicated history of the concept of the soul.
Rock and roll.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Jesus was just like me!
Dear Internet Diary
Apparently, Jesus was also a raw foods vegetarian, and possibly a black woman. No matter. He didn't exist. I just wish I understood why these folks have such a skewed concept of the words "justice," "peace," and "love." From what I gather, liberals believe that being loving and peaceful means preaching constantly about the violent end of the world (that he would bring about personally), and how those that do not follow him will burn in an eternal hell. How is it consistent with liberalism to endorse the Laws of Leviticus and the Ten Commandments, and the penalties for breaking them? Do liberals believe that church and state should be one and the same, a theocrasy? Jesus did. Do liberals believe that we should live under the rule of a king? Jesus did. Do liberals believe that a peace activist, living in a world of slavery, should never speak against it, indeed endorse the beating of "bad" slaves? Jesus did.
If this is what liberals believe, then by all means they should pretend that the mythical Jesus was just like them. Everybody else does. But if I compare anyone to Jesus, be certain: it's an insult.
From Liberals Like Christ
If Jesus of Nazareth was anything, he was an extraordinary friend of the downtrodden, definitely a Liberal, whose advocacy on their behalf so infuriated the ultra-Conservative religious and political leaders of his day that they had him killed to prevent the public from hearing the very liberal teaching that you will see quoted in Jesus' own words here on this web site !
The Jesus they taught me about lived and died in the name of justice, in the spirit of peace. He was an anti-establishment activist who begot peacemakers from Gandhi to Chavez, King to Mandela.
Catholic.org says
Jesus was loving, compassionate, honest, a great sense of humor and a great conversationalist. Just being with Jesus was a wonderful experience. He was a great companion in all kinds of weather. And apostles loved to hear Jesus talk about God.
Apparently, Jesus was also a raw foods vegetarian, and possibly a black woman. No matter. He didn't exist. I just wish I understood why these folks have such a skewed concept of the words "justice," "peace," and "love." From what I gather, liberals believe that being loving and peaceful means preaching constantly about the violent end of the world (that he would bring about personally), and how those that do not follow him will burn in an eternal hell. How is it consistent with liberalism to endorse the Laws of Leviticus and the Ten Commandments, and the penalties for breaking them? Do liberals believe that church and state should be one and the same, a theocrasy? Jesus did. Do liberals believe that we should live under the rule of a king? Jesus did. Do liberals believe that a peace activist, living in a world of slavery, should never speak against it, indeed endorse the beating of "bad" slaves? Jesus did.
If this is what liberals believe, then by all means they should pretend that the mythical Jesus was just like them. Everybody else does. But if I compare anyone to Jesus, be certain: it's an insult.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Fun With Spammers!
Dear Internet Crackpot,
I call upon thee, oh most Terrible Twat! I hear thine words:
Indeed you are! I laugh such a laugh! My laugh is mighty!
Ha ha ha!
Thy cunt is indeed vast, and thou art indeed powerful, mistress! This is because your Liberally Large Labia devours every Tom, Dick and Ted Jesus Christ God with no judgement and no taste, leaving an atmosphere that is most malodorous indeed!
CHOKE!!
I, Heroic Hellbound Alleee, of the tight and tidy twat of Educated Judgement, do direct my almighty Monistat Ray at your less than comely cunt, rendering it useless and only a bit less diseased.
Now, Worthless Wench, my patience is worn. Your influence, puny as it was, no longer holds court over my domain.
Begone!
Shoo! Shoo! Hellbound Alleee has spoken! Pack your Pussy back to its dirty litterbox! Scat! Fear my wrath!
I call upon thee, oh most Terrible Twat! I hear thine words:
"it is the vast and greedy cunt of all-devouring time."
Indeed you are! I laugh such a laugh! My laugh is mighty!
Ha ha ha!
Thy cunt is indeed vast, and thou art indeed powerful, mistress! This is because your Liberally Large Labia devours every Tom, Dick and Ted Jesus Christ God with no judgement and no taste, leaving an atmosphere that is most malodorous indeed!
CHOKE!!
I, Heroic Hellbound Alleee, of the tight and tidy twat of Educated Judgement, do direct my almighty Monistat Ray at your less than comely cunt, rendering it useless and only a bit less diseased.
Now, Worthless Wench, my patience is worn. Your influence, puny as it was, no longer holds court over my domain.
Begone!
Shoo! Shoo! Hellbound Alleee has spoken! Pack your Pussy back to its dirty litterbox! Scat! Fear my wrath!
Friday, June 17, 2005
Information about the crackpot spam on your blogs:
I have done a search on the text in the "Hashishan Prophet" spam, and I found some info. Here is my response on my last comments, so you can see for yourself:
Anyway, I found this site as the source of the Polar stuff:
Survive 2012
The monkey-horde thing is from chapter (LXVII) of the Yuddhakanda--the monkeys are fighting for Rama. I think they are the good guys.
And Ted Jesus Christ is here:
Ted Jesus Christ God
on our own site.
Here is a page where you can find the Jesus is Satan stuff:
Jesus is Lucifer
It's looking a lot like Gene Ray.
The last site is THE site to see, which makes me wonder if I have an auditioner here?
Anyway, it seems that the crackpots can't even come up with their own material anymore.
Anyway, I found this site as the source of the Polar stuff:
Survive 2012
The monkey-horde thing is from chapter (LXVII) of the Yuddhakanda--the monkeys are fighting for Rama. I think they are the good guys.
And Ted Jesus Christ is here:
Ted Jesus Christ God
on our own site.
Here is a page where you can find the Jesus is Satan stuff:
Jesus is Lucifer
It's looking a lot like Gene Ray.
The last site is THE site to see, which makes me wonder if I have an auditioner here?
Anyway, it seems that the crackpots can't even come up with their own material anymore.
The Nothing
Dear Internet Diary,
More google-mining:
I was thinking about this last night, because my husband and I were talking about the christian problem with death. I noticed that when I encounter a christian who probably isn't used to talking to atheists, the first thing he invariably says is, "you're an atheist? Well, where do we go when we die? Answer that one, big man!" He thinks he has a trump card, because he cannot conceive of death. Getting deeper into the belief, he cannot picture nothingness, and that bothers him.
The truth is, he can't picture nothingness, and neither can anyone else. The word "nothingness" is a problem, because it implies a noun, which implies existence. The individuals above have made nothing into something. You just can't do that! Nothing doesn't exist. You can't float around in nothing. The last guy, who said "nothingness is what spans the distance between stars" is wrong. It's called space. It is actually something. A vacuum, a distance. Stop thinking that nothing is like space!
I was like these folks. I thought of death, and I had an image of a person floating around in blackness. Imagine an astronaut, like in 2001 a Space Odyssey, flung into space, without being pulled apart by the vacuum, floating around, limp. I also thought that somehow you might wake up and death becomes a hell of lying inside a coffin for all eternity, with nothing to do but sleep. Death's eternity is boredom.
But none of this is nothing. I understand why people relate it to death, but here's my take on it. Neither you or I can ever be dead, because it's impossible to be dead. There is no more I in death. It is also impossible for something to not exist, because there is no something in nothing. So when they ask, "why something rather than nothing?" I answer, "because there is no other possibility. No other choice. Existence has no opposite, because it is the first, the prime, the irreducible.
Once again, the religious have it backwards. It is not I who believes in nothing. They do.
More google-mining:
What is nothingness?
In my understanding which is very subjective, nothingness is the Source of all there is...we the creation from the nothingness are like peas in the soup, so to speak, nothingness is the soup, to put it simple!
Nothingness is that space where thoughts and creation are born…
Your thoughts are created in the 'nothingness' or space between thoughts - I think!
Well, the way I learned (I'm Jewish) was that there is basically an emotionless, senseless utter void that you plunge into immediately upon death. And that's where you stay until the Messianic era. But since it is a complete void, there is no real passing of time, so your stay there seemes instantaneous.
I can never imagine nothing, when I do I just think of blackness.
Nothingness is what fills the gaps between matter and what spans the distance between stars.
I was thinking about this last night, because my husband and I were talking about the christian problem with death. I noticed that when I encounter a christian who probably isn't used to talking to atheists, the first thing he invariably says is, "you're an atheist? Well, where do we go when we die? Answer that one, big man!" He thinks he has a trump card, because he cannot conceive of death. Getting deeper into the belief, he cannot picture nothingness, and that bothers him.
The truth is, he can't picture nothingness, and neither can anyone else. The word "nothingness" is a problem, because it implies a noun, which implies existence. The individuals above have made nothing into something. You just can't do that! Nothing doesn't exist. You can't float around in nothing. The last guy, who said "nothingness is what spans the distance between stars" is wrong. It's called space. It is actually something. A vacuum, a distance. Stop thinking that nothing is like space!
I was like these folks. I thought of death, and I had an image of a person floating around in blackness. Imagine an astronaut, like in 2001 a Space Odyssey, flung into space, without being pulled apart by the vacuum, floating around, limp. I also thought that somehow you might wake up and death becomes a hell of lying inside a coffin for all eternity, with nothing to do but sleep. Death's eternity is boredom.
But none of this is nothing. I understand why people relate it to death, but here's my take on it. Neither you or I can ever be dead, because it's impossible to be dead. There is no more I in death. It is also impossible for something to not exist, because there is no something in nothing. So when they ask, "why something rather than nothing?" I answer, "because there is no other possibility. No other choice. Existence has no opposite, because it is the first, the prime, the irreducible.
Once again, the religious have it backwards. It is not I who believes in nothing. They do.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Check this out
I like this one better.
And this one, too.
UPDATE!
Here's a new one about Longinous, the blind Roman Soldier.
And this one, too.
UPDATE!
Here's a new one about Longinous, the blind Roman Soldier.
I'm Above Criticism!
Dear Internet Diary,I created this comic using Strip Creator. There are several such sites on the internet. I made the same basic strip maybe four times. Exhausting.
I made the comic because of a post I read on My Space. This girl thinks that we are "just like" bible-thumping fundies. I guess that's supposed to be the worst insult to hurl at us. I could go on about it, but why don't you check out my silly strip?
They Must Be Stopped!
And here is her post:
The last thing she said: "you have the right to believe whatever you want to, "and I expect the same respect": Non-sequitor, anyone?
I am not here to judge anyone, I am actually a catholic myself, but I just want to throw this out there. Sometimes athiests and christians have a spectrum going on. There are the bible thumpers who refuse to believe anything other than christianity, they judge others for their beliefs and think you are going to hell if you don't go to church on sundays. My boyfriends church is like that and he hates it. And then there are the athiests who all they do is argue and won't listen to christians either, they are just as bad, all close minded bastards. They hate christians just because they are christians, they don't care that maybe the christians never bothered them.
I know you guys are all athiest and thats cool and all, i really could care less what people believe. I wouldn't care if you decided to worship lemons.
Do any of you guys get what I am saying? I hope i am not offending any one, but I am sick of both people telling me I am wrong. I DO believe in christ but i DON'T think gay people or who ever are going to hell. I don't like when when people think i am not christian enough, or, even worse, that I am going to hell because i am catholic and I am not a true christian, and I dont like it when people tell me that I am wrong for believing in god.
here is the bottom line everyone:
- I believe in Jesus christ
- i am catholic and will always be
- I will go to church when i feel like it
- i don't think sinners go to hell
- i don't care if you don't like what i believe
- you have the right to believe what ever you want to, and i expect the same respect
This young lady is clearly oblivious to the irony in what she is saying. She claims to not judge others, yet here she is clearly saying that fundamentalist bible-thumpers and atheists are bad. She would never do what they do, which is criticize others and believe the bad stuff in the bible. Atheists are "closed minded bastards," either because they won't believe, even just a little bit, or simply because they don't agree with her. She is a true christian and therefore above reproach.
What she doesn't realize is that because she professes to be a Catholic, a christian, and a jesus fan, she endorses the teachings and beliefs of the catholic church, and its holy scripture. She says she does not believe sinners go to hell, yet Jesus, the one she worships, does. Matthew 18 shows it quite clearly. In the Sermon on the Mount, that lovely passage that even some Atheists say is beautiful, Jesus endorses the Ten Commandments and the penalties for breaking them: exactly what the bible-thumpers believe. Jesus was the biggest End-Times fundie bible-thumper of them all, and she worships him.
It seems strange that a person claiming to be tired of being criticized would come into an atheist discussion and insult them with what she assumes to be the worst insult you could give to an atheist: compare them to fundies. But I don't think she's tired of it. I think she craves it. She's obviously getting something out of it, whether it is the rush of anger, the motivation that comes from it, or simply the attention. I don't feel the need to criticize that.
Bottom line for me: "Judge Not lest ye be judged?" I never ask to not be judged. I welcome it. I hope you do too. It's called Being an Adult.
Thanks for listening, diary.
Monday, June 13, 2005
What They Believe Part 2: Hell
Dear Internet Diary,
So, either I am going to be thrown in a fire and burned forever, I am going to simply die, or just lie there ignored by god forever (which could be said to be a kind of torture anyway), or I am already in hell and right now I am in a state of shallowness and emptiness.
I'm going to throw out the supposed CS Lewis definition right now. Besides, we talked about this only a few days ago. I am getting fed up with the lies I read from Mr. Lewis. Don't go see The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe at the movies this Christmas. It's written by a liar.
I don't really see much difference between the "seperation from god" people and the fire and brimstone people. They both have to do with eternal torment. One is just a little bit more like The Twilight Zone than the other. However they want it to happen, they want me, and most likely you, to suffer. Some people are nice enough to believe that if you are "good," you go to heaven, although that betrays the entire meaning of heaven and hell in the first place.
The core belief here is final justice. The scriptures say, and people believe that in the end, they will get what is coming to them. Everyone will. They just aren't very creative about it. Most chritsians probably deviate from the scriptural cartoon, where an angel opens The Book of Life. If you're in it, you go to Heaven, if not, you go straight into the lake of fire. The judgement that just happened, where every action and choice you made was assessed was apparently just for show.
But what makes someone think that eternal torture--or eternal light torture--is a good thing? They evidently do, they evidently believe that God's judgement is the only judgement, and if God decides someone should be tortured forever, that makes eternal torture good. Sure, some people agree with the idea of torture for political reasons. That would make them psychotic. But even they would agree that it can't go on forever. People have wives and families to go home to. Hobbies. They don't want to miss an episode of Law And Order. (I don't.) But for some reason, they figure that if someone has the means and desire to torture me forever, they should by all means do it.
Thanks Christians. Not only for having the ability to change the meaning of evil to good, slavery to freedom, and torture to love, but for applying it to me, and everyone I love.
And you tell me I "have to respect beliefs."
Thanks for listening, diary.
Danny Young
I believe that hell is the place of eternal torment for all who reject Christ as the Savior (Revelation 20:10,15).
Butch
I believe that Hell is eternal separation from God by choice. ( I do not believe that it is a place of eternal torment and torture.)
The Christian Library--J.H.Loux
Hell, then, would be a condition of permanent separation from God. The condition where that void is never filled. Our whole life, then, is one pilgrimage either toward God or toward hell. It is in this sense that Lewis can say of the damned that there was never a time when they were not in hell and that the pleasures of their lives were actually cheats, void of value. Of the redeemed he says that there was never a time when they were not in heaven and that the trials of their lives were actually purgatory, perfecting their faith.
So, either I am going to be thrown in a fire and burned forever, I am going to simply die, or just lie there ignored by god forever (which could be said to be a kind of torture anyway), or I am already in hell and right now I am in a state of shallowness and emptiness.
I'm going to throw out the supposed CS Lewis definition right now. Besides, we talked about this only a few days ago. I am getting fed up with the lies I read from Mr. Lewis. Don't go see The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe at the movies this Christmas. It's written by a liar.
I don't really see much difference between the "seperation from god" people and the fire and brimstone people. They both have to do with eternal torment. One is just a little bit more like The Twilight Zone than the other. However they want it to happen, they want me, and most likely you, to suffer. Some people are nice enough to believe that if you are "good," you go to heaven, although that betrays the entire meaning of heaven and hell in the first place.
The core belief here is final justice. The scriptures say, and people believe that in the end, they will get what is coming to them. Everyone will. They just aren't very creative about it. Most chritsians probably deviate from the scriptural cartoon, where an angel opens The Book of Life. If you're in it, you go to Heaven, if not, you go straight into the lake of fire. The judgement that just happened, where every action and choice you made was assessed was apparently just for show.
But what makes someone think that eternal torture--or eternal light torture--is a good thing? They evidently do, they evidently believe that God's judgement is the only judgement, and if God decides someone should be tortured forever, that makes eternal torture good. Sure, some people agree with the idea of torture for political reasons. That would make them psychotic. But even they would agree that it can't go on forever. People have wives and families to go home to. Hobbies. They don't want to miss an episode of Law And Order. (I don't.) But for some reason, they figure that if someone has the means and desire to torture me forever, they should by all means do it.
Thanks Christians. Not only for having the ability to change the meaning of evil to good, slavery to freedom, and torture to love, but for applying it to me, and everyone I love.
And you tell me I "have to respect beliefs."
Thanks for listening, diary.
Friday, June 10, 2005
What they Believe: Armageddon
Dear Internet Diary,
According to recent opinion polls, 52% of Americans not only believe there will be an Armageddon, but they believe Jesus is coming withing the next thousand years to clean house terminator style. Gives em a wide berth "in case they're wrong," I suppose.
The end of the world scenario is a common one among dualistic religions. Apocalyptic writing was certainly not new in John the Elder's time. There were many such documents rolling around the holy land when he wrote his steamy little potboiler. Actually, "apocalypse" does not mean Armageddon or the end of the world. It simply means revelation. Peeling away what's hidden to reveal the truth. Many cultures' scripture and religious teachings have this aspect of a sort of armageddon of the self, the destruction of one life to reveal a new one. Reincarnation, explaining the use of wildfires in forests, enlightenment--it's all a sort of armageddon. Jungian psychologists like to point to the dreams of bloody childbirth and fiery, or watery destruction to be revelations of human creativity caused by a sort of collective unconscious. Perhaps it's due to evolutionary psychology, as mankind has witnessed the powerful effects of nature and must have gone through all kinds of attitude changes as he learned about the world around him.
But that's not what most people believe in North America. They believe that there are good people, and there are bad people. They believe that there are creatures that exists that actually embody the concepts of good and evil. They believe that these creatures are going to do battle, and that the bad people who are on earth at the time will be killed by both the evil and the good creatures, and that the bad people and bad creatures will all be thrown into a lake of fire by the good creatures. They believe the good creatures and the good people will all live together in harmony in a magical land called New Jerusalem, where nobody will speak out of turn, everybody will live in a constant state of bliss and orgasm, and the flowers will dance and sing for a thousand years. And then they'll all go to heaven again for something supposedly different. And Jesus will be a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns and then there's the locusts with the human faces and the scorpions with women's hair, and some scary beast woman who gives birth to something that gets eaten by a dragon.
But it's all symbolic, you say. Sure it is. And it's believed literally by many people. When you get into the funny cartoon creatures, people kind of shy away and start talking symbolism, but they somehow don't believe that the war itself is symbolic too. If you're going to believe the bible is symbolic, then Jesus and Moses and heaven and hell: they're symbolic too.
But it is, as all apocalyptic writing. The persecuted christians and or jews or whatever were going to kick Rome's ass with the help of Jesus, and Then They Will Be Sorry. And so will the nonbelievers. Symbolically sorry, I suppose. Rome, the Whore of Babylon, will finally learn the truth but then it will be too late because they will all be killed by God. Or the symbolic god. All this before Paul and Peter and all those guys died.
But it didn't happen.
So it will never happen. Unless you don't believe Jesus. You wouldn't think of doing that, would you?
Totally symbolic, partly symbolic or literal, it's an evil, immoral doctrine. When the "good guys" kill all the bad guys, that turns the good guys into the bad guys. The bad guys being all the people who didn't believe the "good guys'" rantings and ravings about ferocious beasts and talking snakes and men who shoot up into the sky like rockets who can magically absorb all the bad things you do so you can live in Happy Land.
But people don't want to believe that killing everyone on earth except for christians is an evil act. Because that would make them wrong. And nobody wants to be wrong.
People will say all kinds of crazy things when a gun is pointed at their heads. I guess, even when it's an invisible gun.
Thanks for listening, diary.
According to recent opinion polls, 52% of Americans not only believe there will be an Armageddon, but they believe Jesus is coming withing the next thousand years to clean house terminator style. Gives em a wide berth "in case they're wrong," I suppose.
The end of the world scenario is a common one among dualistic religions. Apocalyptic writing was certainly not new in John the Elder's time. There were many such documents rolling around the holy land when he wrote his steamy little potboiler. Actually, "apocalypse" does not mean Armageddon or the end of the world. It simply means revelation. Peeling away what's hidden to reveal the truth. Many cultures' scripture and religious teachings have this aspect of a sort of armageddon of the self, the destruction of one life to reveal a new one. Reincarnation, explaining the use of wildfires in forests, enlightenment--it's all a sort of armageddon. Jungian psychologists like to point to the dreams of bloody childbirth and fiery, or watery destruction to be revelations of human creativity caused by a sort of collective unconscious. Perhaps it's due to evolutionary psychology, as mankind has witnessed the powerful effects of nature and must have gone through all kinds of attitude changes as he learned about the world around him.
But that's not what most people believe in North America. They believe that there are good people, and there are bad people. They believe that there are creatures that exists that actually embody the concepts of good and evil. They believe that these creatures are going to do battle, and that the bad people who are on earth at the time will be killed by both the evil and the good creatures, and that the bad people and bad creatures will all be thrown into a lake of fire by the good creatures. They believe the good creatures and the good people will all live together in harmony in a magical land called New Jerusalem, where nobody will speak out of turn, everybody will live in a constant state of bliss and orgasm, and the flowers will dance and sing for a thousand years. And then they'll all go to heaven again for something supposedly different. And Jesus will be a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns and then there's the locusts with the human faces and the scorpions with women's hair, and some scary beast woman who gives birth to something that gets eaten by a dragon.
But it's all symbolic, you say. Sure it is. And it's believed literally by many people. When you get into the funny cartoon creatures, people kind of shy away and start talking symbolism, but they somehow don't believe that the war itself is symbolic too. If you're going to believe the bible is symbolic, then Jesus and Moses and heaven and hell: they're symbolic too.
But it is, as all apocalyptic writing. The persecuted christians and or jews or whatever were going to kick Rome's ass with the help of Jesus, and Then They Will Be Sorry. And so will the nonbelievers. Symbolically sorry, I suppose. Rome, the Whore of Babylon, will finally learn the truth but then it will be too late because they will all be killed by God. Or the symbolic god. All this before Paul and Peter and all those guys died.
But it didn't happen.
So it will never happen. Unless you don't believe Jesus. You wouldn't think of doing that, would you?
Totally symbolic, partly symbolic or literal, it's an evil, immoral doctrine. When the "good guys" kill all the bad guys, that turns the good guys into the bad guys. The bad guys being all the people who didn't believe the "good guys'" rantings and ravings about ferocious beasts and talking snakes and men who shoot up into the sky like rockets who can magically absorb all the bad things you do so you can live in Happy Land.
But people don't want to believe that killing everyone on earth except for christians is an evil act. Because that would make them wrong. And nobody wants to be wrong.
People will say all kinds of crazy things when a gun is pointed at their heads. I guess, even when it's an invisible gun.
Thanks for listening, diary.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
I received this in my inbox this morning
...from a Berliner (not a sweet roll) named Moritz Reichelt. It's called Gott In Der Hoelle, or God in Hell. It's an original painting.
It's a Hazy Thursday Morning
Someone found this blog by searching for "girl-on-girl s&m porn." Also, "Otu Nne Ge." (It's igbo for a bad insult.)
The Clever crustacion...christian....emerged to compliment the blog in the comments section of "Clever Christian," too. He's very nice, and hires atheists because work is all we care about.
I got a page on "My Space" and I'm on Normal Bob's friends list! Ha!
The Clever crustacion...christian....emerged to compliment the blog in the comments section of "Clever Christian," too. He's very nice, and hires atheists because work is all we care about.
I got a page on "My Space" and I'm on Normal Bob's friends list! Ha!
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Jesus had a Really Bad Weekend for Our Sins
Dear Internet Diary,
I was just confronted by a belief I had not yet challenged. Those pesky things can sometimes elude me for years! I'm talking about the belief that Jesus' Suffering was the worst suffering anyone could endure.
I was listening to Julia Sweeney--Pat, from Saturday Night Live. She has a one-woman show called "Letting Go of God." She described the day she realized that there is no God. This suffering concept occurred to her sometime before she realized we all really die, for real. She said she could think of a lot of people that have suffered more, and for much longer, than Jesus supposedly did. Including her brother, who suffered from cancer.
I was shocked and surprised when I heard myself saying, "I never thought of that!" Just one more belief - virus supressed. Makes me wonder how many more of them are floating around in my system!
I have heard of this suffering idea before. I've read that the reason christians do not sacrifice anymore is that they acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice as being final. Any subsequent sacrifice would be vlasphemous to the suffering of Jesus. In this world, Jesus' suffering is kind of like the Speed of Light. We can only hope to approach it, but if you hypothetically could match it, you become it. So Jesus is the Ultimate Suffering, and Suffering Ultimately makes you Jesus. No matter how much pain you are in, you have to acknowledge that Jesus suffered more. That's what makes Christianity immoral. That suffering is holy, therefore as good as it gets. We do not want suffering. We want to get away from suffering. I guess their argument is, the more suffering on earth, the better it will be after death, or something crazy like that.
That would be inconsistent, however, with the idea of God's Grace. We're not supposed to be worthy of heaven, that's why God is so good. You're scum, but God's such a nice guy, if you scratch His back, he won't put throw you into a lake of fire or fill your intestines with parasites. So it doesn't matter, in this doctrine, how much you suffered or if you never suffered at all. What's happening with the hair-shirt, flagellation, and constant guilt people is some kind of just-in-case scenario. You never know when the devil could be tricking you or living inside your flesh, so just a few more punishments could do the trick.
It's all about hating the world, people. But it makes no sense. Human suffering is a fact of life, and some people suffer more than others. We shouldn't have a World Suffering Olympics. We should be trying to end suffering, not canonizing those who suffer. But don't be an asshole and tell POW survivors, or tell sick children that their weekly spinal taps, or chemotherapy vomiting is "nothing special. Now, what Jesus went through, that's suffering."
I was just confronted by a belief I had not yet challenged. Those pesky things can sometimes elude me for years! I'm talking about the belief that Jesus' Suffering was the worst suffering anyone could endure.
I was listening to Julia Sweeney--Pat, from Saturday Night Live. She has a one-woman show called "Letting Go of God." She described the day she realized that there is no God. This suffering concept occurred to her sometime before she realized we all really die, for real. She said she could think of a lot of people that have suffered more, and for much longer, than Jesus supposedly did. Including her brother, who suffered from cancer.
I was shocked and surprised when I heard myself saying, "I never thought of that!" Just one more belief - virus supressed. Makes me wonder how many more of them are floating around in my system!
I have heard of this suffering idea before. I've read that the reason christians do not sacrifice anymore is that they acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice as being final. Any subsequent sacrifice would be vlasphemous to the suffering of Jesus. In this world, Jesus' suffering is kind of like the Speed of Light. We can only hope to approach it, but if you hypothetically could match it, you become it. So Jesus is the Ultimate Suffering, and Suffering Ultimately makes you Jesus. No matter how much pain you are in, you have to acknowledge that Jesus suffered more. That's what makes Christianity immoral. That suffering is holy, therefore as good as it gets. We do not want suffering. We want to get away from suffering. I guess their argument is, the more suffering on earth, the better it will be after death, or something crazy like that.
That would be inconsistent, however, with the idea of God's Grace. We're not supposed to be worthy of heaven, that's why God is so good. You're scum, but God's such a nice guy, if you scratch His back, he won't put throw you into a lake of fire or fill your intestines with parasites. So it doesn't matter, in this doctrine, how much you suffered or if you never suffered at all. What's happening with the hair-shirt, flagellation, and constant guilt people is some kind of just-in-case scenario. You never know when the devil could be tricking you or living inside your flesh, so just a few more punishments could do the trick.
It's all about hating the world, people. But it makes no sense. Human suffering is a fact of life, and some people suffer more than others. We shouldn't have a World Suffering Olympics. We should be trying to end suffering, not canonizing those who suffer. But don't be an asshole and tell POW survivors, or tell sick children that their weekly spinal taps, or chemotherapy vomiting is "nothing special. Now, what Jesus went through, that's suffering."
Monday, June 06, 2005
Review: "Blasphemy" (2003)
Dear Internet Diary,
Blasphemy the Movie (2003)
directed by John Mendoza
Blasphemy sort of reminds me of the gay movies that came out in the late eighties and early nineties. They were kind of main-stream (meaning not pornos), and very low-budget affairs. They were not very good--actually, some of them were downright horrendous, maudlin, melodramatic--because of the AIDS crisis. No really decent gay movie came out until Priscilla, But I'm A Cheerleader or Ma Vie En Rose. They most likely didn't change the minds of anti-gay drooling idiots, either, but it didn't much matter. It was still pretty satisfying to actually see movies about gay people that were open, instead of having to read the lavender into it, as it were. Like in Hitchcock's Rope, or No Business Like Show Business, or Johnny Guitar.
Blasphemy is like that. It's not that good, but it's pretty satisfying.
It's Christmas, and Martin Garcia comes out to his Roman Catholic Latino family, with predictable results. Most of the family is shocked, his dad wants to disown him, and the family is abuzz with gossip. Realistically, there's a religious nut in the family. Unexpectadly, the movie doesn't fill you with false hopes and dash them at the end, like Saved did. Religion is wacky, even dangerous in this movie, and so it remains at the end.
Some reviews mention the ending is a disappointment, so I expected a "Saved"-like ending. I won't give it away, but it could have been better. But it didn't make me shout "boo!!" angrily at the screen and shake my fists like I did with Saved. No, it's not a triumph, but more of a kids' atheist movie. You know--that atheist kid that's smarter than everyone else, but is still a kid. I say this because although it asks humorous and true questions of religion, they remain questions for the beginner. Maybe that's appropriate for a comedy. After all, this is no "Beast."
What it left me with was the hope that movies like this are just the beginning. Considering the handful of atheistic choices that are coming to us from the film world, perhaps it is.
For a great list of films of interest to freethinkers, check out my husband's list: Objectivist Movie Reviews.
Thanks for listening, diary.
Blasphemy the Movie (2003)
directed by John Mendoza
Blasphemy sort of reminds me of the gay movies that came out in the late eighties and early nineties. They were kind of main-stream (meaning not pornos), and very low-budget affairs. They were not very good--actually, some of them were downright horrendous, maudlin, melodramatic--because of the AIDS crisis. No really decent gay movie came out until Priscilla, But I'm A Cheerleader or Ma Vie En Rose. They most likely didn't change the minds of anti-gay drooling idiots, either, but it didn't much matter. It was still pretty satisfying to actually see movies about gay people that were open, instead of having to read the lavender into it, as it were. Like in Hitchcock's Rope, or No Business Like Show Business, or Johnny Guitar.
Blasphemy is like that. It's not that good, but it's pretty satisfying.
It's Christmas, and Martin Garcia comes out to his Roman Catholic Latino family, with predictable results. Most of the family is shocked, his dad wants to disown him, and the family is abuzz with gossip. Realistically, there's a religious nut in the family. Unexpectadly, the movie doesn't fill you with false hopes and dash them at the end, like Saved did. Religion is wacky, even dangerous in this movie, and so it remains at the end.
Some reviews mention the ending is a disappointment, so I expected a "Saved"-like ending. I won't give it away, but it could have been better. But it didn't make me shout "boo!!" angrily at the screen and shake my fists like I did with Saved. No, it's not a triumph, but more of a kids' atheist movie. You know--that atheist kid that's smarter than everyone else, but is still a kid. I say this because although it asks humorous and true questions of religion, they remain questions for the beginner. Maybe that's appropriate for a comedy. After all, this is no "Beast."
What it left me with was the hope that movies like this are just the beginning. Considering the handful of atheistic choices that are coming to us from the film world, perhaps it is.
For a great list of films of interest to freethinkers, check out my husband's list: Objectivist Movie Reviews.
Thanks for listening, diary.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Pity the Poor Atheist
Dear Internet Diary,
I was conversing with an individual on a message board. He's not a Christian--I don't knwo what he is. I think he sort of calls himself a "Buddhist," but I'm skeptical.
He came to the defense of a Muslim who claimed that the satisfaction one receives from religious belief is the only real satisfaction one can find. Material satisfaction is fake, it's "only a paper moon."
A poster responded that he gets more satisfaction from a good bowel movement than anything he could ever get from Allah. The "Buddhist" was incensed. He responds:
He claimed to feel sorry for the poster:
My response:
I have to add to anyone reading this: don't let anyone bully you away from criticizing irrational beliefs. Irrationality, as we know from history, is destructive. Yes, religion must be brought to task, or else we might as well give up our values, our moral autonomy. Our independence. Let emotionalism and large numbers decide everything for us: our government, our laws, our love lives, who lives, who dies, how we sell and buy. If we do that, we might as well throw out everything we know about the world. Throw away science, let the priests decide how the universe works, how to cure cancer? why? Because it makes people feel good.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick of it. I want to stand up for reason, for speech, for freedom. For my rights. Make no mistake: I do not demand the "right" to not be criticized. Anyone who does just doesn't get it.
Thanks for listening, diary.
I was conversing with an individual on a message board. He's not a Christian--I don't knwo what he is. I think he sort of calls himself a "Buddhist," but I'm skeptical.
He came to the defense of a Muslim who claimed that the satisfaction one receives from religious belief is the only real satisfaction one can find. Material satisfaction is fake, it's "only a paper moon."
A poster responded that he gets more satisfaction from a good bowel movement than anything he could ever get from Allah. The "Buddhist" was incensed. He responds:
The emotional or psychological rewards of religious belief--peace, joy, contentment, awe, love, and many more--are not to be mocked or degraded. They are real and good, and you miss a great deal in not being able to experience them. ..
He claimed to feel sorry for the poster:
It is like never having had good sex, or really good wine, or been to the Grand Canyon or never having seen a Rembrandt or never having been deep in a jungle or high on a mountain, or never really hearing a Mozart concerto, or never having played a musical instrument or never having had children or never having understood an important logical theorem. Those who lack such things in their lives are sad. They survive but they miss out.
My response:
There is no reward that comes from belief in fake things that cannot come from elsewhere. In fact, if they come from holding a falsity as true, these "rewards" are only limp copies. They are as fake as the joy, peace, contentment, awe and love that can come through various psychotropic drugs. Yes, these feelings are real--but nobody seems to be afraid or bullied out of mocking them....
You don't feel compassion. You feel moral superiority. You can't know the depth of anyone's passion if you claim that only belief can give you these feelings. These feelings have already been replicated. Like I said before, drugs can give the same kind of feeling. Yes, you get a nice high temporarily from the love-bombing of a cult, or the emotional rush that happens when you experience temporal lobe seizure, but do you pity people who have never felt the amazing joy that can come from the drug ecstasy? Or the soaring feeling of euphoria that comes with certain neurological events that can leave people crippled mentally?
Mental rushes are great, but don't pretend they are what they are not. They come from certain releases of specific chemicals in the body for specific events. A high form of love, the kind that comes with contentment and attachment to a partner you may want to spend your life with is released, in women, after certain clitoral orgasms. Romantic love has other sorts of chemical release. Emotion is physical. Spirituality and the feeling of significance is not only physical but can be pinpointed in the brain.
No, these great feelings don't belong to you. Don't pretend you hold something others don't have. It's quite presumptuous.
I have to add to anyone reading this: don't let anyone bully you away from criticizing irrational beliefs. Irrationality, as we know from history, is destructive. Yes, religion must be brought to task, or else we might as well give up our values, our moral autonomy. Our independence. Let emotionalism and large numbers decide everything for us: our government, our laws, our love lives, who lives, who dies, how we sell and buy. If we do that, we might as well throw out everything we know about the world. Throw away science, let the priests decide how the universe works, how to cure cancer? why? Because it makes people feel good.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick of it. I want to stand up for reason, for speech, for freedom. For my rights. Make no mistake: I do not demand the "right" to not be criticized. Anyone who does just doesn't get it.
Thanks for listening, diary.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Clever Christian! Have a treat!
Come pat the Chritsian over at this blog!
He is so cute! Yes he is!
He is so cute! Yes he is!
This atheist assumes that God could not be real, and then runs with it. That is the essence of atheism; assume God can't exist, then hit the road preaching.Poindexter says he won`t hire atheists, because if they deny God exists, they will also deny management exists. His blog is pure genius.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Mary Poppins is an Atheist
Dear Internet Diary,
I'm hooked on television again. I'll talk about that great show "House" some time later. My favorites are kind of embarrassing to talk about though, because they are reality programs. I'm talking about Nannies.
Nanny 911 and Supernanny are two of the most positive shows on television. The seasons are over, and I'm not sure if their next season will be watchable, considering the fact that at least one of them is sponsored by Focus on the Family. Maybe we should try and keep mum about why the shows are so great. Could you guys try and keep it a secret? I don't want those Christian Nazis to find out that they are paying for shows that promote atheistic, secular values in children.
The premise of the shows is this: the parents have realized their children are completely out of control. They figure they can exploit this situation on television for money and perhaps a fabulous Hawaiian vacation. They submit their videotapes to some cute, and generally chubby english ladies, so that one will come to their home and "fix" their children for them. The nanny observes, reveals to the parents that they are the problem, not the children, the parents get upset, then give in, and eventually we get something that looks like it very well might work.
Here's the tricky part that would really infuriate those tools at FOF: the problem in these families invariably is that the family has stuctured themselves after some kind of conservative christian model. Nanny appeals to their reason, and they change it. What happens is, in about 2/3rds of the shows, Dad says "I am the king of the castle, it's her job to take care of the kids, we believe there are roles in the home, etc etc ad naueum." (In one case, when Mommy had gained weight after popping out 5 kids for this gentleman, he says, "It's not what I paid for." Daddy and Mommy sometimes seem really attached to the idea of spanking, a practice that is totally forbidden on both of the shows. That's what worries me about the FOF sponsorship. How much pull do they have with ABC and Disney?
What gets these traditional christian families to change (and they are almost always traditional christian families) is that the nanny is able to show the parents that what they are doing is not working. The mom cannot manage the cooking, cleaning, and child-raising all on her own, while Dad is conspicuously absent, even from the traditional disciplinary duties. The christian ideal would have Mom delaying the discipline until "Daddy gets home." That would be the weakest and most impotent discipline technique next to spanking. Nanny's methods are simple: going to the corner, consistent and honest discipline, emotional contol, positive reinforcement. Lots of Skinner-like conditioning for the very young. That kind of information should also be kept from the FOF: recently a conservative think-tank voted Skinner's work one of the most dangerous and harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries. I guess it's evil to practice repetitive rituals in order to train behavior. They prefer the ritual of pull down the pants, over-the-knee, spank 'til red, aquire an adult fetish discipline. Perhaps they have a scratch-my-back deal with Fantasy Unlimited or something.
The great thing is, traditional-family-fetish Daddy almost always ends up helping around the house and participating in the child-raising. With enthusaism. Usually it takes traditional Mom longer to accept this than Dad . The Nanny is very good at reasoning with unreasonable people. The video recorder helps a lot. Atheists should take lessons with these nannies on how to appeal to reason with conservative Christians. I don't know how much these families really change, but in the follow-ups, you get testimony from these families about how well these non-church-endorsed techniques work for them. In your face, FOF!
I don't know how much longer a program that promotes reason over idealism will last. The last episode I watched had several disturbing television commercials: the Mormons urged us to spend more time together, the Moonies encouraged us to give our bus seats to little old ladies, and Focus on the Family offered up their telephone number for advice on parenting problems. Sort of cancels out the fact that they support reasonable television programs.
Thanks for listening, diary.
I'm hooked on television again. I'll talk about that great show "House" some time later. My favorites are kind of embarrassing to talk about though, because they are reality programs. I'm talking about Nannies.
Nanny 911 and Supernanny are two of the most positive shows on television. The seasons are over, and I'm not sure if their next season will be watchable, considering the fact that at least one of them is sponsored by Focus on the Family. Maybe we should try and keep mum about why the shows are so great. Could you guys try and keep it a secret? I don't want those Christian Nazis to find out that they are paying for shows that promote atheistic, secular values in children.
The premise of the shows is this: the parents have realized their children are completely out of control. They figure they can exploit this situation on television for money and perhaps a fabulous Hawaiian vacation. They submit their videotapes to some cute, and generally chubby english ladies, so that one will come to their home and "fix" their children for them. The nanny observes, reveals to the parents that they are the problem, not the children, the parents get upset, then give in, and eventually we get something that looks like it very well might work.
Here's the tricky part that would really infuriate those tools at FOF: the problem in these families invariably is that the family has stuctured themselves after some kind of conservative christian model. Nanny appeals to their reason, and they change it. What happens is, in about 2/3rds of the shows, Dad says "I am the king of the castle, it's her job to take care of the kids, we believe there are roles in the home, etc etc ad naueum." (In one case, when Mommy had gained weight after popping out 5 kids for this gentleman, he says, "It's not what I paid for." Daddy and Mommy sometimes seem really attached to the idea of spanking, a practice that is totally forbidden on both of the shows. That's what worries me about the FOF sponsorship. How much pull do they have with ABC and Disney?
What gets these traditional christian families to change (and they are almost always traditional christian families) is that the nanny is able to show the parents that what they are doing is not working. The mom cannot manage the cooking, cleaning, and child-raising all on her own, while Dad is conspicuously absent, even from the traditional disciplinary duties. The christian ideal would have Mom delaying the discipline until "Daddy gets home." That would be the weakest and most impotent discipline technique next to spanking. Nanny's methods are simple: going to the corner, consistent and honest discipline, emotional contol, positive reinforcement. Lots of Skinner-like conditioning for the very young. That kind of information should also be kept from the FOF: recently a conservative think-tank voted Skinner's work one of the most dangerous and harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries. I guess it's evil to practice repetitive rituals in order to train behavior. They prefer the ritual of pull down the pants, over-the-knee, spank 'til red, aquire an adult fetish discipline. Perhaps they have a scratch-my-back deal with Fantasy Unlimited or something.
The great thing is, traditional-family-fetish Daddy almost always ends up helping around the house and participating in the child-raising. With enthusaism. Usually it takes traditional Mom longer to accept this than Dad . The Nanny is very good at reasoning with unreasonable people. The video recorder helps a lot. Atheists should take lessons with these nannies on how to appeal to reason with conservative Christians. I don't know how much these families really change, but in the follow-ups, you get testimony from these families about how well these non-church-endorsed techniques work for them. In your face, FOF!
I don't know how much longer a program that promotes reason over idealism will last. The last episode I watched had several disturbing television commercials: the Mormons urged us to spend more time together, the Moonies encouraged us to give our bus seats to little old ladies, and Focus on the Family offered up their telephone number for advice on parenting problems. Sort of cancels out the fact that they support reasonable television programs.
Thanks for listening, diary.
Why Do They Believe Part 5: Emotional Emptiness
Dear Internet Diary,
She found her favorite music.
She changed her gender.
She found Tantric sex.
He found Buddhism.
He "found" Jesus Christ.
There's nothing mystical or magical about these statements. That feeling comes from boredom, frustration, depression. Being unfulfilled. Naturally, people want to feel good. Unfortunately, some people think they have to fulfill some kind of cosmic duty. The Oprahs will tell you that's why people drink, smoke, have too much sex, overeat even why some people have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. They have a hole in their lives, and they have a pressing need to fill it. I don't know if this kind of self-help book answer is entirely accurate, but perhaps we can agree that it is a problem when you feel "there is something missing in my life."
Try typing that phrase into Google. There are almost 50 pages with that exact phrase.
Anyway, the cult recruiters and Christians say they have The answer to this problem. All holes in all lives are God-shaped. It brings to mind a queer picture. What shape is God? Is it like when Bugs Bunny runs through the wall and leaves a Bugs Bunny-shaped hole? Like that?
Another question: if God is omnipresent, the all-powerful creator, how can God be absent from any life, atheist or otherwise? How could one escape a guy like that?
The first claim is that religion, christianity, is The Answer to all emotional problems. Same goes with cults. They are really good at "proving it" to you. When a newbie enters the kind of group that really, really wants members, they practice "love-bombing" This is an effective cult technique where the newbie gets overwhelming positive attention from the other cult members, he experiences physical chemical euphoria. He becomes "drunk with love." Doubt? What doubt? He falls in love with the group before he knew what hit him. All his problems seem to disappear--and they do, temporarily. Maybe some do permanently. Lifestyles change when lifestyles change, if you know what I mean.
Does religion solve all problems? Like any hobby, it can distract a person from practicing destructive behaviors, and being watched, or "fellowshipped" by a new community can pressure someone into keeping "clean" as it were. But religious believing tends to be less constructive than most hobbies. Sure, a religious person can channel energies into charities--charities that come with strings attached, much like the love in love-bombing. Making blankets and giving them to poor people without handing them a tract or sermon is much more altruistic.
Now we come to the silliest claim. Since the person was hurting, and becoming enamoured of Jesus made him feel better, it must be a miracle. Hence, God exists, and you should become a chritsian also. But, as I pointed out in the beginning of this article, holes in lives can be filled with many things. The funny thing is, people rarely report "I have a hole in my life. They always say "I HAD a hole in my life, but now I'm all better because of X or Y or Z." 20/20 hindsight? Are you sure you felt unfulfilled before you found your new passion? Could it just be that you're so crushed out on your new bag, that you can't imagine living without it? I don't know. Maybe people do know when they are unfulfilled. Just don't say it in public if you're gullible. There are plenty of opportunists out there who would salivate upon hearing those words. "unfulfilled, eh? Let me talk to you about what Amway/Echankar/Mary Kaye/Krishna consciousness/a macrobiotic diet/Jesus/the Barbie pink motorhome playset/official Red Rider carbine action 200 shot range model air rifle can do for you!"
Thanks for listening, diary.
I felt there was something missing in my life. I had a void that needed to be filled.
She found her favorite music.
But I felt there was something missing in my life and was not particularly happy.
She changed her gender.
We've been married for nearly 24 years, but recently I reached the point where I felt there was something missing in my relationship with my husband.
She found Tantric sex.
I initially started researching this area because I felt there was something missing in my life.
He found Buddhism.
For as long as I could remember, I felt empty. I don't know how it got there, but it was there. I felt there was something missing in my life. Because of this, I looked for something to fill that void.
He "found" Jesus Christ.
There's nothing mystical or magical about these statements. That feeling comes from boredom, frustration, depression. Being unfulfilled. Naturally, people want to feel good. Unfortunately, some people think they have to fulfill some kind of cosmic duty. The Oprahs will tell you that's why people drink, smoke, have too much sex, overeat even why some people have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. They have a hole in their lives, and they have a pressing need to fill it. I don't know if this kind of self-help book answer is entirely accurate, but perhaps we can agree that it is a problem when you feel "there is something missing in my life."
Try typing that phrase into Google. There are almost 50 pages with that exact phrase.
Anyway, the cult recruiters and Christians say they have The answer to this problem. All holes in all lives are God-shaped. It brings to mind a queer picture. What shape is God? Is it like when Bugs Bunny runs through the wall and leaves a Bugs Bunny-shaped hole? Like that?
Another question: if God is omnipresent, the all-powerful creator, how can God be absent from any life, atheist or otherwise? How could one escape a guy like that?
The first claim is that religion, christianity, is The Answer to all emotional problems. Same goes with cults. They are really good at "proving it" to you. When a newbie enters the kind of group that really, really wants members, they practice "love-bombing" This is an effective cult technique where the newbie gets overwhelming positive attention from the other cult members, he experiences physical chemical euphoria. He becomes "drunk with love." Doubt? What doubt? He falls in love with the group before he knew what hit him. All his problems seem to disappear--and they do, temporarily. Maybe some do permanently. Lifestyles change when lifestyles change, if you know what I mean.
Does religion solve all problems? Like any hobby, it can distract a person from practicing destructive behaviors, and being watched, or "fellowshipped" by a new community can pressure someone into keeping "clean" as it were. But religious believing tends to be less constructive than most hobbies. Sure, a religious person can channel energies into charities--charities that come with strings attached, much like the love in love-bombing. Making blankets and giving them to poor people without handing them a tract or sermon is much more altruistic.
Now we come to the silliest claim. Since the person was hurting, and becoming enamoured of Jesus made him feel better, it must be a miracle. Hence, God exists, and you should become a chritsian also. But, as I pointed out in the beginning of this article, holes in lives can be filled with many things. The funny thing is, people rarely report "I have a hole in my life. They always say "I HAD a hole in my life, but now I'm all better because of X or Y or Z." 20/20 hindsight? Are you sure you felt unfulfilled before you found your new passion? Could it just be that you're so crushed out on your new bag, that you can't imagine living without it? I don't know. Maybe people do know when they are unfulfilled. Just don't say it in public if you're gullible. There are plenty of opportunists out there who would salivate upon hearing those words. "unfulfilled, eh? Let me talk to you about what Amway/Echankar/Mary Kaye/Krishna consciousness/a macrobiotic diet/Jesus/the Barbie pink motorhome playset/official Red Rider carbine action 200 shot range model air rifle can do for you!"
Thanks for listening, diary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Speaking of monkeys, "Reverend," how do you manage to live with the gnawing fears induced by your religion, Darwinism?
Consider merely the theory of evolution. This is a theory that, from our earliest days in primary school, we are taught as scientific "fact." Today, children probably learn it on the Discovery channel long before entering school. It colors much of our more relevant thinking. In itself, however, it remains data. Most of us don’t give it a second thought. Yet the implications of the theory are profound.
2. They claim teaching evolution will harm the very core of society. They make up a world where The Powers That Be force evolution on innocent babies. They imply that there is a kabal of leaders in a conspiracy to indoctrinate children into a terrible cult.
Suddenly… All of creation is an accident. It no longer even qualifies as "creation." Instead, it is flotsam and jetsam. All change is merely mistake and there can be no such thing as progress. Even those that would argue that mankind is a plague or an ecological cancer have no footing on which to base their claims. There can be no good or bad, better or worse. All that exists is garbage.
The orthodox teachings of the Catholic Church are the only source for a meaningful understanding of the human soul and its relation with God. Look at the fruits of the other beliefs.
5. The non-sequitor of one's favored sect being the "only truth," with nothing to back it up. See also # 8.
Atheism led to the death of millions of innocent people, under the evangelical atheist leadership of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Islam, that religion of "peace," has led only to a world of suicide bombers and acid throwing fanatics. Judaism--i.e., the cult of those who rejected Christ--has led only to centuries of usury, conspiracy, and sexual immorality, of the kind we see in Hollywood today.
6. The fallacy that totalitarian governments had any interest in promoting anything other than the religion of the State
7. Anti-semitism and racism
Christendom, on the other hand, is the fountain of all beautiful art, sacred music, and true science in the world. And yet, Christians are the most persecuted people in the world today, unable even to practice their faith openly in America today. Blasphemy reigns supreme, and heresies are the common currency of the land.
8. Ignorance of history, world culture, world art. Lack of good taste. Purposeful ignorance of the horrifyingly ugly schlock coming from Christianity today, ever since the mid-1800's, and has gone on that track ever since. Failure to notice that folks like Bach were mere employees of the Church/State. Failure to notice that great music comes from the hard work of men, not gods.
"BTW" (as you like to put it), let me fill you in on a little secret, Miss Hellbound. Jesus does not look kindly on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. What kind of education did you have, anyway? You are now in mortal peril for your soul. Don't say I didn't warn you! It's not easy to get out of this one. I'd suggest a trip to the Vatican poste-haste -- but it might be too late for you. Our Lord has said that no one will be forgiven a blasphemous utterance against the Holy Spirit, nor in this life, nor in the next.