I urge anyone and everyone to pass this on.
Kennedy's address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association nearly half a century ago on September 12, 1960 at the Rice Hotel in Houston, TX (this link includes the television broadcast and the transcription) is more enlightened than anything coming from any source anywhere in the United States whose specific purpose is not secular in nature. It completely takes my break away.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Friday, July 04, 2008
www.fostl.com
I'M BEGINNING TO WRITE A NEW SEGMENT ON THE www.fostl.com WEBSITE TITLED, ODDLY ENOUGH, "BEGINNINGS" TO INTRODUCE NEW FREETHINKERS INTO THE FOLD. PLEASE READ ALONG AND COMMENT (MY VERY FEW READERS) AS YOUR THOUGHTS MIGHT HELP ME TO SHAPE THIS SECTION.
AS YOU KNOW IT'S OKAY AND CERTAINLY PREFERRABLE NOT TO BELIEVE, BUT IT'S NOT ALWAY EASY IN OUR SOCIETY TO TRUST OUR SKEPTICISM. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE A GOOD GUIDE. HERE'S MY BEGINNING...
When I was young, I was surrounded by Christians. I didn't know why I didn't believe. I thougth there must be something wrong with me. I thougth I wanted to be a Christian because I wanted to be a good person. This was odd, however, since I already was a good person. In fact some of my friends did really awful things at times, things I would never do to myself or to others, and they were Christians. I also never bought the concept of hell. Eternal torment. Eternal torment for killing, I maybe sort of could get, but for simply not buying a bridge some guy was trying to sell me? There were too many questions. Too many inconsistencies. And the rationalizing asside, I still couldn't believe even thought I kept trying.
Well, maybe you're feeling some of these things. Maybe entirely different things. It doesn't necessarily matter how or why you've gotten to this point, you're here and you're reading these words. I plan to do my best to set this up as guide for people searching. I'll tell you at the outset that I most definitely don't have all the answers, but I'm going to do what I can to provide some insight into my long, arduous, sometimes painful and often humorous journey. Hopefully it will help you to miss a bit of the anguish and enjoy a bit more of the insight.
I'll work with as much structure as possible, but much of this will be stream of consciousness, gaining more form (revision by arduous revision) as I go along. Please check back often and please visit my blog if you will, as I'll mirror this discussion there, so you might comment or as questions to help form this into something useful for you, me and future visitors to the site.
Thanks. I'll begin typing again tomorrow and everyday I'm able thereafter!
AS YOU KNOW IT'S OKAY AND CERTAINLY PREFERRABLE NOT TO BELIEVE, BUT IT'S NOT ALWAY EASY IN OUR SOCIETY TO TRUST OUR SKEPTICISM. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE A GOOD GUIDE. HERE'S MY BEGINNING...
When I was young, I was surrounded by Christians. I didn't know why I didn't believe. I thougth there must be something wrong with me. I thougth I wanted to be a Christian because I wanted to be a good person. This was odd, however, since I already was a good person. In fact some of my friends did really awful things at times, things I would never do to myself or to others, and they were Christians. I also never bought the concept of hell. Eternal torment. Eternal torment for killing, I maybe sort of could get, but for simply not buying a bridge some guy was trying to sell me? There were too many questions. Too many inconsistencies. And the rationalizing asside, I still couldn't believe even thought I kept trying.
Well, maybe you're feeling some of these things. Maybe entirely different things. It doesn't necessarily matter how or why you've gotten to this point, you're here and you're reading these words. I plan to do my best to set this up as guide for people searching. I'll tell you at the outset that I most definitely don't have all the answers, but I'm going to do what I can to provide some insight into my long, arduous, sometimes painful and often humorous journey. Hopefully it will help you to miss a bit of the anguish and enjoy a bit more of the insight.
I'll work with as much structure as possible, but much of this will be stream of consciousness, gaining more form (revision by arduous revision) as I go along. Please check back often and please visit my blog if you will, as I'll mirror this discussion there, so you might comment or as questions to help form this into something useful for you, me and future visitors to the site.
Thanks. I'll begin typing again tomorrow and everyday I'm able thereafter!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
A quick story I simply have to reiterate...
I had to reiterate this quick little story that will hopefully make you all smile. I spent much of yesterday sandbagging in Winfield, Missouri. Sometime around Noon a military helicopter flew overhead with Governor Matt Blunt aboard to survey the flooding situation. For the record, Governor Blunt is a conservative republican of great faith. Word soon came through the ranks that he'd be landing and speaking to news reporters and such. Sure enough, the helicoptor soon landed on the other side of the high school from where we were all working. Personally, I'm not a fan, I didn't vote for him and I'm glad he's not seeking another term, so with that in mind, I continued to work unphased. After a time, the sand-bagging line suddenly stopped (as often happens for one reason or another), I set down my bag and turned around to grab my water bottle, when who is walking directly toward me but Matt Blunt followed by a deluge of reporters, cameras and the like. Our eyes meet and he stretches out his hand and we shake. Him in his button down oxford shirt, neatly pleated pants and finely polished leather shoes; me in my work boots, cargo shorts and sand spattered 'GODLESS LIBERAL' imprinted shirt!
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Defining Us - Defining Them
What is a Christian? Is a Christian a person who attends the funerals of soldiers with signs saying 'God Hates Fags'? Is a Christian a person who believes and attends church, but rarely reads the bible or promotes or considers their faith on a regular basis. Is a Christian a person who attends church one or more times a week, donating generously? Is a Christian a person who rarely attends church but reads his bible regularly and constantly pursues a relationship with Jesus?
What if all these men have accepted Jesus as their savior? What if they all try day in and day out to live in his light and by his word? Are they still all Christians? Do they still all fit under the same umbrella? Should they all be defined the same way?
What is an atheist? Is a person who is mad at God? Is it a person who has suffered a traumatic loss? Is it a person lost and alone? Is it a person who simply refuses to live under the difficult demands placed upon him or her by Christianity? Is is a person without morals?
What if he's none of these things? What if this simply represents a single answer to a single question and defines this person in no other way? What if we think about it the other way. The Pope, George W. Bush, Thomas Aquinas and the 9/11 hijackers are all theists. Or consider this; by definition (considering her now public journal entries), Mother Theresa was an atheist.
Being an atheist does not define you in any way. Just as the Bible says not one word regarding family values, atheism says nothing of an individuals values. Take a moment to look at the values of secular humanism. Are these individuals devoid of morality?
Don't devine a person by his position on theism, or how he or she is defined by any title. Ask them about their convictions. Observe their behaviors. Judge then on the 'content of their character'. Or better yet, don't judge them at all.
What if all these men have accepted Jesus as their savior? What if they all try day in and day out to live in his light and by his word? Are they still all Christians? Do they still all fit under the same umbrella? Should they all be defined the same way?
What is an atheist? Is a person who is mad at God? Is it a person who has suffered a traumatic loss? Is it a person lost and alone? Is it a person who simply refuses to live under the difficult demands placed upon him or her by Christianity? Is is a person without morals?
What if he's none of these things? What if this simply represents a single answer to a single question and defines this person in no other way? What if we think about it the other way. The Pope, George W. Bush, Thomas Aquinas and the 9/11 hijackers are all theists. Or consider this; by definition (considering her now public journal entries), Mother Theresa was an atheist.
Being an atheist does not define you in any way. Just as the Bible says not one word regarding family values, atheism says nothing of an individuals values. Take a moment to look at the values of secular humanism. Are these individuals devoid of morality?
Don't devine a person by his position on theism, or how he or she is defined by any title. Ask them about their convictions. Observe their behaviors. Judge then on the 'content of their character'. Or better yet, don't judge them at all.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Down and Dirty Atheism 101
Four quick points to clarify some common misconceptions and simple arguments. This is quick and down and dirty and will most likely require some edits. Nevertheless, here it is warts and all:
If I may, let me briefly discuss four brief points - each only a paragraph in length.
FIRST, atheists, by definition, don't make any claims about our existence. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. This is the opposite of making a claim. Atheists may or may not have data to back up their conclusion, but it is not the job of someone to backup their lack of belief. Atheism is a negative statement. It is the objective of the positive claimant to offer proof. There is absolutely zero proof of a deity. It is an enormous leap to say that lack of evidence of existence means that we were created. To simply say that we don't understand how a simple origin leads to a complex result is illogical. The same sort of logic would cause someone to reject that a redwood tree couldn't possibly be the result of a simple seed.
SECOND, Let me put forth an idea presented by the philosopher Bertrand Russell that has come to be known as "Russell's Teapot". This analogy was put forth by Russell in 1952 in an unpublished article:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
While it may be hard to understand or explain the origin of life on the planet, no greater merit should be offered to an unproven and unsupported theory. I'd go as far as to say it's dishonest.
THIRDLY, there is absolutely no coincidence in our current complexity. We see a great deal that is totally screwed up and far from any system. One simple example is the human eye. The human eye is terribly designed. The location of the veins in our eyes are equivalent to placing all the wires of a camera in front of and around the camera lens. It's the reason why we get eye diseases such as cataracts. The eyeball of the squid developed entirely independently from our own and is without these problems. The thing that it is vital to understand is that organisms of great simplicity went through millions of minute changes over time. Millions of years. It was not a simple change. Consider the earlier example of trees. If you were without prior knowledge of how trees grew and someone said that a bag of seeds could make a great forest, you'd conclude they were lying. You'd be certain of it, would you not? Now consider every living thing on earth, in all the differing climates and circumstances. Consider their changing over a million years. Does it at least seem remotely feasible? Would it be coincidence that things grew and change or simply the way things work?
FOURTH and finally, which seems more improbable:
1. Things starting out very simply growing little by little into complex things over millions of years.
or
2. One single thing that is so incredibly complex it outshines all the complexity on earth, so much so as to be able to actually design and create every living things on earth, all the planets and the stars and the entire universe.
Consider which of these two statements actually answers any question at all? Where did the great being from question two come from? If the earth and it's inhabitants require an understandable explanation, how on earth are we to ever understand the origin of the far greater and more complex entity?!! We're back where we started, but with a far more complicated question!
Okay, I'm done. Hopefully something I typed makes sense!
If I may, let me briefly discuss four brief points - each only a paragraph in length.
FIRST, atheists, by definition, don't make any claims about our existence. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. This is the opposite of making a claim. Atheists may or may not have data to back up their conclusion, but it is not the job of someone to backup their lack of belief. Atheism is a negative statement. It is the objective of the positive claimant to offer proof. There is absolutely zero proof of a deity. It is an enormous leap to say that lack of evidence of existence means that we were created. To simply say that we don't understand how a simple origin leads to a complex result is illogical. The same sort of logic would cause someone to reject that a redwood tree couldn't possibly be the result of a simple seed.
SECOND, Let me put forth an idea presented by the philosopher Bertrand Russell that has come to be known as "Russell's Teapot". This analogy was put forth by Russell in 1952 in an unpublished article:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
While it may be hard to understand or explain the origin of life on the planet, no greater merit should be offered to an unproven and unsupported theory. I'd go as far as to say it's dishonest.
THIRDLY, there is absolutely no coincidence in our current complexity. We see a great deal that is totally screwed up and far from any system. One simple example is the human eye. The human eye is terribly designed. The location of the veins in our eyes are equivalent to placing all the wires of a camera in front of and around the camera lens. It's the reason why we get eye diseases such as cataracts. The eyeball of the squid developed entirely independently from our own and is without these problems. The thing that it is vital to understand is that organisms of great simplicity went through millions of minute changes over time. Millions of years. It was not a simple change. Consider the earlier example of trees. If you were without prior knowledge of how trees grew and someone said that a bag of seeds could make a great forest, you'd conclude they were lying. You'd be certain of it, would you not? Now consider every living thing on earth, in all the differing climates and circumstances. Consider their changing over a million years. Does it at least seem remotely feasible? Would it be coincidence that things grew and change or simply the way things work?
FOURTH and finally, which seems more improbable:
1. Things starting out very simply growing little by little into complex things over millions of years.
or
2. One single thing that is so incredibly complex it outshines all the complexity on earth, so much so as to be able to actually design and create every living things on earth, all the planets and the stars and the entire universe.
Consider which of these two statements actually answers any question at all? Where did the great being from question two come from? If the earth and it's inhabitants require an understandable explanation, how on earth are we to ever understand the origin of the far greater and more complex entity?!! We're back where we started, but with a far more complicated question!
Okay, I'm done. Hopefully something I typed makes sense!
Shannon Spaulding, Full of Shit in Christ
Shannon Spaulding has just achieved her fifteen minutes of fame. This obviously intelligent and strong-willed young person did it by compromising her dignity and the rights of others. In her mind, however, that's just fine.
Shannon Spaulding is the valedictorian of Wolfson High School in Jacsonville, Florida. Her graduation speech included twenty minutes of proselytizing that included telling those in attendance that if they died with sin on their souls, they would "immediately be puled down to hell to pay the eternal price...". Isn't that inspirational? Nothing like good 'ole down home common sense talk to carry with you on your journey into the real world, eh?
Shannon feels she can's say she's sorry. "I can't say I'm sorry for the message I shared. I'm sorry if people were offended, but I still believe in what I said."
I wonder what she could have said if say, perhaps, a person of the Islamic faith stood up and heranged the audience for their beliefs. Do you suppose Shannon would have minded that her rights were violated. Would she sit on her hands simply accepting that it was this persons beliefs? If a Jewish student had stood up and denied Jesus as the messiah, would that have been okay with her? If a Wiccan had preached their beliefs, do you think she would be so tolerant of their differing views.
What it comes down to is that Shannon, who claimed to not "totally understand why it's such a big deal" is either completely undiserving of her valedictorian title and unprepared for the real world, completely deluted and self absorbed, or just plain full of shit. I'm going with the latter. I'd actually prefer that she's callous and inconsiderate than insipid and ignorant. I'll grant her that. I, however, will not give her a pass. Times up, we're at fifteen minutes.
Shannon Spaulding is the valedictorian of Wolfson High School in Jacsonville, Florida. Her graduation speech included twenty minutes of proselytizing that included telling those in attendance that if they died with sin on their souls, they would "immediately be puled down to hell to pay the eternal price...". Isn't that inspirational? Nothing like good 'ole down home common sense talk to carry with you on your journey into the real world, eh?
Shannon feels she can's say she's sorry. "I can't say I'm sorry for the message I shared. I'm sorry if people were offended, but I still believe in what I said."
I wonder what she could have said if say, perhaps, a person of the Islamic faith stood up and heranged the audience for their beliefs. Do you suppose Shannon would have minded that her rights were violated. Would she sit on her hands simply accepting that it was this persons beliefs? If a Jewish student had stood up and denied Jesus as the messiah, would that have been okay with her? If a Wiccan had preached their beliefs, do you think she would be so tolerant of their differing views.
What it comes down to is that Shannon, who claimed to not "totally understand why it's such a big deal" is either completely undiserving of her valedictorian title and unprepared for the real world, completely deluted and self absorbed, or just plain full of shit. I'm going with the latter. I'd actually prefer that she's callous and inconsiderate than insipid and ignorant. I'll grant her that. I, however, will not give her a pass. Times up, we're at fifteen minutes.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Immorality of Christianity and Homosexuality
Mathew 6 (New International Version)
15. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Christians judge people. Clearly. They certainly judge the behaviors of others. They often 'cast the first stone'. Where it's a sin to covet thy neighbors wife -- sin even in the mind-- it's apparently okay to judge in the mind. So, thou shall not Kill or put a piece of flesh in a particular part of flesh of another person if that person is of a particular gender. That is an eternal no-no. It's a stupid and unsupported no-no. But as we know-know is way focused on the genitalia of we small insignificant lambs. This deity has a serious fixation psychosis. A 'fetish' as it were.
The arguments against homosexuality are inane and completely invented. For example, it's unclean to have anal sex. Well, it's unclean not to wash your hands. It can spread disease. How about, "it's icky and I'm not secure in my own masculinity, nor is my wife entirely secure in my masculinity so we both say it's icky. Back in the day we used to be bigots about black people, but since that's fallen out of favor, we've moved on to other things that scare us, but are more publicly acceptable."
There is no morality beyond that of religion that gives a damn about the gender of lovers. Causing unnecessary torment should not be the cause of something that is professed to be good.
In my own experience, there was no 'choice' I made. Perhaps some of those 'good 'ole boys' really struggled with their attraction to males. Maybe they didn't. I know from a very early age (I particularly remember finding a certain stirring of the loins during an episode of the 70's live-action Wonder Woman program) I had a hankering for the female physique. There was no pow-wow in my brain. There was no point when I said to myself, "Hmmm... Soft and bumpy or squared off and hard." Nope. I like the soft and bumpy shape of women long before I realized why I liked them. Long before I took an 'F' on that days math lesson because I was, um, shall we say 'incapable' of working the previous days homework problems on the board in front of the class because Suzy had worn that darn tube top again. Years later I stood before family and friends and vowed to love and honor my wife until the day I leave this life. I love my wife and the family we've created. I love her more deeply than I ever imagined I could love anyone. Far more than I love myself. Far more. Aye, but here's the rub, no one, no God, no man, nation, governing body or law would change that. I'd easily sacrifice my life in order to be with her. There is no other place for me. It's where I belong. If the love I feel for my wife is even remotely comparable to the love between any two people no matter their race, creed, gender or nationality, I feel it's my duty as a human to defend their right to be with that person as completely as they may. No matter what they do in their own time. With their own genitals. In their own home. In fact, I hope they do whatever they like as much as they like and in any way they like so as to make them happy and whole.
If God disagrees with that, then he's simply wrong.
But then he doesn't exist and it's just scared, ignorant and insecure people who are the actual problem. It's just scared, ignorant and insecure people who are so completely wrong. What could possibly more immoral than to tell two grown human being who and how to love?
15. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Christians judge people. Clearly. They certainly judge the behaviors of others. They often 'cast the first stone'. Where it's a sin to covet thy neighbors wife -- sin even in the mind-- it's apparently okay to judge in the mind. So, thou shall not Kill or put a piece of flesh in a particular part of flesh of another person if that person is of a particular gender. That is an eternal no-no. It's a stupid and unsupported no-no. But as we know-know is way focused on the genitalia of we small insignificant lambs. This deity has a serious fixation psychosis. A 'fetish' as it were.
The arguments against homosexuality are inane and completely invented. For example, it's unclean to have anal sex. Well, it's unclean not to wash your hands. It can spread disease. How about, "it's icky and I'm not secure in my own masculinity, nor is my wife entirely secure in my masculinity so we both say it's icky. Back in the day we used to be bigots about black people, but since that's fallen out of favor, we've moved on to other things that scare us, but are more publicly acceptable."
There is no morality beyond that of religion that gives a damn about the gender of lovers. Causing unnecessary torment should not be the cause of something that is professed to be good.
In my own experience, there was no 'choice' I made. Perhaps some of those 'good 'ole boys' really struggled with their attraction to males. Maybe they didn't. I know from a very early age (I particularly remember finding a certain stirring of the loins during an episode of the 70's live-action Wonder Woman program) I had a hankering for the female physique. There was no pow-wow in my brain. There was no point when I said to myself, "Hmmm... Soft and bumpy or squared off and hard." Nope. I like the soft and bumpy shape of women long before I realized why I liked them. Long before I took an 'F' on that days math lesson because I was, um, shall we say 'incapable' of working the previous days homework problems on the board in front of the class because Suzy had worn that darn tube top again. Years later I stood before family and friends and vowed to love and honor my wife until the day I leave this life. I love my wife and the family we've created. I love her more deeply than I ever imagined I could love anyone. Far more than I love myself. Far more. Aye, but here's the rub, no one, no God, no man, nation, governing body or law would change that. I'd easily sacrifice my life in order to be with her. There is no other place for me. It's where I belong. If the love I feel for my wife is even remotely comparable to the love between any two people no matter their race, creed, gender or nationality, I feel it's my duty as a human to defend their right to be with that person as completely as they may. No matter what they do in their own time. With their own genitals. In their own home. In fact, I hope they do whatever they like as much as they like and in any way they like so as to make them happy and whole.
If God disagrees with that, then he's simply wrong.
But then he doesn't exist and it's just scared, ignorant and insecure people who are the actual problem. It's just scared, ignorant and insecure people who are so completely wrong. What could possibly more immoral than to tell two grown human being who and how to love?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Why promote atheism?
Many Christians don't understand why anyone would take such a strong stance in professing a position of failing to believe in something. It's a valid question from the vantage point of a lifelong Christian. As they see it, God has told them to go forth and spread his word. Even if a really important person told you to go spread his opinions, you might refuse, but to put forth the fact that you don't believe in something? "I want to put forth the viewpoint that I have no faith in the existence of hobgoblins. I'm an a-hobgoblin." It seems completely pointless.
The road to atheism is hard. Once you've come to the ultimate conclusion of there not being a god, you're not done. Everyone wants to know why. Some refuse to believe you don't believe. "Why are you angry at god?" Angry at something that isn't there? If I were, it would certainly be a valid question. "It doesn't even exist, so why the anger?" Or worse, it is claimed that we wanted to live a life of debauchery. "You're refusing god so you can act out your sick fantasies." Um, may I ask how I can refuse what doesn't exist? How would that work? "I refuse the existence of the non-existent!"
In my own experience, I felt from a very young age (certainly younger than ten, if not far earlier) that good people were Christians. I had never felt Jesus in my heart, so I must be bad. Moreover, I was bound for hell. What was wrong with me? Was God mad at me? I actually wanted and choose to believe. Even if for no other reason than to avoid being an outcast. The problem is, that's not possible. No matter the level of your desire, you cannot force yourself to buy the existence of sasquatch. It can't be done. You can claim it, but sasquatch (in this scenario an all knowing, though furry, deity figure) would not. Sasquatch would be able to tell you were mailing it in (I mean he is an 'all knowing' sasquatch, after all). Again, so, what was wrong with me? Sasquatch is love. Am I unworthy of love? Sasquatch's (God's) love? That's hard for a kid. A kid who strove to be good, who's told he's good and believes he's trying to be good, but secretly is aware of the awful truth. I was bad. Even Godsquatch thought so.
This brought me to directly confront the idea of Hell and the Devil. When I snuck a cookie or cheated on my homework, it seemed my motivations weren't to be evil, they were to succeed at something. I wanted the cookie. Purely selfish, but evil? Not quite. Cheating on the test, was a way to attempt to right a wrong of not studying or not understanding, I wasn't trying to hurt anyone. In fact, I never sought to hurt anyone. I looked around me and it seemed that at times when people did hurt others, it was either unintentional, or in response to pain they themselves were facing. I never witnessed purely evil actions. It became clear that the idea of an eternal hell and/or a devil who constantly tempted me was foolish. People might be crazy or angry or hurt, they may feel any number of things that caused their behavior, but I did not witness or read of anyone who acted based on a spiritual cause. Their causes seemed particularly earthen and understandable or at least conceivable based on circumstance. Mistakes aren't evil or supernatural, quite the opposite, they're entirely human.
It was quite a revelation to discover that my decade long belief of the goodness of Christians was completely bogus. Plenty of so called Christians were lousy people, but then, they weren't 'true' Christians. All the 'true' Christians had to be good. Heck, they were Christians. But then I learned that being good was not a required for entry into heaven. Acceptance of Jesus and different and completely contradictory baptismal beliefs asside, you could be a lousy person and forgiven if you accepted Jesus. Now, the claim was that having the eternal border of the holy spirit residing in your heart would fill you with a love that would make you a good person, but I'd yet to witness a Christian, or anyone for that matter, who hadn't made mistakes, hurt people or generally became pretty pissy now and then. An adherence to doctrine seemed competely unrelated. People who drank, smoked and swore seemed as likely to be good to their fellow man as those who refrained from these activities. In fact many of the Christians I knew drank, smoked and swore. Many of the non-Christians I knew (my self included) tried not to do these things, but it seemed in no way connected to our behaviors towards others and our contribution to the furtherment toward the reduction of human suffering. I became insensed by the constant seeking of the answer to the question, "What would Jesus do?" It is presumed that Jesus would do what was right. So... why not just do what's right and skip the trip to Church? I mean, would Jesus do what was wrong? If something is innately right, then it is right with or without Jesus, is it not?
It was a long journey to realize that I was good, or at least strove to be. I actually judged people with less immediacy and greater compassion than most Christians. A person's character should not be based on their adherence to any doctrine or creed, but on their actions and situation. Least of all their sexual behaviors. Christianity seems to see the world differently. Less judiciously. If Christians as a whole reflect what Jesus would do, then perhaps I didn't want to be a Christian. I wanted to be good. I want others to know they can be good without God. The world may be far better without him. Especially seeing as it very much appears he isn't there in the first place. Living in reality is far superior than living in ignorance, despite its presumed bliss. Living in reality is the only true way of living.
Rather than sit back and watch others struggle as I did, I choose to tell others simply, "It's okay NOT to believe. In fact, in my experience, it is far superior. This is why I promote atheism.
The road to atheism is hard. Once you've come to the ultimate conclusion of there not being a god, you're not done. Everyone wants to know why. Some refuse to believe you don't believe. "Why are you angry at god?" Angry at something that isn't there? If I were, it would certainly be a valid question. "It doesn't even exist, so why the anger?" Or worse, it is claimed that we wanted to live a life of debauchery. "You're refusing god so you can act out your sick fantasies." Um, may I ask how I can refuse what doesn't exist? How would that work? "I refuse the existence of the non-existent!"
In my own experience, I felt from a very young age (certainly younger than ten, if not far earlier) that good people were Christians. I had never felt Jesus in my heart, so I must be bad. Moreover, I was bound for hell. What was wrong with me? Was God mad at me? I actually wanted and choose to believe. Even if for no other reason than to avoid being an outcast. The problem is, that's not possible. No matter the level of your desire, you cannot force yourself to buy the existence of sasquatch. It can't be done. You can claim it, but sasquatch (in this scenario an all knowing, though furry, deity figure) would not. Sasquatch would be able to tell you were mailing it in (I mean he is an 'all knowing' sasquatch, after all). Again, so, what was wrong with me? Sasquatch is love. Am I unworthy of love? Sasquatch's (God's) love? That's hard for a kid. A kid who strove to be good, who's told he's good and believes he's trying to be good, but secretly is aware of the awful truth. I was bad. Even Godsquatch thought so.
This brought me to directly confront the idea of Hell and the Devil. When I snuck a cookie or cheated on my homework, it seemed my motivations weren't to be evil, they were to succeed at something. I wanted the cookie. Purely selfish, but evil? Not quite. Cheating on the test, was a way to attempt to right a wrong of not studying or not understanding, I wasn't trying to hurt anyone. In fact, I never sought to hurt anyone. I looked around me and it seemed that at times when people did hurt others, it was either unintentional, or in response to pain they themselves were facing. I never witnessed purely evil actions. It became clear that the idea of an eternal hell and/or a devil who constantly tempted me was foolish. People might be crazy or angry or hurt, they may feel any number of things that caused their behavior, but I did not witness or read of anyone who acted based on a spiritual cause. Their causes seemed particularly earthen and understandable or at least conceivable based on circumstance. Mistakes aren't evil or supernatural, quite the opposite, they're entirely human.
It was quite a revelation to discover that my decade long belief of the goodness of Christians was completely bogus. Plenty of so called Christians were lousy people, but then, they weren't 'true' Christians. All the 'true' Christians had to be good. Heck, they were Christians. But then I learned that being good was not a required for entry into heaven. Acceptance of Jesus and different and completely contradictory baptismal beliefs asside, you could be a lousy person and forgiven if you accepted Jesus. Now, the claim was that having the eternal border of the holy spirit residing in your heart would fill you with a love that would make you a good person, but I'd yet to witness a Christian, or anyone for that matter, who hadn't made mistakes, hurt people or generally became pretty pissy now and then. An adherence to doctrine seemed competely unrelated. People who drank, smoked and swore seemed as likely to be good to their fellow man as those who refrained from these activities. In fact many of the Christians I knew drank, smoked and swore. Many of the non-Christians I knew (my self included) tried not to do these things, but it seemed in no way connected to our behaviors towards others and our contribution to the furtherment toward the reduction of human suffering. I became insensed by the constant seeking of the answer to the question, "What would Jesus do?" It is presumed that Jesus would do what was right. So... why not just do what's right and skip the trip to Church? I mean, would Jesus do what was wrong? If something is innately right, then it is right with or without Jesus, is it not?
It was a long journey to realize that I was good, or at least strove to be. I actually judged people with less immediacy and greater compassion than most Christians. A person's character should not be based on their adherence to any doctrine or creed, but on their actions and situation. Least of all their sexual behaviors. Christianity seems to see the world differently. Less judiciously. If Christians as a whole reflect what Jesus would do, then perhaps I didn't want to be a Christian. I wanted to be good. I want others to know they can be good without God. The world may be far better without him. Especially seeing as it very much appears he isn't there in the first place. Living in reality is far superior than living in ignorance, despite its presumed bliss. Living in reality is the only true way of living.
Rather than sit back and watch others struggle as I did, I choose to tell others simply, "It's okay NOT to believe. In fact, in my experience, it is far superior. This is why I promote atheism.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Should Atheists fear a death without an afterlife?
A Christian recently posed a question similar to this on another site. My spontaneous answer follows (I mention spontaneous because I set up a series of points in the first paragraph and fail to follow-up in the remaining paragraphs):
There are a couple ways to look at this. First, there is the ridiculous Pascal's wager that says you might as well believe in god because the alternative is far worse. Well, that all depends on which doctrine of which religion you choose. Through the ages there have been millions of religions with billions of contradictory doctrines. Which will end you in the great weenie-roast and which will seat you at the hand of god? Who knows. What if you pick wrong? Is it better to imagine going to sleep and never waking or burning in hell for all eternity?
I fear death, but I think you do as well. I, however, treasure each moment on a far deeper level than do you. Every moment I hold my little girl or read with my son or see my wife smiling is one more prescious moment. There is no other world, there is no better place, there is no future life or sudden knowledge and peace awaiting me. There is here. There is now. There is the unfathomable chance that I ever existed. There were the millions of years before and there will be the millions of years after --this moment is glorious.
I lost my father last year. I hold him in my thoughts. I pass on his spirit to my children. I smile at sudden memories and mourn the inability to pick up the phone and share a laugh with him or even to ask him how to repair the sink. But I know he's not watching over me. I know he was here and I had a prescious few moments to share with him and if I'd wasted them waiting to see him again instead of feeling the full weight of that loss, I wouldn't be the father I am to my son. I'd be less of a man, teacher, husband and father. No question.
So, do I fear death? Certainly. Am I crushed by the weight of this fear? To be certain, I'm instead enlivened with it. I'm inspired and driven to live every moment to it's grandest potential. Nothing less would be acceptable. Nothing less would be living.
There are a couple ways to look at this. First, there is the ridiculous Pascal's wager that says you might as well believe in god because the alternative is far worse. Well, that all depends on which doctrine of which religion you choose. Through the ages there have been millions of religions with billions of contradictory doctrines. Which will end you in the great weenie-roast and which will seat you at the hand of god? Who knows. What if you pick wrong? Is it better to imagine going to sleep and never waking or burning in hell for all eternity?
I fear death, but I think you do as well. I, however, treasure each moment on a far deeper level than do you. Every moment I hold my little girl or read with my son or see my wife smiling is one more prescious moment. There is no other world, there is no better place, there is no future life or sudden knowledge and peace awaiting me. There is here. There is now. There is the unfathomable chance that I ever existed. There were the millions of years before and there will be the millions of years after --this moment is glorious.
I lost my father last year. I hold him in my thoughts. I pass on his spirit to my children. I smile at sudden memories and mourn the inability to pick up the phone and share a laugh with him or even to ask him how to repair the sink. But I know he's not watching over me. I know he was here and I had a prescious few moments to share with him and if I'd wasted them waiting to see him again instead of feeling the full weight of that loss, I wouldn't be the father I am to my son. I'd be less of a man, teacher, husband and father. No question.
So, do I fear death? Certainly. Am I crushed by the weight of this fear? To be certain, I'm instead enlivened with it. I'm inspired and driven to live every moment to it's grandest potential. Nothing less would be acceptable. Nothing less would be living.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
"He's a good christian man"
Christianity is not about being good. This was a major revelation to me. The overwhelming assumption is that Christians hold a morally ascended position by default. I grew up believing I should really work to find God primarily for this reason. I went with friends to church time and again. I was prayed for constantly. I read the bible, I did everything I could to find Jesus and open my heart to him, but he never showed. I was mortified. I didn't want to go to hell, sure, but more important to me, I wanted to be good. I believed I was good and tried to do good, so why was Jesus so elusive to me. It then occurred to me through bible study, fellowship and sermon that being a good person was supposed to be a benefit of Jesus entering your heart, but was not a requirement. I was a good and moral person, I just wasn't a Christian. There was plenty of evidence pointing out the immoral acts of Christians. It turned out Christians were people just like anyone else. They made mistakes and they did good things and Christianity really played no part in the matter.
So, why become a Christian? To avoid hell? I never really bought that argument. Well, if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in that horrific concoction. I also felt it was anything but moral for someone to be sentenced to eternal torment for a finite crime. Thus, we enter a new era in my spiritual journey, "Was Christianity a thing to pursue?" Would a good and moral person actually follow the path put forth by this religion?
Guess what I decided...
So, why become a Christian? To avoid hell? I never really bought that argument. Well, if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in that horrific concoction. I also felt it was anything but moral for someone to be sentenced to eternal torment for a finite crime. Thus, we enter a new era in my spiritual journey, "Was Christianity a thing to pursue?" Would a good and moral person actually follow the path put forth by this religion?
Guess what I decided...
Atheism - Misnomers
It turns our atheists are not well liked by the general public. In a recent poll we were found to rank below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” I'm at a loss as to why this would be the case. Atheists have never harmed another person in the name of atheism. There are not atheist terrorists. We've never killed in the name of atheism. We've never invaded or even judged people in the name of atheism. Atheists would never commit genocide in the name of atheism. So, what is everyone's beef with us?
So, what is it we do that makes us so distrustful? I've heard some ridiculous claims such as, "atheists are unhappy, depraved people who only reject God so they might commit sin. "Why would rejecting God allow us to commit sin? Aren't we all sinners already? Don't Christians sin? Also, am I doing my atheistic world view an injustice when I fail to sin? Finally, is it not completely foolish to claim that a rationalist would avoid something that is actually, so he doesn't have to face the consequences of its existence? What sense is that?
"Hey, that piano is going to land on your head!" "Well, I'd rather it didn't, so I refuse to accept it's existence so I'll survive when it lands on me."
No, these are nonsensical arguments. Personally, I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, commit adultery or steal. I give money and time to charitable organizations and am a lowly paid teacher who spent several years teaching in an inner city school district. Should my atheist friends reject me? What am I doing wrong? I don't seek to commit lewd sexual acts or harm others. I work not to hate or judge others and try to fight for the rights of all people. I'm not sexist, racist or generally grumpy. I suppose I'm an embarrassment to my calling. If I'm so hated, shouldn't I be more hate-able? I'm sure there are those who are not too terribly fond of me, but I commit only one sin repeatedly and without remorse. I reject the holy spirit. Actually, that's not accurate, I fail to recognize the holy spirit. I've never seen, felt, heard or witnessed his/her/its existence.
Now, I cannot address this topic without pointing out one key part of this whole poll. Atheists are specifically accused of not sharing the vision of American society. Let's take a look at what one George Herbert Walker Bush had to say about the issue of Atheists and patriotism, shall we? Please, remember as you read this that this man presided over this beloved country, with the sworn duty to uphold our constitution.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."
Now, it just so happens that the First Amendment to our founding document happens to say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", Justice David Souter along with the majority of the court in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), stated in his opinion that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Did you catch that last part? The part about "irreligion." That part would include atheists. Granting Bush that this decision came seven years following his quote, I still see no reason why someone's citizenship or patriotism should be called into question. However by allowing the former president the chance to finish, we might get some insight as to his reasoning. His very next sentence stated:
"This is one nation under God."
Hmmm. Is it? Is it, really? Oddly, our founding fathers failed to include God in any part of our founding document. Perhaps the President wasn't aware that his personal opinions don't supercede this document. Or perhaps he was unaware that the phrase 'under God' was not even added to the Pledge of Allegience until 167 years after our Constitution was adopted and more than a half century after the United States began reciting the pledge in public schools. Perhaps he was simply not a history buff. Or perhaps he wasn't quite clear on the fact that he swore on his creator's book to uphold the document. Which begs the question, was his statement a defiance of his God, his country, his oath or all three? And to return to the original point, are we as a society to hold a vision of this country that is in contrast to this most glorious and patriotic of all documents? Who exactly is it that is failing to hold the correct 'vision of American society'?
Okay, so if you'll accept for the short term that I'm an okay fellow who wouldn't harm anyone and at the very least, strives to live by the golden rule, then I see only one reason why I might not be liked.
If we're right, then 1 of 3 things is true:
So, what is it we do that makes us so distrustful? I've heard some ridiculous claims such as, "atheists are unhappy, depraved people who only reject God so they might commit sin. "Why would rejecting God allow us to commit sin? Aren't we all sinners already? Don't Christians sin? Also, am I doing my atheistic world view an injustice when I fail to sin? Finally, is it not completely foolish to claim that a rationalist would avoid something that is actually, so he doesn't have to face the consequences of its existence? What sense is that?
"Hey, that piano is going to land on your head!" "Well, I'd rather it didn't, so I refuse to accept it's existence so I'll survive when it lands on me."
No, these are nonsensical arguments. Personally, I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, commit adultery or steal. I give money and time to charitable organizations and am a lowly paid teacher who spent several years teaching in an inner city school district. Should my atheist friends reject me? What am I doing wrong? I don't seek to commit lewd sexual acts or harm others. I work not to hate or judge others and try to fight for the rights of all people. I'm not sexist, racist or generally grumpy. I suppose I'm an embarrassment to my calling. If I'm so hated, shouldn't I be more hate-able? I'm sure there are those who are not too terribly fond of me, but I commit only one sin repeatedly and without remorse. I reject the holy spirit. Actually, that's not accurate, I fail to recognize the holy spirit. I've never seen, felt, heard or witnessed his/her/its existence.
Now, I cannot address this topic without pointing out one key part of this whole poll. Atheists are specifically accused of not sharing the vision of American society. Let's take a look at what one George Herbert Walker Bush had to say about the issue of Atheists and patriotism, shall we? Please, remember as you read this that this man presided over this beloved country, with the sworn duty to uphold our constitution.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."
Now, it just so happens that the First Amendment to our founding document happens to say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", Justice David Souter along with the majority of the court in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), stated in his opinion that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Did you catch that last part? The part about "irreligion." That part would include atheists. Granting Bush that this decision came seven years following his quote, I still see no reason why someone's citizenship or patriotism should be called into question. However by allowing the former president the chance to finish, we might get some insight as to his reasoning. His very next sentence stated:
"This is one nation under God."
Hmmm. Is it? Is it, really? Oddly, our founding fathers failed to include God in any part of our founding document. Perhaps the President wasn't aware that his personal opinions don't supercede this document. Or perhaps he was unaware that the phrase 'under God' was not even added to the Pledge of Allegience until 167 years after our Constitution was adopted and more than a half century after the United States began reciting the pledge in public schools. Perhaps he was simply not a history buff. Or perhaps he wasn't quite clear on the fact that he swore on his creator's book to uphold the document. Which begs the question, was his statement a defiance of his God, his country, his oath or all three? And to return to the original point, are we as a society to hold a vision of this country that is in contrast to this most glorious and patriotic of all documents? Who exactly is it that is failing to hold the correct 'vision of American society'?
Okay, so if you'll accept for the short term that I'm an okay fellow who wouldn't harm anyone and at the very least, strives to live by the golden rule, then I see only one reason why I might not be liked.
If we're right, then 1 of 3 things is true:
- There is no heaven and people must face their mortality.
- The religious are wrong.
- The religious would feel quite foolish -- and lost as they'd have lost their presumed reason for existence.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Ann Coulter's New Book: "The Pot Calling the Kettle Black"
As we all know, even those who call themselves fans, Ann Coulter is a harsh person. A friend and mother of three children proudly grinned and nearly cackled that she reads Ann Coulter exactly because she's "so mean". Well, isn't that a sweet and enlightened view.
First off let me say I haven't and won't read Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism". However, you'll have to instruct my being correct or incorrect about it when it hits bookstore shelves. Below I've taken her press release about the book and listed her comment (red), how/why it's inaccurate (Misconstruence) and the relative 'Parallel' held by the religious right.
Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, argues Coulter, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself.
Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
First off let me say I haven't and won't read Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism". However, you'll have to instruct my being correct or incorrect about it when it hits bookstore shelves. Below I've taken her press release about the book and listed her comment (red), how/why it's inaccurate (Misconstruence) and the relative 'Parallel' held by the religious right.
Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, argues Coulter, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself.
Misconstruence: Liberals support the idea of freedom of religion. All religions not only Christianity.
Parallel: Conservativism "rejects the idea of" any god except their own. Conservatives revile people of the Muslim faith, argues me, "it bears all the attributes of a religion itself."
In Godless, she throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us:
- its sacraments (abortion)
Misconstruence: Believing in rights other than those of the Christian Church
(who also ignores the fact that it's own God committed abortion)
(who also ignores the fact that it's own God committed abortion)
Parallel: War. Bigotry (racial, religious, gender, sexuality, poverty, --take your pick)
- its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
Misconstruence: We're no longer to utilize precedent?
Parallel: Patriot Act
- its clergy (public school teachers)
Misconstruence: Those damn well educated public servants. We should all be bitter, starved, cruel bigots instead?
Parallel: O'reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh (oh, how they give of themselves)
- its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
Misconstruence: Oh, those lousy constitutionally protected rights!
Parallel: The Presidential Pulpit, Patriot Act, Faith Based Initiative
- its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
Misconstruence: Not choosing to consider the personal lives of people,
but in the cause for which they stand should be saluted.
but in the cause for which they stand should be saluted.
Parallel: God. Bush.
- and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)
Misconstruence: If someone believes that God said 1+1 equalled 11,
does 1+1 no longer equal 2?
does 1+1 no longer equal 2?
Parallel: Faith based initiative.
Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
Misconstruence: The liberal creation 'myth'? Science is a myth,
but an unsupported book is fact. Hmmm...
but an unsupported book is fact. Hmmm...
Parallel: Then, of course, there's the conservative creation myth:
Intelligent Design, literally drawn directly from the
mythology in which Christianity is based.
Intelligent Design, literally drawn directly from the
mythology in which Christianity is based.
For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.
Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called "gaps" in the theory of evolution are all there is -- Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims.
Here is one of my absolutely favorite links. This shows how creationists have used their 'expertise' to point out which skulls in the fossil record show a human skull and which show an ape since, as we know, they say there is no link, they were created completely independent of one another. The funniest part is that creation scientists all disagree on where the human starts and the apes end. They can't tell which are human and which are ape skulls! Hilarious and poignant.
...And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?
...and this is a point because the Bible is 'genuine science', I presume?
Lack of knowledge and logic. Nice.
Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force.
Darwin is 'bogus science', but God is legitimate science? Interesting how it can be scientifically proven without, um, evidence and the scientific method, yet not be bogus science, isn't it?
Liberals are not necessarily godless, but do support something called the Constitution. I wonder when Coulter will come out with her book, "Godless, the Constitution of America". As our founding document is, just as she purports liberals to be, Godless.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Explaining the war to my son...
My son asked me about the 'war' in Iraq. Ever since he was small and could understand stories he defined the world as right or wrong. There is a good guy and a bad guy in every story. Certainly, there are stories where good guys make mistakes, but they correct these mistakes and make amends. It's generally the point of the story. The lesson. The theme or moral.
"Lots of people have died in the war, haven't they?"
"Yes, a whole lot."
"Iraqi people?"
"Well, yes, mostly Iraqi's, but a lot of American soldiers too."
"Why did they start the war with us?"
"Well, they didn't. We did."
"Why did we start the war?"
"Because we were told that they had a weapon that could hurt us."
"We started the war because they had a weapon to hurt us?"
"They didn't actually have a weapon to hurt us."
"Then why did we start the war?"
"Because our president lied to us."
"But they were bad people."
"No, they were mostly people just like us. Their leader was a bad man."
"We started the war to stop him."
"No, but that would be a possible reason for starting a war. We started the war because of the weapons."
"But you said there weren't weapons."
"That's right, there were no weapons."
"But President Bush said there were."
"Yes, he did."
"Lying is bad."
"Yes it is."
"Will someone attack us because our President is a bad man?"
So, you tell me. What do you suppose might be the general point of this story? The lesson? The theme or moral?
"Lots of people have died in the war, haven't they?"
"Yes, a whole lot."
"Iraqi people?"
"Well, yes, mostly Iraqi's, but a lot of American soldiers too."
"Why did they start the war with us?"
"Well, they didn't. We did."
"Why did we start the war?"
"Because we were told that they had a weapon that could hurt us."
"We started the war because they had a weapon to hurt us?"
"They didn't actually have a weapon to hurt us."
"Then why did we start the war?"
"Because our president lied to us."
"But they were bad people."
"No, they were mostly people just like us. Their leader was a bad man."
"We started the war to stop him."
"No, but that would be a possible reason for starting a war. We started the war because of the weapons."
"But you said there weren't weapons."
"That's right, there were no weapons."
"But President Bush said there were."
"Yes, he did."
"Lying is bad."
"Yes it is."
"Will someone attack us because our President is a bad man?"
So, you tell me. What do you suppose might be the general point of this story? The lesson? The theme or moral?
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Are you a hedonist?
This (as we all know) is the great theist argument. Anyone without God will seek depravity. Ummm... no. The great modern struggle is pleasure vs. happiness. We all actually seek happiness in our heart of hearts, but often get sidetracked by pleasure. Sure I'd like to spend my time becoming a better person, contributing to humanity, helping out a neighbor, enriching my life and the life of my family... but this Seinfeld episode is a REEEEEEEEALLY funny one... Pleasure. Rampant sex? Not so much. Don't drink, never really have. Maximize my enjoyment means trying to enjoy the time I have with friends and family. I also seek time to create and perform, this is where I find enjoyment. I also have finally found a career I enjoy. Life is wonderful --despite the lack of orgies...
The real question here is simple. Are all righteous people, specifically the pious Christians in American actually fighting a constant yearning to partake in any number of hedonistic activities? Is it actually in their human genetic code to satisfy the most depraved desires of their id? One can only assume this to be true because they seem to honestly believe that without the help of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they'd instantly chuck their bible and defile their body and soul in the most vile and reprehensible ways without pause for the rest of their natural lives. Or in other words; commit acts similar to those of Catholic Priests over the past four or so decades.
It's simply not true. It's silly. Truth is, there is only one thing that might change if they were to toss their bible asside. They would stop judging others in ways that are undeniably unjust and inhumane by all reasoning and logic. Faith would no longer exist to sheild their conscience from cruelly baseless viewpoints and continued persecution would be unpalatable. They would be the people they believe Christianity helps them to be. Better people.
The real question here is simple. Are all righteous people, specifically the pious Christians in American actually fighting a constant yearning to partake in any number of hedonistic activities? Is it actually in their human genetic code to satisfy the most depraved desires of their id? One can only assume this to be true because they seem to honestly believe that without the help of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they'd instantly chuck their bible and defile their body and soul in the most vile and reprehensible ways without pause for the rest of their natural lives. Or in other words; commit acts similar to those of Catholic Priests over the past four or so decades.
It's simply not true. It's silly. Truth is, there is only one thing that might change if they were to toss their bible asside. They would stop judging others in ways that are undeniably unjust and inhumane by all reasoning and logic. Faith would no longer exist to sheild their conscience from cruelly baseless viewpoints and continued persecution would be unpalatable. They would be the people they believe Christianity helps them to be. Better people.
Prayer
Prayer is a perfect point of contention. First of all, studies have shown it doesn't work. More importantly, it must be admitted that prayer does a hell of a lot more for the pray-er than the pray-ee. Studies have shown that prayer, if anything, does more harm than good (see study).
Okay, couple things here. To begin with, prayer as far as we can tell does not good, and actually has done more harm. In addition, prayer makes no sense as God has a plan. Do you think in his planning that he failed to take in to account the needs of you and your loved ones? Do you think he's omnipotent, but not quite that omnipotent? Was he planning to take the life of someone not because he needed them in heaven or it was their 'time', but rather just on a lark? If you pray, does he suddenly, not need the person in heaven and it suddenly wasn't their time? Why on earth would an all knowing God who can do anything at all possibly need someone?
None of this makes sense on any level. Take the results, for instance. If a prayer is answered, then the prayer worked. If the prayer fails to work, then it was God's will. Um, that's logic only an idiot could accept. This logic means the original death was, what... against God's will. Was he simply not paying attention. Was he only going to take the life if a whole bunch of peopled refrained from praying for them? If that's the case, then only popular people with a large support group are able to benefit from prayer. Lonely people or people with small families and small support groups will die far sooner than those in the opposite situation.
The only thing prayer does, is to help people in impossible emotional situations feel a little less helpless. Which would seem to be fine. Reducing suffering is generally good, but there are times when people might do more to help than simply asking for help for a non-existent being for no reason. If people need assistance due to a natural disaster, every minute gathering to pray instead of driving to help or gathering needed supplies or petitioning congress for more funds is actually harmful. One set of hands does more than any number of hands praying. The phrase is far too 'Chicken Soup for the Soul' for me, but it's absolutely true. Here's the real question, if the feeling of being helpless is a complete lie, then is it actually a good thing? If it's not helping, is your being ignorant of this good or harmful? If a person actually expects God to act and God fails to do so, is there not another level of pain? Is there not another level of confusion? Granted we're already denying the fact that we're helpless. We're already denying the fact of the reality of the situation. Is delusional comfort actually beneficial?
Let's look at what the Bible has to say on the subject of prayer:
6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
Let's sum up, shall we?
Okay, couple things here. To begin with, prayer as far as we can tell does not good, and actually has done more harm. In addition, prayer makes no sense as God has a plan. Do you think in his planning that he failed to take in to account the needs of you and your loved ones? Do you think he's omnipotent, but not quite that omnipotent? Was he planning to take the life of someone not because he needed them in heaven or it was their 'time', but rather just on a lark? If you pray, does he suddenly, not need the person in heaven and it suddenly wasn't their time? Why on earth would an all knowing God who can do anything at all possibly need someone?
None of this makes sense on any level. Take the results, for instance. If a prayer is answered, then the prayer worked. If the prayer fails to work, then it was God's will. Um, that's logic only an idiot could accept. This logic means the original death was, what... against God's will. Was he simply not paying attention. Was he only going to take the life if a whole bunch of peopled refrained from praying for them? If that's the case, then only popular people with a large support group are able to benefit from prayer. Lonely people or people with small families and small support groups will die far sooner than those in the opposite situation.
The only thing prayer does, is to help people in impossible emotional situations feel a little less helpless. Which would seem to be fine. Reducing suffering is generally good, but there are times when people might do more to help than simply asking for help for a non-existent being for no reason. If people need assistance due to a natural disaster, every minute gathering to pray instead of driving to help or gathering needed supplies or petitioning congress for more funds is actually harmful. One set of hands does more than any number of hands praying. The phrase is far too 'Chicken Soup for the Soul' for me, but it's absolutely true. Here's the real question, if the feeling of being helpless is a complete lie, then is it actually a good thing? If it's not helping, is your being ignorant of this good or harmful? If a person actually expects God to act and God fails to do so, is there not another level of pain? Is there not another level of confusion? Granted we're already denying the fact that we're helpless. We're already denying the fact of the reality of the situation. Is delusional comfort actually beneficial?
Let's look at what the Bible has to say on the subject of prayer:
Matthew 6 (New International Version)
5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9 "This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[a]'
14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
...so, wait. Let me get this straight. All those, so called, people of faith who want to pray before football games, graduation and any other school event are actually defying the direct word of God? I could comment further, but what's the point. Hypocrisy speaks for itself and in this case it's using one of those giant cheerleader megaphones.Let's sum up, shall we?
- Prayer doesn't work, it actually hurts
- Prayer will have no effect on what God does, he has a plan
- Prayer is delusional
- Prayer takes time away from actual good works
- Public prayer is hypocrisy in the eyes of God
What will Christians claim next?
On another groups I just saw a post claiming there are no 'real' or 'true' atheists. This is just a repackaged argument from atheists stating that no Christians are 'true' (heck, even Christians say that ALL THE TIME!).
The latest argument has been that atheists don't think 'logically'. Seriously, check out a sermon or a radio program from the Christians. We freethinkers who use nothing BUT logic are now not using logic. I had another person wonder if logic was the best tool to use to determine things? I asked what should we use--ILLOGIC?
Anyway, my question is simple. What are the Christians going to throw at us next?
The latest argument has been that atheists don't think 'logically'. Seriously, check out a sermon or a radio program from the Christians. We freethinkers who use nothing BUT logic are now not using logic. I had another person wonder if logic was the best tool to use to determine things? I asked what should we use--ILLOGIC?
Anyway, my question is simple. What are the Christians going to throw at us next?
Friday, March 03, 2006
I've been moved...
This is beautiful. It's a must see. I'll let it speak for itself.
http://santorumexposed.com/pages/video/stickerq.php
Wow. I mean, really, wow. So beautiful. They really understand.
http://santorumexposed.com/pages/video/stickerq.php
Wow. I mean, really, wow. So beautiful. They really understand.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Why do I care...?
- Entry for February 20, 2006
- About two years ago, my father and I had an interesting discussion that I think applies here. Realize first that some in my late teens to early twenties until my father passed last year, our roles reversed. I was not the giver of advice, or rather, enlightened advice. Talk of compassion or the ways of human beings. I'd moved him far left of his bigotry over the years. In this particular discussion, he spoke of his frustration towards the goth/punk crowd. "Why did they do that to themselves. Why did they need to draw attention to themselves." Well, it took some doing, but I helped him to reshape his thinking and ask himself the same questions. Why DID they need to draw attention to themselves. Perhaps it was something painful in their past, or maybe it was just who they were. Better yet, why not ask, "Why do I care how they look?" A month or so later, he returned to the conversation, mentioning how he'd really been exploring what in himself made him give a damn. Why get so frustrated over something that had nothing to do with him. Moreover, the behavior of these people might just have been eliciting the exact response they'd hoped it would. He was actually the sap in their little scenario.
- Well, I tell all that to tell you this. Growing up, the most damning and oft used term to insult another guy was, "fag" (please, whenever you read that, you need to use a near surfer-dude tone, in a deep baritone and more often-than-not an Elvis or Billy Idol lip curl). This term was tossed about so readily, it should have developed the same meaningless quality we now give to ‘In God We Trust’ on our bills. Yet, it didn’t. As, I look back at my life from the current apex, I have a great fear of my own idiocy. At merely 36 years old, I realize much of my life I’ve been at best a twit and at worst an ignorant boob. I’m somewhat ashamed of having ever used the term “fag”. A recent visit to friends who have not explored humanity the same way a student of the theatre is forced to, I was quite taken aback at the tossing about of this very term. It sadly made these dear friends shrink just a little in my eyes. The term is certainly offensive, even as well-meaning jibe, but it’s further bread of such utter unadulterated ignorance as to astound me. In this day and age it seems beyond impossible to judge a person’s manhood by their sexual preference. What makes a man is certainly a different question than it was in centuries past. I certainly didn’t build my family’s home with my bear hands. The problem with calling someone a ‘fag’, is he could still be intelligent, compassionate, manly and so on, while his response that you’re a jackass seems quite the trump card.
- Let me lay it on the line for you. All I’m really saying is that as I grew up, I made no choice what-so-ever. I liked girls. There was never a time when I questioned it. It wasn’t up for debate. Those formative years were filled with the same tired old clichés we’ve all heard where my seeing even the smallest part of a girls leg from beneath her skirt and I sat there hoping against all hope not to be called up to the blackboard. For some time, when I was still more ignorant than I must be today, I couldn’t figure out why anyone would choose to be gay. I mean, girls were so round and bumpy in all the right places. They had all this great equipment guys simply didn’t have! If you ride out this thinking, before long, even the dimmest person arrives at the idea that homosexuals have made no choice, just as you have made no choice. They chose just the same as you chose. So here I am perched upon this hill of 36, madly in love with my wife and children. Being a feeling human being and believing homosexuality is just something a person is—and furthermore a thing that is harmful to no one. I’m aware, I was lucky to be born in a society who accepts my sexual preference. But I’m also struck with an interesting pondering. What if society hadn’t agree with my love of my wife? Would I love her less? Would my love for her be wrong because some believed it to be so? Would I not fight for acceptance? Would I not fight for the right to be legally bound in wedlock to her? I sure as hell hope I’d have the constitution to do so. I hope I’d have the inner strength. I hope I’d have the ability to see past the stigma, the religious dogma, and the youthful teenage taunting scars we all still carry in some form or fashion. I hope I’d be that sort of man.
- So, I put out there, why is the expression of love between two people regardless of gender so unappealing as to force a turning of the channel. What resides inside you that can’t accept and even appreciate nothing more than an expression of love between two people. If you’re before your television, or sitting before a stage in a theatre, you’ve already chosen to suspend your disbelief. You’ve accepted that those people on the screen or stage are not real, you know that and accept it. Their actions are scripted and put before you by your choice for your enjoyment. Why then is it suddenly too appalling to watch? It’s not even actually happening. I would venture to say the passion between them does not repulse you. If passion repulsed you, you’d react the same way with a heterosexual lip-lock. There are many reasons why this might affect a person. I think the reality is not that the expression of love repulses you, but rather, you are allowing societies views to affect you. Just in the same way I used to readily toss out the word, “fag”. Where I would agree that public displays of affection are generally inappropriate (no matter the genders involved), shouldn’t we live in a world where the occasional snatched kiss during a shopping trip or at a sporting event should be acceptable no matter the gender of the participants. And shouldn’t we strive to define it as nothing more than it is, attaching no stigma placed on it not by our own insecurities. A show of affection. What could be wrong with that? Perhaps it should instead be celebrated or congratulated.
- Monday February 20, 2006 - 09:19am (CST)
Grand Old Party
- Entry for February 18, 2006Was Cheney drinking? We'll never know. The two-time DUI recipient was allowed to wait 14 hours before being questioned by police. Reporters were told that local authorities were informed they wouldn't be able to see him, but the local authorities claim they weren't allowed to see him. My question, "Would I receive a 14 grace period, if I were to shoot someone?"
Luckily we heard the real truth of the matter when Cheney appeared on FoxNEWS! Nothing like Britt Hume and the F-word network to get down to the truth behind this incident. As Jack Cafferty put it, "that's a little like Bonnie interviewing Clyde."
Recently, my mother mentioned how in war-time wire tapping doesn't bother her. I ask this, what war? Did we declare war on someone? By declaring a war on terror, this war never ends. Can they simply wire-tap forever? There are terrorists in every part of the world. Another question might be, at what point, do we worry? When should we be bothered by illegal wire tapping? Only when it directly affects us? Isn't this far too similar to McCarthy era thinking? How about Germany in the late 30's and early 40's? Don't forget we lost Coretta Scott King whose husband was considered a prime threat by the FBI. He was illegally wire-tapped for his radical thinking. Don't forget Bush announced famously on April 20, 2004, "[T]here are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way…"
By the way, what happened with Phase 2 of the Iraqi invasion inquiry? Wasn't that to be started over a year ago? Weren't the Democrats drug through the mud for daring to pull a closed door session to bring attention to this still yet to occur event? Wasn't it appalling to bring it up when it was to happen in two weeks? When was this? Three months ago? Oh, and, hmmm... it's been shelved again. (Just a reminder, Phase 2 is to look into how the inaccurate intel was used by the Bush administration)
To finish up today, here is the list of currently indicted GOPers:
GOP Under Investigation
26 September 2005 - gk - reactions
Just for fun, here are the following Bush Administration officials, GOP Officials, and GOP Machine Operators currently under investigation. This is is very incomplete, and it took way longer than it should have.
- Karl Rove Deputy Cheif of Staff- Valerie Plame
- Pending Investigation
Special Prosecutor U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald
- Pending Investigation
- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Chief of Staff to the VP - Valerie Plame
- Pending Investigation
Special Prosecutor U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald
- Pending Investigation
- Bill Frist (R-TN) Senate Majority Leader - Blind Trust
- Ongoing Investigation
U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, the SEC
- Ongoing Investigation
- Jack Abramoff Lobbyist/Machine Head - Slush Funds, Kickbacks
- Indicted - 11 Aug 2005: 5 counts of wire fraud, 1 count of conspiracy (along with Adam Kidan)
Federal grand jury, Fort Lauderdale - Pending Investigation (along with Michael Scanlon)
FBI, Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department's public integrity section, the National Indian Gaming Commission and the Interior Department inspector general source
- Indicted - 11 Aug 2005: 5 counts of wire fraud, 1 count of conspiracy (along with Adam Kidan)
- Ralph E. Reed, Jr. Director,Christian Coalition; Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia
- Ongoing Investigation - accepted illegal gifts
- Tom Delay (R-TX) Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives
- Ongoing Investigation - Illegal contributions Austin, Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earle
- Ongoing Investigation - Illegal Gifts Gifts by Jack Abramoff
- Ongoing Investigation - Illegal Gifts
US Senate Indian Affairs Committee
- Conrad R. Burns (R-MT) U.S. Senator
- Ongoing Investigation - Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal (illegal gifts)
Gave $3 million to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan
- Ongoing Investigation - Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal (illegal gifts)
- Grover Norquist President, Americans for Tax Reform; Pundit
- Ongoing Investigation - Allegations of co-ordinate lobbying against his own clients
- Ongoing Investigation - Illegal Gifts
US Senate Indian Affairs Committee
- David Safavian GSA Chief of Staff - Illegal Kickbacks
- Arrested - 19 Sep 2005
- 3 Counts, perjury, obstruction
- Ongoing Investigation
U.S. District Attorney - Former business partner with Jack Abramoff" (Preston Gates)
- Former business partner with Grover Norquist
- Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (R-Solana Beach) Congressman
- Ongoing Investigation - Fraud FBI, IRS, and Defense Criminal Investigative Bureau. Too many infractions to count.
Future Probable Investigations Based on reports in the media, and investigation transcripts, the following should be considered "Persons of Interest."
- Bob Ney (R-OH) Congressman - Perjury, Kickbacks
- No Pending Investigations
Connected to Jack Abramoff, possible perjury and kickbacks. (source)
- No Pending Investigations
- Susan Ralston Executive Assistant to Karl Rove
- No Pending Investigations
Wife of David Safavian, former Executive Assistant to Jack Abramoff. (source)
- No Pending Investigations
Saturday February 18, 2006 - 04:16pm (CST)- Karl Rove Deputy Cheif of Staff- Valerie Plame
How Should God Behave?
- Entry for December 29, 2005
- On a discussion group it was asked recently, "How should God behave?" The discussion shifted to describing the perfect embodiment of a deity. I'm an atheist. I wrote the following:
The perfect god would exist to enlighten us through our own struggles. We'd forever be children pursuing understanding. He/she'd be ever-present and just when we'd grasp understanding, he/she'd shift our understanding. He/she'd be like the living walking/breathing realization of one of those old Richard Bach novels. Or a Peter Brook
explorative theatrical work (sorry if that's too obscure). He/she'd be an old professor and we'd forever be in school. Oh, and this professor would have an old casual suede jacket with patches on the elbows. I must, however, contradict the person who says this deity would make the rules, he/she wouldn't. Right and wrong exist as a constant. The deity would fully understand the concept of right or wrong beyond prejudices of certain relativities of the time, but would not control them. Right and wrong, however, would play no part in his/her teachings. Instead there would be unadulterated learning and sharing. The ultimate Socratic seminar for life. -
How's that for a fantasy? Oh, and he'd make all food calerie free and
P.S. He'd never flood the world or write such a lousy book. He'd simply
fast-food healthy. Oh, and I'd be an adonis or my current form would
(including the spare tire mid-section) would be considered perfection
and envied by all. ...eh, while I'm dreaming.
have Shakespeare pen a story under his pseudonym. Greatest story ever
told? Apparently these folks are not so well read (then again that goes
without saying). - Thursday December 29, 2005 - 08:47pm (CST)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
