My Atheism, Charles Hanson: "The turning point for me was Ludovic Kennedy's book ' All in the Mind.'
This demonstrated to me how for so long we humans have deceived ourselves in trying to seek answers for our existence, and pre-occupied ourselves with the irrationality, illogicality, idealism, trivialities and the nonsense of religion. I arrived at conclusions about religion whose only adequate response was one of atheism. I now regard all religion in the same way as I regard supernaturalism, clairvoyance, tarot cards and tea leaf reading which are all manifestations of the search for meaning to our being, there is a tendency to search for and give meaning to all manner of things that affect our everyday existence, including abstractions. I would argue that all of this nonsense is born out of ignorance and is a 'left over' from the days when things 'not understood* were deemed to be acts of God. I began to see the religion for what it is often no more than an emotional crutch for those incapable of overcoming human adversity. For others an escapism, whilst for the most ludicrous - a second chance in some after-life.
Human reason persuades me that there is nothing mysterious about organised religion, the mysteries I would suggest lies in the human potential for nonsense. I am often challenged about my stance and am often confronted with the notion that there must be a reason for our existence. That there must be 'something* else apart from what we know. It is interesting that those who push this view have no idea themselves what this 'something' is. Instead, why not make the most of what we do know, and instead of the exertions that the religious put into the prospect of their own soul, try instead to improve the quality of life in the here and now and in so doing create a better world, instead of the bloodshed and conflicts that are so often instigated by religious differences."
2005-12-28
My Atheism, Charles Hanson
I often have a hard time putting succinctly my lack of belief - but this excerpt really hits on many good points... points I entirely agree with.
2005-12-09
Evolutionblog
On a discussion of a new college student coming from a religious upbringing and school with no exposure to the theory of evolution, this discussion is spot on:
Read the entire entry: 12/08/05 "Have They Tried Open-Mindedness?"
Evolutionblog:
Not to say that ultimately deciding that your belief is the right one is wrong, but I just don't understand people who just buy the Christian story lock stock and barrel. I don't understand people who don't want to explore, not only in college, but later into life - and to keep exploring.
Although it is a tendancy to get set in your ways as you grow older (and sometimes at a very young age, if you are predisposed to that), I hope I never just settle into one belief. Although I am an Atheist, I have my doubts and don't think I know anything (hence the name of the blog) about this crazy concept of god. I will acknowledge my doubts, but I am fairly certain that the Christian god and story is NOT an accurate one. Revealed religion doesn't cut it for me. A natural god I might buy, but a packaged one written about by unknown authors and decided upon by a group of MEN over a thousand years ago - no thank you.
Read the entire entry: 12/08/05 "Have They Tried Open-Mindedness?"
Evolutionblog:
"They have to understand that it is not the professor's job to coddle them when they claim to believe things that are patently untrue.
That last sentence sure is creepy. Learning things that challenge your preconceived notions is, for many people, something to be endured, not something to benefit from. I can't imagine what it's like to be that confident that, as a teenager, you have successfully resolved the fundamental mysteries of existence. I don't care if Mr. Scott learns to accept evolution. But I do hope he will learn to be a bit more open-minded, and a bit more willing to accept that things he heard in high school should be the beginning, not the end, of his education."
Not to say that ultimately deciding that your belief is the right one is wrong, but I just don't understand people who just buy the Christian story lock stock and barrel. I don't understand people who don't want to explore, not only in college, but later into life - and to keep exploring.
Although it is a tendancy to get set in your ways as you grow older (and sometimes at a very young age, if you are predisposed to that), I hope I never just settle into one belief. Although I am an Atheist, I have my doubts and don't think I know anything (hence the name of the blog) about this crazy concept of god. I will acknowledge my doubts, but I am fairly certain that the Christian god and story is NOT an accurate one. Revealed religion doesn't cut it for me. A natural god I might buy, but a packaged one written about by unknown authors and decided upon by a group of MEN over a thousand years ago - no thank you.
2005-12-07
Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays vs. Happy Hannukah vs. Happy Kwanza
All the hullabaloo (i love that word) about the use of Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas - from the retail industry to the cards the White House sends out - it is quite a stupid hullabaloo.
What occurred to me the other day after giving into the whole holiday ritual and suffering through the crowds at the local Target store was how stupid this whole thing is. We run around all crazy to buy gifts for people, while all the while we could really do something generous for the season and help the hungry by providing those hundred's of dollars to a homeless shelter or a food kitchen. Perhaps we could provide housing or education to the less fortunate of society. Perhaps we could just keep our money for the future - invest it and be able to provide for our children.
But, would Bill O'Reilly really advocate such a move at Christmas time? Would he suggest loving thy brother or as he has done to advocate bringing horror to those who use the word holiday instead of Christmas in their ads or literature. Media Matters - O'Reilly promised to "bring horror" to alleged "anti-Christian forces" who oppose Christmas: "I'm gonna use all the power that I have on radio and television to bring horror into the world of people who are trying to do that. "
Give me a break Bill. If you were espousing returning to the real roots of Christianity and what it stands for and not the whoreish commercialization of the holiday, then you would have some credibility. Isn't it unChristianlike to promote "Horror" onto anyone? And doesn't our country stand at the forefront of freedom of expression?
So the Jews and Muslims of this country mean nothing. I have seen statistics that state that 96% of people "celebrate" Christmas in this country. That may be true, but I doubt that even 50% truly celebrate it for its religious meaning. If they did, they wouldn't resort to the hours of shopping, the stress and the stupidity that this holiday has become.
Happy holidays or Seson's Greetings acknowledges all faiths or no faith at all. Call a Christmas tree what it is, I agree, even if the custom was adopted from Pagan rituals. I personally celebrate the season and the fact that we move from autumn to winter in December and that spring is just around the corner. A true celebration of the new life of spring. But, say Merry Christmas if that suits you - or say Happy Hannukah or say Happy Ramadan or whatever. But don't include me in your witch hunt Mr. Reilly, to expose and "bring horror" to those who think differently from you - those who think that is. Those who want all of us to be part of this diverse country. But as usual, right wing blowhards don't usually understand things like that.
What occurred to me the other day after giving into the whole holiday ritual and suffering through the crowds at the local Target store was how stupid this whole thing is. We run around all crazy to buy gifts for people, while all the while we could really do something generous for the season and help the hungry by providing those hundred's of dollars to a homeless shelter or a food kitchen. Perhaps we could provide housing or education to the less fortunate of society. Perhaps we could just keep our money for the future - invest it and be able to provide for our children.
But, would Bill O'Reilly really advocate such a move at Christmas time? Would he suggest loving thy brother or as he has done to advocate bringing horror to those who use the word holiday instead of Christmas in their ads or literature. Media Matters - O'Reilly promised to "bring horror" to alleged "anti-Christian forces" who oppose Christmas: "I'm gonna use all the power that I have on radio and television to bring horror into the world of people who are trying to do that. "
Give me a break Bill. If you were espousing returning to the real roots of Christianity and what it stands for and not the whoreish commercialization of the holiday, then you would have some credibility. Isn't it unChristianlike to promote "Horror" onto anyone? And doesn't our country stand at the forefront of freedom of expression?
So the Jews and Muslims of this country mean nothing. I have seen statistics that state that 96% of people "celebrate" Christmas in this country. That may be true, but I doubt that even 50% truly celebrate it for its religious meaning. If they did, they wouldn't resort to the hours of shopping, the stress and the stupidity that this holiday has become.
Happy holidays or Seson's Greetings acknowledges all faiths or no faith at all. Call a Christmas tree what it is, I agree, even if the custom was adopted from Pagan rituals. I personally celebrate the season and the fact that we move from autumn to winter in December and that spring is just around the corner. A true celebration of the new life of spring. But, say Merry Christmas if that suits you - or say Happy Hannukah or say Happy Ramadan or whatever. But don't include me in your witch hunt Mr. Reilly, to expose and "bring horror" to those who think differently from you - those who think that is. Those who want all of us to be part of this diverse country. But as usual, right wing blowhards don't usually understand things like that.
Capital Punishment
I am certain I have written about capital punishment before - but Blogger deleted the prior incarnation of this blog. Regardless, it is always a good idea to revisit the subject to reflect on subtle changes in my thinking on the subject.
I am against capital punishment. It is murder - even if for a reason or to rectify another wrong, it is still murder. Just because the State says putting someone to death is just punishment, it is still murder.
That being said, I have to say that my belief that it is wrong has been tested lately. The Carlie Bruscia case is the case we are currently considering. I feel that the perpetrator, Joseph P. Smith, who was convicted of first degree murder, rape, kidnapping, etc. last month is the worst kind of human being there is. I feel what sealed his fate was his own words, told to his brother and mother; his written word to his brother (in code) and since his incarceration, to another inmate telling that inmate how to pummel some other inmate properly. This was great insight into the mind of a very disturbed individual. He is likely unrepentant and I bet his only regret is getting caught.
Again, this case, hitting so close to home, has severely tested my steadfast opposition to the death penalty. If anyone deserves this punishment, it is him.
My philosophy of being against the death penalty is based on my lack of belief in the afterlife, heaven, hell and all that fairy tale stuff many people believe. I think that there isn't anything after death. It is just nothingness, just like it was before you were born. Nothing. So, my usual argument is that the death penalty is just an easy way out. I think a much harsher penalty on this earth for this life is "LIFE IN PRISON" without the possibility of parole. It is a death sentence of a sort: No freedom, no real enjoyment to be a full living human being with the pleasures of life, nothing. Just confinement.
The confinement I am talking about is very restrictive. Not much human contact. A single cell with no amenities. Maybe paper and pencil, but not much else. No TV, no radio. NO human contact. Just confinement for thirty, forty years. No exercise plan, no education. A true death sentence. This, to me, is pure torture.
I am severely opposed to torture. But, for people like this animal, I would consider applying measured torture. Perhaps an occasional choking to the point of near unconciousness - just to give him a taste of the last moments of poor Carlie's life. Maybe an occasional anal probe to remind him what it must have been like for her. But, what would that make the perpetrators of that punishment no better than this creep.
The problem I see with this whole death penalty thinking is that we even go there. We as a society (the U.S.) should just not entertain it. But, it is part of the culture now. If the expected punishment was decades of isolation (till death) for these bastards, then we wouldn't be tempted to resort to exactly what we despise.
These criminals are the worst of the worst. And they deserve a harsh punishment, for sure. But an eye for an eye accomplishes little.
I am against capital punishment. It is murder - even if for a reason or to rectify another wrong, it is still murder. Just because the State says putting someone to death is just punishment, it is still murder.
That being said, I have to say that my belief that it is wrong has been tested lately. The Carlie Bruscia case is the case we are currently considering. I feel that the perpetrator, Joseph P. Smith, who was convicted of first degree murder, rape, kidnapping, etc. last month is the worst kind of human being there is. I feel what sealed his fate was his own words, told to his brother and mother; his written word to his brother (in code) and since his incarceration, to another inmate telling that inmate how to pummel some other inmate properly. This was great insight into the mind of a very disturbed individual. He is likely unrepentant and I bet his only regret is getting caught.
Again, this case, hitting so close to home, has severely tested my steadfast opposition to the death penalty. If anyone deserves this punishment, it is him.
My philosophy of being against the death penalty is based on my lack of belief in the afterlife, heaven, hell and all that fairy tale stuff many people believe. I think that there isn't anything after death. It is just nothingness, just like it was before you were born. Nothing. So, my usual argument is that the death penalty is just an easy way out. I think a much harsher penalty on this earth for this life is "LIFE IN PRISON" without the possibility of parole. It is a death sentence of a sort: No freedom, no real enjoyment to be a full living human being with the pleasures of life, nothing. Just confinement.
The confinement I am talking about is very restrictive. Not much human contact. A single cell with no amenities. Maybe paper and pencil, but not much else. No TV, no radio. NO human contact. Just confinement for thirty, forty years. No exercise plan, no education. A true death sentence. This, to me, is pure torture.
I am severely opposed to torture. But, for people like this animal, I would consider applying measured torture. Perhaps an occasional choking to the point of near unconciousness - just to give him a taste of the last moments of poor Carlie's life. Maybe an occasional anal probe to remind him what it must have been like for her. But, what would that make the perpetrators of that punishment no better than this creep.
The problem I see with this whole death penalty thinking is that we even go there. We as a society (the U.S.) should just not entertain it. But, it is part of the culture now. If the expected punishment was decades of isolation (till death) for these bastards, then we wouldn't be tempted to resort to exactly what we despise.
These criminals are the worst of the worst. And they deserve a harsh punishment, for sure. But an eye for an eye accomplishes little.
2005-11-20
Restoration III
Restored old template - for the most part. Found an old copy of the template - but it was before many link additions, but it gave me the name and such. So we are off to the races - 10 posts from about 100 and backing up every post via email. Life is good again.
2005-11-19
U.S. national mottos: History and constitutionality
With respect to the whole "In God We Trust" on all U.S. money:
U.S. national mottos: History and constitutionality: "Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote: 'My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.'"
Sounds to me like a pretty level-headed approach. But with the things that are so ingrained, people think it is an affront to religion and their belief in God to suggest that the phrase does not belong on money. This argument isn't even from the very good separation of church and state argument. Although it doesn't specifically embrace or promote a particular religion, it does promote a belief and blurs the line between secular government and religion/god.
Okay - so what's wrong with professing what the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. believe on our coinage anyway? So what if a few aclu types or atheists object? Well, it just isn't appropriate and I think Roosevelt has a good point. The government shouldn't speak for me about whether I believe in god or not. I am an American. What I believe is my business and if you want to cover all the basis and represent what I believe - then why isn't my motto on the coins and paper money? (E Pluribus Unum was good.)
U.S. national mottos: History and constitutionality: "Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote: 'My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.'"
Sounds to me like a pretty level-headed approach. But with the things that are so ingrained, people think it is an affront to religion and their belief in God to suggest that the phrase does not belong on money. This argument isn't even from the very good separation of church and state argument. Although it doesn't specifically embrace or promote a particular religion, it does promote a belief and blurs the line between secular government and religion/god.
Okay - so what's wrong with professing what the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. believe on our coinage anyway? So what if a few aclu types or atheists object? Well, it just isn't appropriate and I think Roosevelt has a good point. The government shouldn't speak for me about whether I believe in god or not. I am an American. What I believe is my business and if you want to cover all the basis and represent what I believe - then why isn't my motto on the coins and paper money? (E Pluribus Unum was good.)
Restored Content
Hopefully this is the last update on the status of the blog re-creation. I have now gotten all ten cached blog entries posted and some of the sidebar content restored. Still need to work on the overall look and do my regular backups of the template and such.
I am still really disappointed in Blogger on this whole deletion of my blog and no final response to my inquiry about actually checking the backups for copies - and referring them to the very cached pages to show that my previous blog of http://snobodyknows.blogspot.com did really exist.
But, such is life - trust me people - back up your blog templates and entries or better, buy a host to store your blog and even better, get your own domain. I will someday.
I am still really disappointed in Blogger on this whole deletion of my blog and no final response to my inquiry about actually checking the backups for copies - and referring them to the very cached pages to show that my previous blog of http://snobodyknows.blogspot.com did really exist.
But, such is life - trust me people - back up your blog templates and entries or better, buy a host to store your blog and even better, get your own domain. I will someday.
2005-11-17
Recreation/Resurrection
Since blogger deleted my original "nobody knows" blog, I have decided to start a new one with the same name, but with the email each post to myself turned on. In this way, perhaps the next time they decide to do something stupid and not admit it, i can then recover completely.
Fortunately for me, I did find two cached pages, one on google and one on yahoo - both from different dates - so I have about ten posts. I will get to reposting these real soon. I think I have part of my old template around.
I promise my next "real" post will be more interesting (at least to me anyway)!
Come to think of it - I think this proves that resurrections do actually happen. There goes all my arguments against the fantasy!
Fortunately for me, I did find two cached pages, one on google and one on yahoo - both from different dates - so I have about ten posts. I will get to reposting these real soon. I think I have part of my old template around.
I promise my next "real" post will be more interesting (at least to me anyway)!
Come to think of it - I think this proves that resurrections do actually happen. There goes all my arguments against the fantasy!
2005-10-03
Flood Insurance
Monday, October 03, 2005
Flood Insurance
The headline reads "Flood funds drying up fast, Federal program sliding into deficit." The National Flood Insurance program expects to be $20 Bil in the red b/c of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Many of the homeowners in N.O. were not insured. Estimates at 40-70%! Too early to say for sure. Regular homeowners insurance doesn't cover flooding.
There is a proposal in congress to cover the properties that were not insured.
My first reaction to this was - no way - if you don't take the initial step to be insured properly, then you bare part of the responsibility of the consequences. If you receive no money from your home being flooded, then perhaps you will move to a less flood prone area. We can't continue to promote living in risky areas.
But, then I thought - what about the responsibility of the government to either:
a.) build adequate levees to protect an under sea level city. or
b.) offer incentives to move from the area - if flooded once, maybe not, but twice - buy the property - bulldoze it, and provide funds to have the person relocate to higher ground. (think about it, rebuilding the home would cost perhaps $1,000's more than just giving the person enough to have a down payment on a new home, especially in the case of severe flooding where the house is a total loss.
They say that one percent of covered properties have cost the program 38 percent of the claims since 1978, because they are repeatedly flooded. This is ludicrous. As I mention above - there should be a limit to the payout on a property. Say if it floods more than once in so many years, then offer incentives to move.
But, government is part of the issue here. They must do whatever they can to mitigate a known problem. If an area constantly floods, then they need to make a plan to either prevent or mitigate future flooding, or get people out of the areas. If it is deemed too expensive to protect an area - then they need to work on a program to move the city or warn the residents that it is too expensive to fix the problem - so we need another solution. Sorry about your luck.
One suggestion in the story was to revise the FEMA "100-year flood plain" to include more areas and thus require flood insurance for those properties - and thus boost revenue for the flood program.
The key to flood insurance is its affordability. But, with major catastrophes, the premiums don't cover the losses - especially this year. They can't raise the premiums more than 10 percent in a year per law. This is good consumer protection.
But, we have to be realistic - if we want to live in flood prone areas, then we should have to pay whatever it costs. If you don't like paying it, then move to a different location that isn't flood prone.
The only real beef I have is the one percent representing 38 percent of the cost. Good money after bad. Short-sidedness. If I wreck my car too many times, then what does a private insurance company do? They cancel my policy or raise my rates to go along with my incident rate. Harsh, but if I am more of a risk, then I should pay more and/or modify my driving behavior. Same with my home - if it floods two, three or more times, then either I need to move, or the city/county/state/fed govt needs to condemn the property or fix the issue.
now here or no where 8:40 AM | (0) comments |
There is a proposal in congress to cover the properties that were not insured.
My first reaction to this was - no way - if you don't take the initial step to be insured properly, then you bare part of the responsibility of the consequences. If you receive no money from your home being flooded, then perhaps you will move to a less flood prone area. We can't continue to promote living in risky areas.
But, then I thought - what about the responsibility of the government to either:
a.) build adequate levees to protect an under sea level city. or
b.) offer incentives to move from the area - if flooded once, maybe not, but twice - buy the property - bulldoze it, and provide funds to have the person relocate to higher ground. (think about it, rebuilding the home would cost perhaps $1,000's more than just giving the person enough to have a down payment on a new home, especially in the case of severe flooding where the house is a total loss.
They say that one percent of covered properties have cost the program 38 percent of the claims since 1978, because they are repeatedly flooded. This is ludicrous. As I mention above - there should be a limit to the payout on a property. Say if it floods more than once in so many years, then offer incentives to move.
But, government is part of the issue here. They must do whatever they can to mitigate a known problem. If an area constantly floods, then they need to make a plan to either prevent or mitigate future flooding, or get people out of the areas. If it is deemed too expensive to protect an area - then they need to work on a program to move the city or warn the residents that it is too expensive to fix the problem - so we need another solution. Sorry about your luck.
One suggestion in the story was to revise the FEMA "100-year flood plain" to include more areas and thus require flood insurance for those properties - and thus boost revenue for the flood program.
The key to flood insurance is its affordability. But, with major catastrophes, the premiums don't cover the losses - especially this year. They can't raise the premiums more than 10 percent in a year per law. This is good consumer protection.
But, we have to be realistic - if we want to live in flood prone areas, then we should have to pay whatever it costs. If you don't like paying it, then move to a different location that isn't flood prone.
The only real beef I have is the one percent representing 38 percent of the cost. Good money after bad. Short-sidedness. If I wreck my car too many times, then what does a private insurance company do? They cancel my policy or raise my rates to go along with my incident rate. Harsh, but if I am more of a risk, then I should pay more and/or modify my driving behavior. Same with my home - if it floods two, three or more times, then either I need to move, or the city/county/state/fed govt needs to condemn the property or fix the issue.
2005-09-30
Suffering 2
Friday, September 30, 2005
Suffering 2
Logic. Explanation to why we just can't pin down this whole god thing range from what sounds like good reasoning to outright rationalization.
SO - most of what is professed by the believers doesn't make sense to me. It is incomprehensable. The concept of God doesn't make sense. None of my logic says - if this, then God. I just can't come to this conclusion, ever.
Miracles. They say it was miraculous that more people didn't die during Hurricane Rita. Why is it miraculous? If that is so miraculous, then what do they say about all the people who did die due to Katrina? They attribute that to nature or evil.
Why is it the positive is attributed to God and the negative to evil.
Isn't god the creator of all?
So, why do I beat myself up so hard with this question - constantly questioning my belief or lack thereof? I can barely contain myself talking to people about this issue. When I ask pointed questions - deep questions, most average people can't answer them. I don't claim to be some deep thinker - i can barely put together a cogent paragraph sometimes or keep my thoughts straight - but this isn't my psych session.
So - as I was saying - this whole question comes down to this: Abandoning reason. That is the way I figure it. But can I do that? Is that the path I want to take? It seems that reality is harsh. Death is death - the end - as my view - a simple view - called by some the easy way out. But I see it as the most logical view.
Look around you sometime. I look at the human form as I wander through the halls of work or at the grocery store - what I see is the marvelous differences in people - fat, skinny, out of proportion, sexy, ugly, insanely insatiable, average joes and joettes, you name it, we come in all shapes, sizes. What the average person would attribute this to is God and the wonder of life. I attribute it to the wonder of life and how amazing it is without the God part. Are we really that different though. I figure that life is such an impossibility - all the things in our universe point to the improbability of us coming into existence - but - the building blocks were here from the start - it just took a long time for the seeds to grow and evolve. I see evolution and the wild variations just in humans - the mind, the body, all of it. But, I don't conclude god or the god of the christian or jewish bible though. I value life above all else because I truly believe this is the one chance we have. We need to live in the here and now - not wait for some ever after that occurs after death. Unknown. Death isn't bad except for the unknown. I guess that is one big reason the masses gravitate toward the religion and the story of the afterlife - the promise of something better.
You see, I don't see this as a hell. Yes, it is tough sometimes - but we are the ones that can influence our experience on earth. I think one of the issue that hinders religion is that if people use that as an excuse to not improve in this lifetime - then it gives them a reason to procrastinate and not really make it a go this life. It is insideous. But - religion does make people do a lot of good things - but if I tell people I am a non-believer - I am looked at with disdain. Why does not believing what most people on earth believe make me some sort of deviant? Because religion also has built into it guilt, and the tendancy to label non-believers as heretics - it pre-judges people. Just because I don't believe in what I consider a fairy tale of god of the bible - doesn't mean I am any less human than a believer. Heck, the believers even call other god believers heretics if they believe in their particular brand of religion.
I don't have some grand notion that we should become non-believers - I see very clearly what the appeal of religion and god believing is.
1. Be part of a large group.
2. Never worry about the afterlife if you follow the rules and walk the walk.
3. Have that sense that god is watching out for you and helps you somehow.
It is all an illusion to me. And you know what - so what. A man/woman should not judged by his beliefs or words - but by his deeds. If he made a mistake, then he should be forgiven and allowed to make good on it if he shows he can really change - to apologize and fly straight - not forever condemned (except in heinous crimes - which there is no reason in my mind to forgive a rapist or murderer. They are screwed up and need to be locked away - the victim and families are the ones that need to do the coming to terms with it without letting it eat them alive.)
People take out selective parts of the bible to use to their current situation all the time. Do I expect a christian to be perfect - no - but don't preach to me without adhering to your beliefs. If you really are a christian - then behave like one as the bible says. If your religion says no sex before marriage, then you should live by that. if it says that you must starve yourself for days on end to get closer to god -then you should do it. Don't just take the parts you want - live it. That is what it is all about. And stop proseletizing the whole 3rd world and unsuspecting people. I know that is a major tenet - and it was a smart move by the founders - spread the word - increase your flocks.
I don't have a message to preach. Live and let live. But, do unto others...
So what is so different between me and the average religious person?
now here or no where 6:31 PM | (0) comments |
SO - most of what is professed by the believers doesn't make sense to me. It is incomprehensable. The concept of God doesn't make sense. None of my logic says - if this, then God. I just can't come to this conclusion, ever.
Miracles. They say it was miraculous that more people didn't die during Hurricane Rita. Why is it miraculous? If that is so miraculous, then what do they say about all the people who did die due to Katrina? They attribute that to nature or evil.
Why is it the positive is attributed to God and the negative to evil.
Isn't god the creator of all?
So, why do I beat myself up so hard with this question - constantly questioning my belief or lack thereof? I can barely contain myself talking to people about this issue. When I ask pointed questions - deep questions, most average people can't answer them. I don't claim to be some deep thinker - i can barely put together a cogent paragraph sometimes or keep my thoughts straight - but this isn't my psych session.
So - as I was saying - this whole question comes down to this: Abandoning reason. That is the way I figure it. But can I do that? Is that the path I want to take? It seems that reality is harsh. Death is death - the end - as my view - a simple view - called by some the easy way out. But I see it as the most logical view.
Look around you sometime. I look at the human form as I wander through the halls of work or at the grocery store - what I see is the marvelous differences in people - fat, skinny, out of proportion, sexy, ugly, insanely insatiable, average joes and joettes, you name it, we come in all shapes, sizes. What the average person would attribute this to is God and the wonder of life. I attribute it to the wonder of life and how amazing it is without the God part. Are we really that different though. I figure that life is such an impossibility - all the things in our universe point to the improbability of us coming into existence - but - the building blocks were here from the start - it just took a long time for the seeds to grow and evolve. I see evolution and the wild variations just in humans - the mind, the body, all of it. But, I don't conclude god or the god of the christian or jewish bible though. I value life above all else because I truly believe this is the one chance we have. We need to live in the here and now - not wait for some ever after that occurs after death. Unknown. Death isn't bad except for the unknown. I guess that is one big reason the masses gravitate toward the religion and the story of the afterlife - the promise of something better.
You see, I don't see this as a hell. Yes, it is tough sometimes - but we are the ones that can influence our experience on earth. I think one of the issue that hinders religion is that if people use that as an excuse to not improve in this lifetime - then it gives them a reason to procrastinate and not really make it a go this life. It is insideous. But - religion does make people do a lot of good things - but if I tell people I am a non-believer - I am looked at with disdain. Why does not believing what most people on earth believe make me some sort of deviant? Because religion also has built into it guilt, and the tendancy to label non-believers as heretics - it pre-judges people. Just because I don't believe in what I consider a fairy tale of god of the bible - doesn't mean I am any less human than a believer. Heck, the believers even call other god believers heretics if they believe in their particular brand of religion.
I don't have some grand notion that we should become non-believers - I see very clearly what the appeal of religion and god believing is.
1. Be part of a large group.
2. Never worry about the afterlife if you follow the rules and walk the walk.
3. Have that sense that god is watching out for you and helps you somehow.
It is all an illusion to me. And you know what - so what. A man/woman should not judged by his beliefs or words - but by his deeds. If he made a mistake, then he should be forgiven and allowed to make good on it if he shows he can really change - to apologize and fly straight - not forever condemned (except in heinous crimes - which there is no reason in my mind to forgive a rapist or murderer. They are screwed up and need to be locked away - the victim and families are the ones that need to do the coming to terms with it without letting it eat them alive.)
People take out selective parts of the bible to use to their current situation all the time. Do I expect a christian to be perfect - no - but don't preach to me without adhering to your beliefs. If you really are a christian - then behave like one as the bible says. If your religion says no sex before marriage, then you should live by that. if it says that you must starve yourself for days on end to get closer to god -then you should do it. Don't just take the parts you want - live it. That is what it is all about. And stop proseletizing the whole 3rd world and unsuspecting people. I know that is a major tenet - and it was a smart move by the founders - spread the word - increase your flocks.
I don't have a message to preach. Live and let live. But, do unto others...
So what is so different between me and the average religious person?
2005-09-26
Catholic News and Views
Monday, September 26, 2005
Catholic News and Views
Catholic News and Views: "Americans, believers or no, at this point are holding their breath and whispering a prayer for the people trying to evacuate the Texas and Louisianna coasts. 'How could God do this to us again?' I've heard people ask, even very religious people. Scientists are explaining to us the cycle of these more violent weather systems, and the factors that come together to make them happen. There seems to be a satisfactory enough explanation on a natural level that is that it doesn't seem necessary to blame God. Rather, we have the promise from God himself that no matter what befalls us from the powers of nature, he will be working through it nevertheless for our salvation. In other words, God's love is reliable because the storm is not stronger than God. Regardless of what category the Hurricane hits land as, God will work simultaneously in each person's life to bring good out of the evil. And in this case, I believe that God will be working simultaneously in and through each Americans' life to bring about some unexpected good for our country. It may not be more money, pleasure, or success. Those aren't things God considers very important. But it will be something on the lines of a greater awareness of the needs of each other, a more serious commitment to justice for the poor in our cities, a willingness to change our lifestyle because we see and know the people now who are in desperate need. They are in our house. God also will be working miracles that we'll find out about after. I was e-mailed this from a friend who is a Sacred Heart Brother: Sacred Heart Brothers, students survive hurricane in Mississippi By Larry Wahl Catholic News Service MOBILE, Ala. (CNS) -- One hundred fifty men,...."
Sooooo. I notice here that there is a selectiveness of what people attribute to god and what they don't. Nature, hurricane - that isn't god. It is nature. But, the "miracles" - those people who were lucky enough to survive in some odd way is the work of god. But, all those who died or were maimed or have nowhere to go now - why are those not also "non-miracles" of god's work?
I know - lessons can be learned from these things - that there are more important things in life than what Paris Hilton is up to or who she is screwing (or not screwing) - but I will repeat again: If god is responsible for saving a life, then he is also responsible for letting someone die.
Oh, that's right - the afterlife - I keep forgetting. Death isn't bad - it is moving on - as long as you are right with God/Jesus etc. before you die.
Get rid of all of it - attribute this to natural forces - no "saving" of life by supernatural means - it just happens - and it all makes sense. To claim one side and not the other - or to claim that it is God's plan - and we can't question it is just plain human rationalization.
now here or no where 6:57 PM | (0) comments |
Sooooo. I notice here that there is a selectiveness of what people attribute to god and what they don't. Nature, hurricane - that isn't god. It is nature. But, the "miracles" - those people who were lucky enough to survive in some odd way is the work of god. But, all those who died or were maimed or have nowhere to go now - why are those not also "non-miracles" of god's work?
I know - lessons can be learned from these things - that there are more important things in life than what Paris Hilton is up to or who she is screwing (or not screwing) - but I will repeat again: If god is responsible for saving a life, then he is also responsible for letting someone die.
Oh, that's right - the afterlife - I keep forgetting. Death isn't bad - it is moving on - as long as you are right with God/Jesus etc. before you die.
Get rid of all of it - attribute this to natural forces - no "saving" of life by supernatural means - it just happens - and it all makes sense. To claim one side and not the other - or to claim that it is God's plan - and we can't question it is just plain human rationalization.
2005-09-25
Suffering
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Suffering
I am currently reading : "Making Sense Out of Suffering " - after having a really long deep conversation with my sister about the effects of Hurricane Katrina and more specifically about the whole idea of suffering and what purpose, if any, that it serves. I proffered my usual tack that this event offers yet more proof to my belief that god does not exist. My reasoning is that if he did, and he is as he is described by christians as all knowing and all good and all powerful, that he would not allow such events to occur.
My sense says that these things happen just because they do. It is just weather acting as impersonal as always - not victimizing anyone for a reason, but just randomly playing out its perpetual cycle. To me this makes much more sense than the whole god, evil vs. good etc. I don't blame god for my ills as I don't think about it that way - if we are just bundles of carbon units just created out of the nothingness of space to congeal to this imperfect being we are today, that sounds much more plausible than some creator having a hand in something so imperfect. It just makes sense that we have grown to where we are.
I do get the whole idea of learning from adversity and without the bad, how could we tell what is good and more importantly, appreciate it. We can learn from things that really pull us down indeed. But, why does the other side have to be supernatural?
Anyway - the book is good so far - and I will reserve judgment and review till I get all the way through it.
now here or no where 9:58 PM | (0) comments |
My sense says that these things happen just because they do. It is just weather acting as impersonal as always - not victimizing anyone for a reason, but just randomly playing out its perpetual cycle. To me this makes much more sense than the whole god, evil vs. good etc. I don't blame god for my ills as I don't think about it that way - if we are just bundles of carbon units just created out of the nothingness of space to congeal to this imperfect being we are today, that sounds much more plausible than some creator having a hand in something so imperfect. It just makes sense that we have grown to where we are.
I do get the whole idea of learning from adversity and without the bad, how could we tell what is good and more importantly, appreciate it. We can learn from things that really pull us down indeed. But, why does the other side have to be supernatural?
Anyway - the book is good so far - and I will reserve judgment and review till I get all the way through it.
2005-09-14
Pledge Unconstitutional
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Pledge Unconstitutional
Bloomberg.com: U.S.: "Pledge Unconstitutional at Public Schools, Judge Says (Update2)
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge in California said the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, in a ruling that will rekindle a debate over the use of the phrase ``under God.''"
If they just remove "under God" - the pledge would mean basically what it meant when it was written.
The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History: "His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]" ...
"A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'"
Simple, isn't it? To the point and no invocation of god or gods!
now here or no where 11:10 PM | (0) comments |
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge in California said the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, in a ruling that will rekindle a debate over the use of the phrase ``under God.''"
If they just remove "under God" - the pledge would mean basically what it meant when it was written.
The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History: "His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]" ...
"A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'"
Simple, isn't it? To the point and no invocation of god or gods!
2005-09-09
War on Nature
Friday, September 09, 2005
War on Terror is so 2001, now it's War on Nature
So..... let's think about the longer term response to this disaster. It is obvious that we need to rethink our readiness, especially for the first responders and communications - building this from scratch immediately after a storm. The question is cost. Do we have the endurance to go the long haul with this and really commit to it?
Will the government reengineer FEMA?
Will they pass a huge spending bill (not for Katrina relief, but for future disasters)?
And if they enlarge government as they did after 9/11, how will they pay for it.
Will President Bush and congress roll back those tax cuts of a few years ago?
Will they devise a realistic way to pay for all this?
Will this really do any good?
Will more government in this huge task really be effective?
OR
Will this ultimately be seen as a fluke event?
And since it is domestic and not worthy of "spreading democracy", will it get the funding it deserves?
Will this mean we rethink our spending in Iraq?
Will we bring home a lot more troops to help in the relief effort here at home?
Will this have a long term negative effect on Bush and fellow Republicans?
And will the finger pointing help democrats - or will many Americans just get fed up with the whole mess and punish both parties? Then what?
Democrats - it is time for solutions. Yes, we need to investigate this, but we need to be positive and forward thinking - not to constantly berate Bush, FEMA and all the layers that contributed to this. Mistakes were and are being made - hold people accountable - but have fresh ideas and work to solutions to better handle disasters in the future and NOW.
now here or no where 11:07 PM | (0) comments |
Will the government reengineer FEMA?
Will they pass a huge spending bill (not for Katrina relief, but for future disasters)?
And if they enlarge government as they did after 9/11, how will they pay for it.
Will President Bush and congress roll back those tax cuts of a few years ago?
Will they devise a realistic way to pay for all this?
Will this really do any good?
Will more government in this huge task really be effective?
OR
Will this ultimately be seen as a fluke event?
And since it is domestic and not worthy of "spreading democracy", will it get the funding it deserves?
Will this mean we rethink our spending in Iraq?
Will we bring home a lot more troops to help in the relief effort here at home?
Will this have a long term negative effect on Bush and fellow Republicans?
And will the finger pointing help democrats - or will many Americans just get fed up with the whole mess and punish both parties? Then what?
Democrats - it is time for solutions. Yes, we need to investigate this, but we need to be positive and forward thinking - not to constantly berate Bush, FEMA and all the layers that contributed to this. Mistakes were and are being made - hold people accountable - but have fresh ideas and work to solutions to better handle disasters in the future and NOW.
2005-06-28
National Statistics Online
National Statistics Online: "The UK population: by religion, April 2001In 2001 the Census collected information about religious identity. The topic was new to the Census in England, Wales and Scotland although the subject had been included in previous Censuses in Northern Ireland.
Just over three-quarters of the UK population reported having a religion. More than seven out of ten people said that their religion was Christian (72 per cent). After Christianity, Islam was the most common faith with nearly 3 per cent describing their religion as Muslim (1.6 million).
The next largest religious groups were Hindus (559 thousand), followed by Sikhs (336 thousand), Jews (267 thousand), Buddhists (152 thousand), and people from Other religions (179 thousand). These groups each accounted for less than 1 per cent and together accounted for a further 3 per cent of the UK population.
People in Northern Ireland were most likely to say that they identified with a religion (86%) compared with those in England and Wales (77%) and Scotland (67%). About sixteen per cent of the UK population stated that they had no religion. This category included agnostics, atheists, heathens and those who wrote Jedi Knight.
The Census religion question was a voluntary question. Nevertheless, over 92 per cent of people chose to answer it."
2005-06-18
Saturday, June 18, 2005
The Value of Books vs. TV
I wonder if we didn't have TV any longer if people might just pick up books and read? I doubt it. We are now conditioned to TV.
I also wonder how our lives are so shallow today compared to earlier times. As I wandered through Barnes and Noble today, many books piqued my interest. I spent a couple of hours perusing the aisles, reading a few book covers and book pages along with some magazines. I ended up buying a book Freethinkers : A History of American Secularism. It looks like a good read - it is about the role of secularism in the founding of our great country, but the unfortunate state of affairs now for the average secularist or free thinker and how religion has permeated our government. The other book I'm reading is The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. Interesting to read the Torah with some explanation as to what the hell they are talking about. I'm up to chapter 14 of Genesis. Interesting read. I highly recommend it.
What crossed my mind just as I ventured past the introduction of Freethinker and into the first chapter AND what prompted me to write this post, was how if I was as addicted to TV as some of my contemporaries and apparently many if not most Americans these days, I would never have discovered and learned as much as I have about a lot of things. My whole exploration into religion, atheism, politics, freethinking, agnosticism and the like would be nil. I would have instead a vast knowledge of which made up star won American Idol or how much Joanie loves Chachi (sp?) or whatever. Some of my coworkers can only talk about the latest happenings on Survivor, Seinfeld and whatever other mindless entertainment offered up today. Ask them about a current political issue like the meeting the dems had the other day about the Downing Street Memo or perhaps about a current bestseller at the book store and they would look at you blankly and muster up a response like - "Uh, I didn't hear about that, was that on Oprah today?"
This is not to say I don't watch TV and don't enjoy it. I don't watch very much TV, but I do watch what I feel to be too much of the movie channels.
The thought that entered my mind as I read my book tonight was how wide a variety of subjects, writing styles and such you can experience with books. Books take a long time to read compared to a watching a half hour sitcom or hour long drama, but they are so much broader and deeper. It is like comparing the evening news to the newspaper - the evening news barely scratches the surface and leaves out a lot, of both the depth of the story and the outright omission of many newsworthy events.
It is my belief and I guess sort of a realization that TV does harm to the public. It dumbs us down. It denegrates and diminishes critical thinking. Not all TV does this obviously, but most of the entertainment and even the talk/news shows exploit and are so repetitive; they aren't much better than pure entertainment.
Like I said, nothing wrong with TV in a balanced diet of mind fodder. And no, I don't want the government coming out with a RDA for my reading vs TV vs. movies, vs. Internet vs. whatever. But, what we might want to teach our children is to turn off the tv and experience the real world, and discover reading. And read diverse material, not just things you agree with, perhaps some opposing views.
Here is my suggestion of daily intake:
AVERAGE TWO to FOUR HOURS PER DAY:
1. Newspaper/Magazine 30-60 minutes. (20-25%)
2. TV no more than 30 minutes. (10-15%)
3. Internet - 30-60 minutes. (15-20%)
4. Games - no more than 30 minutes. (10-15%)
5. Reading - 60-120 minutes. (35-40%)
That is a full day - I must say - I have just accounted for anywhere from 180 to 300 minutes a day. Maybe percentages would be better (added). So, that is my suggested reading vs tv vs internet vs gaming vs newspaper. You can tell I favor reading.
Now - here is another facet of what is really sickening.
ADD UP HOW MUCH YOU SPEND EACH MONTH FOR CABLE/SATELLITE TV.
It is obscene that many of us, me included, pay: $2, $3 or $4 PER DAY for TV???!!! If you spent that same amount on books - you could have a very rich life. But, we have grown immune to the insanity that is cable tv. 100-200 channels - not a high price for that many channels - a real bargain - but think about a $70 cable bill multiplied by 12 - $840 per year.
Think then what you could do with $840 per year. Or $4,200 in five years. You get the belabored picture here. It is a LOT of money. Don't even get me started on the CELL PHONE thing and the fact that that $29.99 plan is actually $39.60 after you add in all the regulatory crap and taxes.
The two items - TV and Cell phones constitute over $100 per month for most households I would venture. $3, $4 or $5 a day for what? The cell phone is a great thing - for its purpose to put us in convenient contact with anyone at anytime - that could be a curse too - but at what price? I guess if you compare it to home residential service, it is pretty cheap as things go.
But - in our hyped up, over stimulated, materialistic, hedonistic and smut-ridden society, it is the market that is king and we are suckered into buying into it.
Cancel your cable for a year and do something different with the money. How about donate it - just for a year. You might just pick up a book and learn the value of books vs. TV and yikes - you might never have cable again!
now here or no where 11:13 PM | (0) comments |
I also wonder how our lives are so shallow today compared to earlier times. As I wandered through Barnes and Noble today, many books piqued my interest. I spent a couple of hours perusing the aisles, reading a few book covers and book pages along with some magazines. I ended up buying a book Freethinkers : A History of American Secularism. It looks like a good read - it is about the role of secularism in the founding of our great country, but the unfortunate state of affairs now for the average secularist or free thinker and how religion has permeated our government. The other book I'm reading is The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. Interesting to read the Torah with some explanation as to what the hell they are talking about. I'm up to chapter 14 of Genesis. Interesting read. I highly recommend it.
What crossed my mind just as I ventured past the introduction of Freethinker and into the first chapter AND what prompted me to write this post, was how if I was as addicted to TV as some of my contemporaries and apparently many if not most Americans these days, I would never have discovered and learned as much as I have about a lot of things. My whole exploration into religion, atheism, politics, freethinking, agnosticism and the like would be nil. I would have instead a vast knowledge of which made up star won American Idol or how much Joanie loves Chachi (sp?) or whatever. Some of my coworkers can only talk about the latest happenings on Survivor, Seinfeld and whatever other mindless entertainment offered up today. Ask them about a current political issue like the meeting the dems had the other day about the Downing Street Memo or perhaps about a current bestseller at the book store and they would look at you blankly and muster up a response like - "Uh, I didn't hear about that, was that on Oprah today?"
This is not to say I don't watch TV and don't enjoy it. I don't watch very much TV, but I do watch what I feel to be too much of the movie channels.
The thought that entered my mind as I read my book tonight was how wide a variety of subjects, writing styles and such you can experience with books. Books take a long time to read compared to a watching a half hour sitcom or hour long drama, but they are so much broader and deeper. It is like comparing the evening news to the newspaper - the evening news barely scratches the surface and leaves out a lot, of both the depth of the story and the outright omission of many newsworthy events.
It is my belief and I guess sort of a realization that TV does harm to the public. It dumbs us down. It denegrates and diminishes critical thinking. Not all TV does this obviously, but most of the entertainment and even the talk/news shows exploit and are so repetitive; they aren't much better than pure entertainment.
Like I said, nothing wrong with TV in a balanced diet of mind fodder. And no, I don't want the government coming out with a RDA for my reading vs TV vs. movies, vs. Internet vs. whatever. But, what we might want to teach our children is to turn off the tv and experience the real world, and discover reading. And read diverse material, not just things you agree with, perhaps some opposing views.
Here is my suggestion of daily intake:
AVERAGE TWO to FOUR HOURS PER DAY:
1. Newspaper/Magazine 30-60 minutes. (20-25%)
2. TV no more than 30 minutes. (10-15%)
3. Internet - 30-60 minutes. (15-20%)
4. Games - no more than 30 minutes. (10-15%)
5. Reading - 60-120 minutes. (35-40%)
That is a full day - I must say - I have just accounted for anywhere from 180 to 300 minutes a day. Maybe percentages would be better (added). So, that is my suggested reading vs tv vs internet vs gaming vs newspaper. You can tell I favor reading.
Now - here is another facet of what is really sickening.
ADD UP HOW MUCH YOU SPEND EACH MONTH FOR CABLE/SATELLITE TV.
It is obscene that many of us, me included, pay: $2, $3 or $4 PER DAY for TV???!!! If you spent that same amount on books - you could have a very rich life. But, we have grown immune to the insanity that is cable tv. 100-200 channels - not a high price for that many channels - a real bargain - but think about a $70 cable bill multiplied by 12 - $840 per year.
Think then what you could do with $840 per year. Or $4,200 in five years. You get the belabored picture here. It is a LOT of money. Don't even get me started on the CELL PHONE thing and the fact that that $29.99 plan is actually $39.60 after you add in all the regulatory crap and taxes.
The two items - TV and Cell phones constitute over $100 per month for most households I would venture. $3, $4 or $5 a day for what? The cell phone is a great thing - for its purpose to put us in convenient contact with anyone at anytime - that could be a curse too - but at what price? I guess if you compare it to home residential service, it is pretty cheap as things go.
But - in our hyped up, over stimulated, materialistic, hedonistic and smut-ridden society, it is the market that is king and we are suckered into buying into it.
Cancel your cable for a year and do something different with the money. How about donate it - just for a year. You might just pick up a book and learn the value of books vs. TV and yikes - you might never have cable again!
2005-06-13
It's been a while
Monday, June 13, 2005
It's been a while
It's been a while since my last post. Not too much interesting stuff going on.
I tried to check out a new book at the library - Amazon.com: Books: The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary
The key word is "tried" - I was unsuccessful - due to a nasty overdue book problem my ex and my daughter had a few years ago. Frustrating is all that can be said about that.
I figure more knowledge of the bible should make for more interesting analysis here at "Nobody Knows" - dangerous thought.
now here or no where 4:19 PM | (0) comments |
I tried to check out a new book at the library - Amazon.com: Books: The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary
The key word is "tried" - I was unsuccessful - due to a nasty overdue book problem my ex and my daughter had a few years ago. Frustrating is all that can be said about that.
I figure more knowledge of the bible should make for more interesting analysis here at "Nobody Knows" - dangerous thought.
2005-05-24
The Random Raccoon
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
The Random Raccoon
The Random Raccoon
After you do the jump and read that link, then read my commentary:
Okay, I agree, technology/biogenetics is exploding, and there could be some "explosion" of sorts - but the way I see it is that all the prophecies and anyone who tries to predict the future or thinks they "know" is sadly mistaken.
A computer that acts as a psychic and can "predict" events in the future is fascinating, for maybe 10 seconds - until you think about it and use reason to realize that NOBODY or nothing can really predict the future. Show me a psychic or perhaps this computer that can win the New York State Lottery this week and I MIGHT start believing in what is at best - a guess.
Sure, anyone can say that Nostradamus predicted this or that and vaguely connect it to things that have happened or you can look to signs that bible prophecies are coming true and the end of the world is near, but my guess is that things will happen, but not a grand scale that you have bought into.
If we are around in 2012, or perhaps for the whole decade, I think something will happen - randomly - and if you turn out to be correct - I think it will be in only a general way.
But it is kind of fun to fantasize about these things.
now here or no where 9:35 PM | (0) comments |
After you do the jump and read that link, then read my commentary:
Okay, I agree, technology/biogenetics is exploding, and there could be some "explosion" of sorts - but the way I see it is that all the prophecies and anyone who tries to predict the future or thinks they "know" is sadly mistaken.
A computer that acts as a psychic and can "predict" events in the future is fascinating, for maybe 10 seconds - until you think about it and use reason to realize that NOBODY or nothing can really predict the future. Show me a psychic or perhaps this computer that can win the New York State Lottery this week and I MIGHT start believing in what is at best - a guess.
Sure, anyone can say that Nostradamus predicted this or that and vaguely connect it to things that have happened or you can look to signs that bible prophecies are coming true and the end of the world is near, but my guess is that things will happen, but not a grand scale that you have bought into.
If we are around in 2012, or perhaps for the whole decade, I think something will happen - randomly - and if you turn out to be correct - I think it will be in only a general way.
But it is kind of fun to fantasize about these things.
2005-05-22
American Atheists // Public Schools
Sunday, May 22, 2005
American Atheists // Public Schools
American Atheists // Public Schools
It seems to me that praying should be done in your local church - not at school. Simple - the fact is that our schools are full of a diverse population from many different religious backgrounds. While many are likely be christian, undoubtedly a few may be atheists, jewish, muslim, buddhist or have other beliefs that run counter to the way and the message of a group prayer in a school setting would be carried out. Children attending their church would be hearing the message their parent or they have chosen, not some generic multi-cultural saying that is sure to offend at least a few non-believers or other religion believers.
If the problems in schools are blamed on the fact that religion and prayer are not allowed at them anymore, I hasten to remind those ill-informed individuals that the home and church are where values and religion are taught. Arguably, church attendance or lack thereof could have an effect on adherence to the principles of a particular belief and may have the side effect of increased crime, teen pregnancy and the like. If people don't instill basic values and morals into their children's lives by whatever means and they don't control the content of what goes into their children's brains (e.g. suggestive or violent TV and Music), then whether schools have prayer in them makes little or no difference.
The society as a whole is less religious and you could argue this is a cause and effect - since the 1960's hippie culture, morals and such have declined in this country (the u.s.) and others western cultures. You could also argue that the years of oppressive religious control over the masses helped create the backlash and revolt of the 60's. Perhaps an enlightened view - one of taking personal responsibility for your actions, doing unto others as you wish done unto you, your body is a temple and don't destroy it vs. the doing things out of the fear of exclusion from heaven or acceptance from god. I follow these tenets as an atheist - the fact that I feel life - all life - is precious - because it is all we really have, this drives me to be more accepting and inclusive of others regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliation - and if this were to catch on, instead of the "my church and beliefs are better than or more right than your church and beliefs" mentality - perhaps the world could/would become a truly enlightened place where we all could really just get along.
Now, this may sound like some pollyanish (sp?) view - even simpleton - but often it is the simplest plan that is the best plan - and the one that makes the most sense. Call me foolish, naive - but I call it living a reasoned, reality based, atheistic way.
Cause and effect - yes, perhaps it is exactly what they want to put back into schools - religion - that has caused the rebellion - and they think that it is the answer to all the ills of society. I say start or keep teaching self-reliance, caring and giving of oneself to the greater good - society, instead of praying to some unknown, unseen god and "turning it over" to Him crap - how bout do something like stop feeling sorry for yourself and the miserable hand god dealt you and start working on a plan to make your life better. This isn't to say that positive affirmations, even praying don't benefit people - I am certain it helps a lot - but I still think it has the result of taking away responsibility and ownership of the issue. Nothing wrong with "letting go" of an issue to let it congeal and time to pass to make the solution more clear - does any of this make sense? I just mean own it, affirm it, plan it and then do it. Great plan of action. If God gets you there - then great. Just don't force me to recite your prayer in some pre-defined babble written by some unknown person centuries ago.
If we all start living in the present and teach responsbility and true cause and effect - not when you die - then the world will be a better place eventually. (Oh, by the way, I think the world is fine - it needs work - but we just have to work on it - one day at a time.
now here or no where 9:19 PM | (0) comments |
It seems to me that praying should be done in your local church - not at school. Simple - the fact is that our schools are full of a diverse population from many different religious backgrounds. While many are likely be christian, undoubtedly a few may be atheists, jewish, muslim, buddhist or have other beliefs that run counter to the way and the message of a group prayer in a school setting would be carried out. Children attending their church would be hearing the message their parent or they have chosen, not some generic multi-cultural saying that is sure to offend at least a few non-believers or other religion believers.
If the problems in schools are blamed on the fact that religion and prayer are not allowed at them anymore, I hasten to remind those ill-informed individuals that the home and church are where values and religion are taught. Arguably, church attendance or lack thereof could have an effect on adherence to the principles of a particular belief and may have the side effect of increased crime, teen pregnancy and the like. If people don't instill basic values and morals into their children's lives by whatever means and they don't control the content of what goes into their children's brains (e.g. suggestive or violent TV and Music), then whether schools have prayer in them makes little or no difference.
The society as a whole is less religious and you could argue this is a cause and effect - since the 1960's hippie culture, morals and such have declined in this country (the u.s.) and others western cultures. You could also argue that the years of oppressive religious control over the masses helped create the backlash and revolt of the 60's. Perhaps an enlightened view - one of taking personal responsibility for your actions, doing unto others as you wish done unto you, your body is a temple and don't destroy it vs. the doing things out of the fear of exclusion from heaven or acceptance from god. I follow these tenets as an atheist - the fact that I feel life - all life - is precious - because it is all we really have, this drives me to be more accepting and inclusive of others regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliation - and if this were to catch on, instead of the "my church and beliefs are better than or more right than your church and beliefs" mentality - perhaps the world could/would become a truly enlightened place where we all could really just get along.
Now, this may sound like some pollyanish (sp?) view - even simpleton - but often it is the simplest plan that is the best plan - and the one that makes the most sense. Call me foolish, naive - but I call it living a reasoned, reality based, atheistic way.
Cause and effect - yes, perhaps it is exactly what they want to put back into schools - religion - that has caused the rebellion - and they think that it is the answer to all the ills of society. I say start or keep teaching self-reliance, caring and giving of oneself to the greater good - society, instead of praying to some unknown, unseen god and "turning it over" to Him crap - how bout do something like stop feeling sorry for yourself and the miserable hand god dealt you and start working on a plan to make your life better. This isn't to say that positive affirmations, even praying don't benefit people - I am certain it helps a lot - but I still think it has the result of taking away responsibility and ownership of the issue. Nothing wrong with "letting go" of an issue to let it congeal and time to pass to make the solution more clear - does any of this make sense? I just mean own it, affirm it, plan it and then do it. Great plan of action. If God gets you there - then great. Just don't force me to recite your prayer in some pre-defined babble written by some unknown person centuries ago.
If we all start living in the present and teach responsbility and true cause and effect - not when you die - then the world will be a better place eventually. (Oh, by the way, I think the world is fine - it needs work - but we just have to work on it - one day at a time.
2005-05-12
Where do we get values/morals
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Where do we get values/morals?
If we don't have a religion to rely on, where does a society get its morals and values?
Are morals and values an innate quality? Could they just be handed down from generation to generation?
My opinion is that religion is man's attempt to write the laws that he aspires to and he attaches it to the higher authority of God to help persuade the masses to adhere to its tenets.
But, if I am to promote and live a religion free life and if it became the norm in a society, would this cause some moral decay?
We have religion now in the U.S., although a large proportion of people don't seem to really follow any particular religion very closely - I base this on the observation of the world from my small corner and the media, the way people interact, the way they dress, the way they communicate and just a general sense that we are much freer in our forms of expression.
It seems like today we have little basis for morality or values. Even though the politicians on the right seem to have a boiled moral values down to two core things: gay marriage and abortion, the reality is that moral values are much broader.
While I don't believe in the bible nor in the god of the bible - or in revealed religion, that doesn't mean I turn my back on some basic principles of decency and values. But, if you profess your Atheism or agnosticism, many people figure you are some hedonistic person who will lie, cheat, steal, covet they neighbors wife and/or property - you get the picture.
Why can't there be morally conscious individuals who don't believe in all the stuff of religion and the bible? The answer is there can be. But, what does one use as a guide if he/she abandons the bible? There is plenty of violence and vengeance in the bible - it really isn't a shining example of values - whole cities - men, women & children destroyed because of the actions of a few because god was pissed off at them? That isn't humane. But, we silly humans hang onto the parts of the bible that say what we want to promote today.
Is there anything wrong with using the bible as a resource for what is good in it? No. That is unless you are an adherent to the faith - then that isn't the prescribed way to use the bible. But, there in lies the problem - what is the correct way to "use" the bible - there are hundreds of sects of the christian faith - and they all have their own way of interpreting the bible and applying its often contradictory rules. Some look at it literally - some look at it metaphorically, but many think that it gives them license to tell others how to live.
How to live is a critical thing. Those in the U.S. and many other parts of the world live in harmony generally. Is religion and dogma/doctrine necessary for us to all get along? Absolutely not. But you would think that by our decadence and debauchery that we are all heading straight for that place the bible calls hell. Or maybe not. If a man or woman chooses to live a life of promiscuity, what harm are they really doing to anyone? My personal belief is that living like that is a really empty way to live - but going through that for a while in your life - is it really a sin? According the the bible it is. But, really, is it? It seems wrong to me not because of the bible teaching I have had - which is none, nada, zero. It is because what society and my mom instilled in me. It isn't okay to sleep around. If you do, you are a whore or sleaze. That is if you are a woman. If a man does this, he is often regarded as a stud or really cool.
If young people want to behave as MTV depicts early 20 somethings lives, is there really anything wrong with it? It isn't right for me, but is it really wrong? But, herein lies the whole issue. Society as a whole looks down on this behavior and says it is wrong. That comes partly from religion, and partly from just being of a certain generation. Society writes rules about social norms and the youth always seems to stretch the rules - every generation views the younger generation as wilder and riskier than their own generation. The 60's generation of 20 somethings seem to forge a stronger separation from its preceding generation. Now, the 70's, 80's generation are the adults of the 20 something kids and it seems like it has further degraded. So this becomes the norm of the parents of the 2020's and it further relaxes.
Is this a cyclical thing? Will the pendulum swing back hard one of these days where people rise up and don't accept that anything goes? Will we return to the in the closet view of homosexuals and never talking about our personal strife with people outside the family for fear of shame? I don't think so. The proverbial genie is out of the bottle.
What could change the psyche (sp?) of the U.S. is chaos. I mean chaos on a grand scale. If a terrorist were to accomplish a horrific act that killed many thousands or hundreds of thousands of people - I think that could spur a government slingshot reaction that could send us into marshall law or bring about a totally different world for us - especially if our comfy surroundings and belongings were confiscated or lost. If we didn't have the comforts we enjoy, that would be a catalyst of a drastic change in the behavior of our youth.
We are a lazy society now. The fruits of the labors of our forefathers, the generation not so gone by, has made it possible for the youth to have nothing really to do or to be involved in busy schedules - but it isn't any longer about survival for the non-immigrant population of this country. I am not saying this is bad necessarily, but I think it leads to an attitude of entitlement, greed and such. To not have to earn something to have it doesn't teach anything. That is what is so damaging about our current reckless consumer debt. Even if there is never a catastrophic credit meltdown in this country, the fact that we never have to earn money first to buy things now, fuels the "something for nothing" attitude, the lack of gratitude for the things we have. If you work your butt off to save $2,000 to buy that fancy computer with cash, as opposed to charging it and then struggling one month at a time to pay for it and then piling on the big screen tv, the new camcorder, the new Lexus, whatever it is you fancy - it feels different when you don't earn it first. You are then beholden to the big credit card companies or finance companies.
The way we do business on credit now is a moral values issue. We no longer value the dollar. We look for the lowest price and support corporate welfare by supporting Wal Mart, but then we charge , charge charge, so that we pay a lot more for everything in the end. Who gets rich - it's the investors, the credit card company executives (don't think the guy answering the phone at Chase Manhattan is getting some huge salary!). W
So, back to the original idea of this post: Where do we get our values and morals? Society and the media are not sources of guidance - not to say the media should be. But, the basics are just good principles to live by:
1. Pay cash for everything you buy.
2. Love thy neighbor.
3. Don't cheat, steal or lie.
4. Don't gossip.
5. Don't go after your neighbor's wife or husband.
6. Stand in line in place - don't cut in.
7. Go feed the hungry.
8. Give to charity.
9. Do without that latest greatest gadget (oops, that will harm the economy - better scratch that)
10. Tell your kids you love them.
11. Tell your spouse you love them.
12. Don't kill. (That includes the State.)
13. Eat your vegetables.
14. Eat your fruits too.
The list goes on and on. We can have basic rules without religion. Religion has had the corner on morals and values for years - it is time it is just accepted as societal thing that can be independent of religion. Trust me, you don't need religion to be a good, kind person. And if you are into religion and you do good for your neighbors and your community, then great. Nothing wrong with good people in good organizations trying to help the needy and to provide companionship and comaraderie to people.
Enough rambling for now. It is time for bed.
TO7B
now here or no where 8:53 PM | (0) comments |
Are morals and values an innate quality? Could they just be handed down from generation to generation?
My opinion is that religion is man's attempt to write the laws that he aspires to and he attaches it to the higher authority of God to help persuade the masses to adhere to its tenets.
But, if I am to promote and live a religion free life and if it became the norm in a society, would this cause some moral decay?
We have religion now in the U.S., although a large proportion of people don't seem to really follow any particular religion very closely - I base this on the observation of the world from my small corner and the media, the way people interact, the way they dress, the way they communicate and just a general sense that we are much freer in our forms of expression.
It seems like today we have little basis for morality or values. Even though the politicians on the right seem to have a boiled moral values down to two core things: gay marriage and abortion, the reality is that moral values are much broader.
While I don't believe in the bible nor in the god of the bible - or in revealed religion, that doesn't mean I turn my back on some basic principles of decency and values. But, if you profess your Atheism or agnosticism, many people figure you are some hedonistic person who will lie, cheat, steal, covet they neighbors wife and/or property - you get the picture.
Why can't there be morally conscious individuals who don't believe in all the stuff of religion and the bible? The answer is there can be. But, what does one use as a guide if he/she abandons the bible? There is plenty of violence and vengeance in the bible - it really isn't a shining example of values - whole cities - men, women & children destroyed because of the actions of a few because god was pissed off at them? That isn't humane. But, we silly humans hang onto the parts of the bible that say what we want to promote today.
Is there anything wrong with using the bible as a resource for what is good in it? No. That is unless you are an adherent to the faith - then that isn't the prescribed way to use the bible. But, there in lies the problem - what is the correct way to "use" the bible - there are hundreds of sects of the christian faith - and they all have their own way of interpreting the bible and applying its often contradictory rules. Some look at it literally - some look at it metaphorically, but many think that it gives them license to tell others how to live.
How to live is a critical thing. Those in the U.S. and many other parts of the world live in harmony generally. Is religion and dogma/doctrine necessary for us to all get along? Absolutely not. But you would think that by our decadence and debauchery that we are all heading straight for that place the bible calls hell. Or maybe not. If a man or woman chooses to live a life of promiscuity, what harm are they really doing to anyone? My personal belief is that living like that is a really empty way to live - but going through that for a while in your life - is it really a sin? According the the bible it is. But, really, is it? It seems wrong to me not because of the bible teaching I have had - which is none, nada, zero. It is because what society and my mom instilled in me. It isn't okay to sleep around. If you do, you are a whore or sleaze. That is if you are a woman. If a man does this, he is often regarded as a stud or really cool.
If young people want to behave as MTV depicts early 20 somethings lives, is there really anything wrong with it? It isn't right for me, but is it really wrong? But, herein lies the whole issue. Society as a whole looks down on this behavior and says it is wrong. That comes partly from religion, and partly from just being of a certain generation. Society writes rules about social norms and the youth always seems to stretch the rules - every generation views the younger generation as wilder and riskier than their own generation. The 60's generation of 20 somethings seem to forge a stronger separation from its preceding generation. Now, the 70's, 80's generation are the adults of the 20 something kids and it seems like it has further degraded. So this becomes the norm of the parents of the 2020's and it further relaxes.
Is this a cyclical thing? Will the pendulum swing back hard one of these days where people rise up and don't accept that anything goes? Will we return to the in the closet view of homosexuals and never talking about our personal strife with people outside the family for fear of shame? I don't think so. The proverbial genie is out of the bottle.
What could change the psyche (sp?) of the U.S. is chaos. I mean chaos on a grand scale. If a terrorist were to accomplish a horrific act that killed many thousands or hundreds of thousands of people - I think that could spur a government slingshot reaction that could send us into marshall law or bring about a totally different world for us - especially if our comfy surroundings and belongings were confiscated or lost. If we didn't have the comforts we enjoy, that would be a catalyst of a drastic change in the behavior of our youth.
We are a lazy society now. The fruits of the labors of our forefathers, the generation not so gone by, has made it possible for the youth to have nothing really to do or to be involved in busy schedules - but it isn't any longer about survival for the non-immigrant population of this country. I am not saying this is bad necessarily, but I think it leads to an attitude of entitlement, greed and such. To not have to earn something to have it doesn't teach anything. That is what is so damaging about our current reckless consumer debt. Even if there is never a catastrophic credit meltdown in this country, the fact that we never have to earn money first to buy things now, fuels the "something for nothing" attitude, the lack of gratitude for the things we have. If you work your butt off to save $2,000 to buy that fancy computer with cash, as opposed to charging it and then struggling one month at a time to pay for it and then piling on the big screen tv, the new camcorder, the new Lexus, whatever it is you fancy - it feels different when you don't earn it first. You are then beholden to the big credit card companies or finance companies.
The way we do business on credit now is a moral values issue. We no longer value the dollar. We look for the lowest price and support corporate welfare by supporting Wal Mart, but then we charge , charge charge, so that we pay a lot more for everything in the end. Who gets rich - it's the investors, the credit card company executives (don't think the guy answering the phone at Chase Manhattan is getting some huge salary!). W
So, back to the original idea of this post: Where do we get our values and morals? Society and the media are not sources of guidance - not to say the media should be. But, the basics are just good principles to live by:
1. Pay cash for everything you buy.
2. Love thy neighbor.
3. Don't cheat, steal or lie.
4. Don't gossip.
5. Don't go after your neighbor's wife or husband.
6. Stand in line in place - don't cut in.
7. Go feed the hungry.
8. Give to charity.
9. Do without that latest greatest gadget (oops, that will harm the economy - better scratch that)
10. Tell your kids you love them.
11. Tell your spouse you love them.
12. Don't kill. (That includes the State.)
13. Eat your vegetables.
14. Eat your fruits too.
The list goes on and on. We can have basic rules without religion. Religion has had the corner on morals and values for years - it is time it is just accepted as societal thing that can be independent of religion. Trust me, you don't need religion to be a good, kind person. And if you are into religion and you do good for your neighbors and your community, then great. Nothing wrong with good people in good organizations trying to help the needy and to provide companionship and comaraderie to people.
Enough rambling for now. It is time for bed.
TO7B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)