Under the category of oxy-morons, how many of you have seen the magazine Real Simple? Real Simple is anything but. The magazine is HUGE. A recent issue (I peruse the magazine leftovers in the bathroom at work) had 288 pages. Many books don't have that many pages. Not only that - it was about 12 pages into the darn thing before I could find the table of contents. From what I can tell, it is about 80% advertisement and 20% content - supposedly helpful tips to make your life simpler. If you could only find the tips while wading through all the ads.
Here is simple: Reason magazine. Simple in design, about 70 pages and sparse advertising. Put Real Simple in a format like that and perhaps a few more people would be able to actually find what is supposedly simple in it. I guess I just don't get it. Then again, I don't get most magazine's appeal to the general public.
REAL SIMPLE ISSN: 1528-1701 - published by Time, Inc.
www.realsimple.com
2008-04-09
2006-07-10
The Carioca: BIBLE WARNING LABEL
The Carioca: BIBLE WARNING LABEL
This is probably old news, but it does make a good point. The people in everyone else's business see fit to require warning labels on everything (who is going to protect me from myself) - so the tables turned: A warming label for the bible. I think "Mature Audiences only" or an MA warning in TV rating terms.
I need to get hold of some of those stickers.
This is probably old news, but it does make a good point. The people in everyone else's business see fit to require warning labels on everything (who is going to protect me from myself) - so the tables turned: A warming label for the bible. I think "Mature Audiences only" or an MA warning in TV rating terms.
I need to get hold of some of those stickers.
2006-07-09
The God Nobody Knows
The God Nobody Knows
It is interesting to see this collection of things "nobody knows" or few people "know" about their God. (this is the monotheistic God of the judeo-christian type I am talking about.)
The first question is "Does all this warrant discussion?" If we agree it does, then:
This interesting list. The author states right up front that "God has every right to do as he pleases and is not answerable to any man". I beg to differ.
You see, I hear all the time that God provides this or that good thing. Rarely do we look at a list of things like this:
3. wounds, afflicts, strikes, bruises, smites, makes sore, heals, kills, makes alive, declaring: "there is no god with me" (Deut. 32:39, 1Sam. 2:6, Jer. 31:28, Job 5:18, Isa. 53:10)
or this gem:
10. heaps mischief upon people (Deut. 32:23)
or
12. turns men to destruction (Psalms 90:3)
I guess you could chock it all up to this:
If God creates everything, then of course he creates EVIL, wickedness, pestulence, and heaps mischief upon people.
But there in lies the problem. Why would he do this? And why would we put up with a higher power that does this to us? And the whole "god works in mysterious ways" argument is baseless and a copout.
I just don't understand it. Stuff happens - the Universe, the planets, and yes us. We happened. If you want to say that a god or gods created us, then great - even if that is true, then do you really think the gods stuck around and are heaping stuff upon us now? I think not.
It makes perfect sense that we are on our own. The planet is indifferent to us. The one thing that causes humans more pain than any natural thing is OTHER HUMANS.
Okay - I am not putting out some cogent argument against god - I just found this list of "negative" things god does to us. It reminds me why I reject it all. And it reminds me that people who do believe, often don't take the bad with the supposed good that their god does for them.
It is interesting to see this collection of things "nobody knows" or few people "know" about their God. (this is the monotheistic God of the judeo-christian type I am talking about.)
The first question is "Does all this warrant discussion?" If we agree it does, then:
This interesting list. The author states right up front that "God has every right to do as he pleases and is not answerable to any man". I beg to differ.
You see, I hear all the time that God provides this or that good thing. Rarely do we look at a list of things like this:
3. wounds, afflicts, strikes, bruises, smites, makes sore, heals, kills, makes alive, declaring: "there is no god with me" (Deut. 32:39, 1Sam. 2:6, Jer. 31:28, Job 5:18, Isa. 53:10)
or this gem:
10. heaps mischief upon people (Deut. 32:23)
or
12. turns men to destruction (Psalms 90:3)
I guess you could chock it all up to this:
If God creates everything, then of course he creates EVIL, wickedness, pestulence, and heaps mischief upon people.
But there in lies the problem. Why would he do this? And why would we put up with a higher power that does this to us? And the whole "god works in mysterious ways" argument is baseless and a copout.
I just don't understand it. Stuff happens - the Universe, the planets, and yes us. We happened. If you want to say that a god or gods created us, then great - even if that is true, then do you really think the gods stuck around and are heaping stuff upon us now? I think not.
It makes perfect sense that we are on our own. The planet is indifferent to us. The one thing that causes humans more pain than any natural thing is OTHER HUMANS.
Okay - I am not putting out some cogent argument against god - I just found this list of "negative" things god does to us. It reminds me why I reject it all. And it reminds me that people who do believe, often don't take the bad with the supposed good that their god does for them.
2006-07-08
New Look
I haven't been posting much lately. Went on a road trip in April and lost interest in the whole blogging thing for a few months. Then, one day recently, I sat at my computer and thought "It has been months since I posted on my blog or read any blogs." Then, I found an interesting blog template by clicking next blog - and now, two hours or so later, I have what is the new look. But, some of the gibberish content still exists on the middle part and the previous links I had are not all available. So, as my last post stated, pardon my reconstruction and the unfinished look.
Until later.
Until later.
Pardon My Dust
Pardon my dust during reconstruction - a new template/new look.
Nobody Knows how it will turn out though.
Nobody Knows how it will turn out though.
2006-06-18
2006-03-03
Verbal Tradition over time.
In response to the comments I received on my previous "Blog This" post, I offer this:
Ask someone their recollection of a familiar unforgettable newsworthy story about something that happened thirty years ago. Have them tell the story to you with as many details as they can muster. Now, run out and tell a friend about this story that happened thirty years ago as related by your friend. Have that person spread this message verbally. Now, wait ten more years. Keep telling the story. Try to find your friend again to repeat this story to you now. You told them at the outset that you would ask about this story again. Compare how the story varies from the original account (that is to your memory of the original account.)
Finally, go back and check the actual news accounts of this story as it appeared in newsprint when it happened. Compare what you remember being told, what your friend recounted to you ten years later and then, ask the original person again to tell you the story again and compare that to the original account when it happened. When I say "as it appeared in newsprint", that might beg the question, "which version." Take a look at any news account of unfolding stories and you will find that facts are wrong from the outset. Then, over time, perhaps corrections are printed - but often times, the readers of the initial story do not ever find out the "final" story. You might get a thorough recount of a big news event on the anniversary of the event, which we would hope would have the advantage of time and all the dust settling.
When comparing the verbal account the first person to the newsprint story, you will find it varies from the original in some respects. Memories fade over time and they lose details or are embellished a bit to make them seem more interesting - intentionally and unintentionally. It is human nature and how the brain works and forgets.
Now, take a look at your average bible. None of the authors are 100% authenticated. The bible is made up of translated stories from a time when religion was an entirely verbal tradition, told from generation to generation. At some point, they decided to write it down. And it isn't one story, it is 67 some stories or books. Each one with its various translations and variations.
I know, my little example of some story recounted thirty years later, then comparing it to a news account at the time is very simplistic. With a religion, the adherants would likely be taught the religion constantly over time and likely, the story would be ingrained into the brain so much that variations might be less than in my example. Rituals and such reinforce the meaning. But, the basic problem of human interpretation and ongoing alteration of long told stories is a fact. Just think how a local church is run today. They may have great variation from a congregation of the same denomination across town. Think about all the different and disparate brands of Protestant Christianity. These are an outgrowth of the interpretation of the meaning of the bible and of different doctrines being adopted. Maybe that is to simple of an explanation, but you get the point.
So, the recording of what happened to Jesus 2,000 years ago, written by unauthenticated writers at various times thirty to 100 years after his death, and then the whole "official" bible being voted on by a group of supposed wise individuals even later than that; then further changes to the text in the translations from the original languages undoubtedly takes its toll on the whole process.
This isn't to say that what is written isn't the basic essence of what people came up with long ago, but it does point to the fact that claims of people speaking to god or to the prophets are dubious at best. Think about my little example of a news account, then wrap your mind around the story of Jesus' crucifixion, and realize it wasn't put into it's current form for at least 30 YEARS after his death. And with accounts of resurrections and crucifixions being commonplace in that era, who's to say that the jesus story is not just a convenient compilation or mashing together of what the "church" wants you to believe? From what I understand, there were many different brands of religions that spawned around the time of and after Jesus' time. There was a concerted effort to quash all of these disparate religions that varied with pieces of Judaism, Paganism and what became Christian doctrines into one cohesive story, which became the "New" testament.
If I pick up a book written in 1920 by a particular author, I can look to many other sources to check the validity of the book's claims. What was the author's reputation? Was he a good fact checker? Did he have the wherewithal to write on the subject his book covers? All of these things can be scrutinized when we know who the author is. It doesn't guarantee that the author is authentic or that his story is true, but at least there is no hiding who wrote the book.
With the entire bible, we just don't know who wrote it. Yes, there are claims, but those claims are just that. Basically heresay. Not authenticatable. The first four books of the Christian bible are similar in their stories, known as the Gospels. So what. Repeating the same lie or story isn't really that hard.
And, if we have an active god present in our lives, then why does he not speak to great people today and why isn't the bible being added to? What was so special about the time of 2,000 years ago that privileged them to the have talks with God or events so great that they warranted all that is written at the time? God just seems to have gone to sleep on the official word, right? Couldn't a real author write another god inspired book for the bible, in modern times? No. That would mean acceptance by churches, both Catholic and Protestant, and it would open the whole thing up to scrutiny. Who would have the authority to write such a thing? With the way and when the bible was constructed, it makes it somewhat immune to current scrutiny (at least by believers of the faith, that is.)
So - go ahead, tell your kids a story over and over. And see how it is told to their kids and then their kids. Then go back and compare the original story (locked away from viewing) - and see what you get. My bet is variation.
Ask someone their recollection of a familiar unforgettable newsworthy story about something that happened thirty years ago. Have them tell the story to you with as many details as they can muster. Now, run out and tell a friend about this story that happened thirty years ago as related by your friend. Have that person spread this message verbally. Now, wait ten more years. Keep telling the story. Try to find your friend again to repeat this story to you now. You told them at the outset that you would ask about this story again. Compare how the story varies from the original account (that is to your memory of the original account.)
Finally, go back and check the actual news accounts of this story as it appeared in newsprint when it happened. Compare what you remember being told, what your friend recounted to you ten years later and then, ask the original person again to tell you the story again and compare that to the original account when it happened. When I say "as it appeared in newsprint", that might beg the question, "which version." Take a look at any news account of unfolding stories and you will find that facts are wrong from the outset. Then, over time, perhaps corrections are printed - but often times, the readers of the initial story do not ever find out the "final" story. You might get a thorough recount of a big news event on the anniversary of the event, which we would hope would have the advantage of time and all the dust settling.
When comparing the verbal account the first person to the newsprint story, you will find it varies from the original in some respects. Memories fade over time and they lose details or are embellished a bit to make them seem more interesting - intentionally and unintentionally. It is human nature and how the brain works and forgets.
Now, take a look at your average bible. None of the authors are 100% authenticated. The bible is made up of translated stories from a time when religion was an entirely verbal tradition, told from generation to generation. At some point, they decided to write it down. And it isn't one story, it is 67 some stories or books. Each one with its various translations and variations.
I know, my little example of some story recounted thirty years later, then comparing it to a news account at the time is very simplistic. With a religion, the adherants would likely be taught the religion constantly over time and likely, the story would be ingrained into the brain so much that variations might be less than in my example. Rituals and such reinforce the meaning. But, the basic problem of human interpretation and ongoing alteration of long told stories is a fact. Just think how a local church is run today. They may have great variation from a congregation of the same denomination across town. Think about all the different and disparate brands of Protestant Christianity. These are an outgrowth of the interpretation of the meaning of the bible and of different doctrines being adopted. Maybe that is to simple of an explanation, but you get the point.
So, the recording of what happened to Jesus 2,000 years ago, written by unauthenticated writers at various times thirty to 100 years after his death, and then the whole "official" bible being voted on by a group of supposed wise individuals even later than that; then further changes to the text in the translations from the original languages undoubtedly takes its toll on the whole process.
This isn't to say that what is written isn't the basic essence of what people came up with long ago, but it does point to the fact that claims of people speaking to god or to the prophets are dubious at best. Think about my little example of a news account, then wrap your mind around the story of Jesus' crucifixion, and realize it wasn't put into it's current form for at least 30 YEARS after his death. And with accounts of resurrections and crucifixions being commonplace in that era, who's to say that the jesus story is not just a convenient compilation or mashing together of what the "church" wants you to believe? From what I understand, there were many different brands of religions that spawned around the time of and after Jesus' time. There was a concerted effort to quash all of these disparate religions that varied with pieces of Judaism, Paganism and what became Christian doctrines into one cohesive story, which became the "New" testament.
If I pick up a book written in 1920 by a particular author, I can look to many other sources to check the validity of the book's claims. What was the author's reputation? Was he a good fact checker? Did he have the wherewithal to write on the subject his book covers? All of these things can be scrutinized when we know who the author is. It doesn't guarantee that the author is authentic or that his story is true, but at least there is no hiding who wrote the book.
With the entire bible, we just don't know who wrote it. Yes, there are claims, but those claims are just that. Basically heresay. Not authenticatable. The first four books of the Christian bible are similar in their stories, known as the Gospels. So what. Repeating the same lie or story isn't really that hard.
And, if we have an active god present in our lives, then why does he not speak to great people today and why isn't the bible being added to? What was so special about the time of 2,000 years ago that privileged them to the have talks with God or events so great that they warranted all that is written at the time? God just seems to have gone to sleep on the official word, right? Couldn't a real author write another god inspired book for the bible, in modern times? No. That would mean acceptance by churches, both Catholic and Protestant, and it would open the whole thing up to scrutiny. Who would have the authority to write such a thing? With the way and when the bible was constructed, it makes it somewhat immune to current scrutiny (at least by believers of the faith, that is.)
So - go ahead, tell your kids a story over and over. And see how it is told to their kids and then their kids. Then go back and compare the original story (locked away from viewing) - and see what you get. My bet is variation.
2006-02-28
Continental Drift
Continental Drift: "No other religion lays on the guilt trip quite like Christianity. How? Christianity teaches that:
1. We are all born sinners.
2. Some guy named Jesus died for our sins.
3. We must accept this Jesus as our personal savior.
4. The penalty for not accepting this Jesus is eternal damnation.
5. We are all responsible for the crucifixion of this Jesus.
For two thousand years, this wicked and debased teaching has been chipping away at human happiness and dignity. For two thousand years, Christianity has had the chance to create a compassionate, enlightened society and has failed miserably. Christians have murdered millions, destroyed unique cultures that resisted its criminal missionaries, and are now busy, along with their Islamic brethren, destroying the earth’s fragile ecosystems. Cast Jesus Christ out of your life forever!!!! All he has a key to is the shit house. Stand up as a free and proud people and create a truly enlightened society without dogma, shame, and weakness. Dare to believe in the basic goodness of human beings, not their basic “sinfulness.“"
1. We are all born sinners.
2. Some guy named Jesus died for our sins.
3. We must accept this Jesus as our personal savior.
4. The penalty for not accepting this Jesus is eternal damnation.
5. We are all responsible for the crucifixion of this Jesus.
For two thousand years, this wicked and debased teaching has been chipping away at human happiness and dignity. For two thousand years, Christianity has had the chance to create a compassionate, enlightened society and has failed miserably. Christians have murdered millions, destroyed unique cultures that resisted its criminal missionaries, and are now busy, along with their Islamic brethren, destroying the earth’s fragile ecosystems. Cast Jesus Christ out of your life forever!!!! All he has a key to is the shit house. Stand up as a free and proud people and create a truly enlightened society without dogma, shame, and weakness. Dare to believe in the basic goodness of human beings, not their basic “sinfulness.“"
2006-02-21
Terry Bradshaw
While watching the NFL Network, they were doing a show about Football & Religion. It was interesting.
Kudos to Terry Bradshaw, telling us how he doesn't like the whole invocation of God and personal religion displays during games - the type where the players praise the lord or jesus after a touchdown or good play. He asked why they don't do the same thing when they don't win or make a bad play. Good point Terry. See my post: "Miracles" a couple of posts ago for my same analogy about 12 of 13 miners dying. God got the credit for one saved, but doesn't get the credit for the twelve who died. Why not?
Mike Holmgren asked his players to do their little religion schtick back at the hotel, not at the stadium. I guess they were gathering together just before the game at the stadium and some of the players would be left out due to not wanting to participate or whatever reason. Instead of just banning it, he came up with the good solution to just have them hold their little prayer service back at the hotel. That way, the "team" would not be divided just before the game.
Kudos to Terry Bradshaw, telling us how he doesn't like the whole invocation of God and personal religion displays during games - the type where the players praise the lord or jesus after a touchdown or good play. He asked why they don't do the same thing when they don't win or make a bad play. Good point Terry. See my post: "Miracles" a couple of posts ago for my same analogy about 12 of 13 miners dying. God got the credit for one saved, but doesn't get the credit for the twelve who died. Why not?
Mike Holmgren asked his players to do their little religion schtick back at the hotel, not at the stadium. I guess they were gathering together just before the game at the stadium and some of the players would be left out due to not wanting to participate or whatever reason. Instead of just banning it, he came up with the good solution to just have them hold their little prayer service back at the hotel. That way, the "team" would not be divided just before the game.
2006-01-21
Anti-gay group to protest at soldier's funeral
A story from the paper this morning:
This is another shining example of what religion, and this brand of Christianity does to foster this idea that God hands out punishment for broad sweeping reasons. And of course, the whole connection is drummed up by irrational people using the same sad logic they did centuries ago to "connect the dots" between tragic events and the "hand of God."
If a God exists that does dole out punishment in the way these lunatics describe, then he isn't my god. Some innocent soldier dies because America is pro-gay? This is fairy tale stuff again. This is the whole problem with religion in general. People latch onto aspects of it and twist and turn it to promote their own agenda. It really disgraces the religion. The Baptists of the country should denounce the actions of this church. But they won't, because they want to tell everyone else how to live and how to be right according to them.
What is it with people who think that they can tell me or anyone else how to live. Gay people are pretty much the same as straight people. I have read statistics that show they don't commit crimes any more and perhaps even less than their straight counterparts.
The sad part is that this group is going to ruin this family's time to mourn the loss of their son.
The reason people are dying in Iraq is not a result of gay people in this country. It is a result of the power hungry in Washington. Those who think they can run the whole world without cause and effect and who had no plan how to manage the situation once the brutal dictator was out of power. In other words - the actions of a few men in charge caused the death of that soldier in Iraq. NOT GAYS or a GAY FRIENDLY society in the U.S.!!
Get a grip and go home Westboro Baptist Church. Get out of my town, my life and the lives of others. You and Pat Robertson should shut up and preach to your minions and dolts who believe the drivel you espouse.
Anti-gay group to protest at soldier's funeral: "Westboro claims to have held more than 22,000 anti-gay demonstrations since 1991. But in the past year it has tried to connect its anti-gay rhetoric to the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, holding protests at more than 20 soldier funerals across the country.
Shirley Phelps-Roper, the daughter of Westboro pastor Fred Phelps, said the group had already planned to be in Tampa this weekend for a protest of Gay Straight Alliance groups there.
'And then here came this opportunity to help the people of Sarasota connect the dots, and they certainly deserve that opportunity,' Phelps-Roper said. 'We're going to remind them that there is a God and a heaven and a hell and a day of choice.'
Phelps-Roper said America is 'feeling the sword of God' because it is pro-gay. A disapproving God 'has become America's terrorist' and is sending soldiers home in body bags as proof, Phelps-Roper said."
This is another shining example of what religion, and this brand of Christianity does to foster this idea that God hands out punishment for broad sweeping reasons. And of course, the whole connection is drummed up by irrational people using the same sad logic they did centuries ago to "connect the dots" between tragic events and the "hand of God."
If a God exists that does dole out punishment in the way these lunatics describe, then he isn't my god. Some innocent soldier dies because America is pro-gay? This is fairy tale stuff again. This is the whole problem with religion in general. People latch onto aspects of it and twist and turn it to promote their own agenda. It really disgraces the religion. The Baptists of the country should denounce the actions of this church. But they won't, because they want to tell everyone else how to live and how to be right according to them.
What is it with people who think that they can tell me or anyone else how to live. Gay people are pretty much the same as straight people. I have read statistics that show they don't commit crimes any more and perhaps even less than their straight counterparts.
The sad part is that this group is going to ruin this family's time to mourn the loss of their son.
The reason people are dying in Iraq is not a result of gay people in this country. It is a result of the power hungry in Washington. Those who think they can run the whole world without cause and effect and who had no plan how to manage the situation once the brutal dictator was out of power. In other words - the actions of a few men in charge caused the death of that soldier in Iraq. NOT GAYS or a GAY FRIENDLY society in the U.S.!!
Get a grip and go home Westboro Baptist Church. Get out of my town, my life and the lives of others. You and Pat Robertson should shut up and preach to your minions and dolts who believe the drivel you espouse.
2006-01-04
Miracles
Another example of supposed "miracles" happening today as I opened my morning newspaper with the incorrect story regarding all the miners being found alive. Unfortunate turn of events. A terrible accident, which likely could have been avoided.
On the drive home last night, I was listening to CNN (on XM radio), and I heard the announcer talk about hoping for a "miracle" in the situation. They did an analysis of possible causes and the unlikelihood that anyone survived the explosion and resulting carbon monoxide and lack of breathable air.
Miracle invokes religion and God. Right?
from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=50884&dict=CALD
miracle
noun [C]
an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god, or any very surprising and unexpected event.
Or from Oxford
I really cringed at this use of miracle to describe a fortunate happening. The question that crossed my mind is why we don't seem to attribute the 12 of 13 who died to the opposite of miracle and make God responsible for that too. If God is in charge, then if he performs a "miracle" to save them, then why can't he be accused of "murder" or maybe a less severe term like "negligent disregard for their lives?."
Why does God get off the hook for death, but get all the credit for someone surviving against the odds?
Perhaps the users of such a word are simply saying "outrageously lucky" or "incredibly they survived this ordeal" when they use the word miracle, but I don't think so. When I hear "miracle", then it suggests the supernatural was involved.
Something to think about.
God Scorecard on this tragedy:
1 miracle 11 deaths (and many very distraught, grieving families)
Seems God is behind in this one. See me when an asteroid pummels into earth and wipes out half the population. Oh, that's right, the all loving, all caring, all good God acts in mysterious ways and we probably did something to bring it on. Just talk to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
(A more reasonable explanation is that the universe is just humming along with no active God who watches over us a protects us, but instead we are just carbon life forms and randomly we may perish tomorrow or 2,000 years from now, but it is not attributable to anything except those random forces. That or it's God's fault? You can't have it both ways. Either God creates all life and takes it away, or he doesn't do either. I know, the Christians will talk about eternal life if I am saved and those miners are in a better place, away from the hardship that is life (at times) and all the doubts and questioning, etc. But all that is just conjecture. We really don't know - why - because NOBODY really KNOWS!)
On the drive home last night, I was listening to CNN (on XM radio), and I heard the announcer talk about hoping for a "miracle" in the situation. They did an analysis of possible causes and the unlikelihood that anyone survived the explosion and resulting carbon monoxide and lack of breathable air.
Miracle invokes religion and God. Right?
from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=50884&dict=CALD
miracle
noun [C]
an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god, or any very surprising and unexpected event.
Or from Oxford
 |
| |
miracle
• noun 1 an extraordinary and welcome event attributed to a divine agency. 2 a remarkable and very welcome occurrence. 3 an outstanding example, specimen, or achievement. — ORIGIN Latin miraculum ‘object of wonder’. |
I really cringed at this use of miracle to describe a fortunate happening. The question that crossed my mind is why we don't seem to attribute the 12 of 13 who died to the opposite of miracle and make God responsible for that too. If God is in charge, then if he performs a "miracle" to save them, then why can't he be accused of "murder" or maybe a less severe term like "negligent disregard for their lives?."
Why does God get off the hook for death, but get all the credit for someone surviving against the odds?
Perhaps the users of such a word are simply saying "outrageously lucky" or "incredibly they survived this ordeal" when they use the word miracle, but I don't think so. When I hear "miracle", then it suggests the supernatural was involved.
Something to think about.
God Scorecard on this tragedy:
1 miracle 11 deaths (and many very distraught, grieving families)
Seems God is behind in this one. See me when an asteroid pummels into earth and wipes out half the population. Oh, that's right, the all loving, all caring, all good God acts in mysterious ways and we probably did something to bring it on. Just talk to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
(A more reasonable explanation is that the universe is just humming along with no active God who watches over us a protects us, but instead we are just carbon life forms and randomly we may perish tomorrow or 2,000 years from now, but it is not attributable to anything except those random forces. That or it's God's fault? You can't have it both ways. Either God creates all life and takes it away, or he doesn't do either. I know, the Christians will talk about eternal life if I am saved and those miners are in a better place, away from the hardship that is life (at times) and all the doubts and questioning, etc. But all that is just conjecture. We really don't know - why - because NOBODY really KNOWS!)
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.
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."
2005-12-09
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)