I had read of this event first at PZ's blog then again saw it written about by the Skepchick Chelsea. I am disgusted by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). This is not some exaggeration or hyperbole, I am truly disgusted, reviled, angered and quite a few other things. What has this group done to invoke such ire and contempt? They have established a loophole allowing pediatricians to perform female genital mutilation.
Recently, a piece of legislation has been put through the federal government. It is called The Girls’ Protection Act. This act makes it illegal for any person to take a child outside of the United States or any United States territory to have the act of female genital mutilation performed on a child. This was a major piece of legislation that will hopefully put a halt to the previous legal act of sending a child out of the country for a barbaric practice that can be seen as a form of sexual enslavement and torture.
What the AAP has done is essentially an act of defiance against this humanitarian legislation. Under this new loophole of theirs, they claim to allow for what they call a 'little nick'. When it comes to this kind of act, it does not matter how big or small the 'nick' is, it is the very fact that it is done. There is no ethical or medical reason for it to happen. It is entirly about the control and oppression of females. There is no benefit to the victim of this procedure. What the AAP has done is essentially to tell doctors that they do not need to follow the Hippocratic Oath when it comes to some backwards cultural concept. It tells doctors they can do harm as long as that harm makes some parents with everted, damaging and idiotic beliefs happy.
By creating this loophole the AAP has declared themselves hypocrites who would rather appease some barbaric ancient custom designed to keep females 'in line' then actually stand up for human rights. The AAP has violated the Hippocratic Oath, an act that is seen within the medical community as one of the most loathsome and detestable acts possible. It is seen within the medical field as grounds for the revoking of a doctor's medical license. So why does the AAP think that doing this was right? What makes them think that they now do not deserve legal retaliation, the very kind that any independent doctor would receive for such an act?
Do they believe in the idea of cultural relativism? That there is no right or wrong, just different morays put forth by different cultural establishments? If that were true, then the Hippocratic Oath would be meaningless. If all views, as long as they were held be enough people, were equally valid, then there would be no point in requiring doctors to swear to this doctrine and be held accountable if they violate it.
Then it must be that they are they just cow towing to certain cultural and religious beliefs*. The idea that certain concepts, no matter how horrible or vile they may be, should be allowed, for the sake of culture or religion is, to be blunt, idiotic. Any person who does so is not just being 'understanding' of a belief as they say, but actively allowing for an act that they would otherwise fight against.
By creating this loophole, any doctor who might be sympathetic to this 'tradition' can now perform it. It could even cause cases where a doctor who would otherwise not perform or wish to perform it, to be pressured by the parents under the concept of cultural relativism into performing it.
The AAP claims it is just a 'little nick' compared to the full procedure done in areas where female genital mutilation is acceptable. They claim it better to have just a small bit of damage done then the whole thing. This reasoning is moronic. It would be like arguing that if we allow just a little bit of rape, not the full thing, but just a smidgen of it, then it would satisfy the rapists and they wouldn't go through with the whole thing. Not only does it not work, not only is it stupid, but it still causes harm. There is no benefit here and none can be argued, because as I said, cultural relativism is just so much shite.
If the AAP really does want for this barbarism to be relinquished to the annals of history, then they should take a stand against it in its entirely. I can only hope that its members are vociferous enough to make it known that this loophole should be torn out and those who pushed for its creation adequately punished for their overstep.
___________________________________
*Yes, I am aware the act of female genital mutation is more cultural then religious. That as Islam spread over the area where this act took place, it merged with the culture perpetuating it. That no where in Islamic doctrine does it require for female genital mutilation, but that it is a cultural tradition that was enveloped and then spread alongside Islam. But the fact remains that the practice has grown alongside Islam long enough to become intertwined with it. That it is accepted under Islam and where ever it goes, the practice often follows. So while I acknowledge the fact that Islam does not require female genital mutilation and that the act is not even originally an Islamic practice, I do know that there is a link between the two. A link that has allowed the practice to spread with Islam, to become protected under Islam. To the point where many people who would not otherwise practice female genital mutilation do so because of some Islamic influence.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Scientology
Scientology is a religion whose name gets quietly taunted whenever it shows itself, unless lawyers are present that is. Truly a religion for the modern age, instead of relying on years of violent repression to instill respect it uses underhanded law suits and bullying to keep people quiet. But if Scientology is such a forward thinking belief system, what do they have to hide? While anyone could dig up the dirt based on their many attempts to quiet their critics, I will instead, let the very beliefs of Scientology, taken from their most important (and well guarded) of documents to shed some light on this group.
Let's start by what you would hear if you go up to your average Scientologist and asked them what they can offer you. According to them, each individual has what equates to a soul, but they call it a Thetan. Apparently, in a separate universe there is an essence of spirit and thought that is called Theta, which we channel, imprecisely in our own universe. We channel it as individual 'thought units' that are claimed to be immortal. To explain how, Scientology just borrowed a few views on reincarnation. The Thetan cannot just disappear, so it somehow or another becomes another being. But when it becomes this nice new shiny being (it’s the newest model, all the craze), the Thetan brings with it all its traumas and issues from its past existences. So Scientologists get to have all the feel goods of immortal reincarnation from Eastern religions and fuses it with good old Catholic self hatred. Everything you did wrong then is still with you, and with no confession, there is no way to reduce the load. Instead they get audited, like from a tax collector. And just like a tax collector, they ask for money. Now let’s take a break for a moment, shall we?
Here we have a religion that instead of asking for money like your average boring televangelist, first tries to explain to you that you will be stuck with all your past-life traumas (sins) until you pay them. Yes, you have to quite literally ‘pay for your sins’. Which it turns out is a lot, as there were no auditors in your previous life so you are stuck with a few generations worth of traumas. This is insulting for a reason most people haven't quite realized. If something horrible happened in your 'past life' (I know it doesn't exist but follow my lead for a bit), you will have to pay for it now. So one can only imagine with this worldview the kind of trauma Holocaust victims suffered, or any of the other atrocities committed by humanity. All the suffering under Stalin, Pol Pot and whatever evil cult or bastard(s) you choose to name, all of that shit is on you now and you get to pay for it. The lives destroyed, the minds shattered, this was not enough according to Scientolgists. No, all that suffering is now why you are having a bad day. Try imagining that you were tortured under the horrid experiments of Josef Mengele and now you, as a separate being, have to pay money because of that. It is an insult to the memory of these people.
Now let’s try and get that bad taste out of our mouths, shall we? Now as I was saying, according to scientologists, we are Thetans, which are bits of the grand spirit/thought 'thing' that is Theta in another universe. Right, so our universe is known as MEST, Matter, Energy, Space and Time. Apparently, Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard, never heard of a little equation known as E=MC2 otherwise he would not have counted matter and energy as separate. So right from the start we see Hubbard's other life as a bad science-fiction writer coming through (and he was bad, the kind of bad sci-fi geeks would only inflict upon each other as a punishment). Now it is believed by Scientologists that if we can get rid of all our past traumas, we can free our inner Thetan. What does this get you? Well a free Thetan doesn't even need a physical body any longer, so you can go ahead and shed that old husk. You can also command everything in 'this' universe, all matter and energy will be at your disposal! It turns out that freeing your inner Thetan turns you into a wizard.
About now you may be asking yourself ‘how do they know this?’ Has anyone been able to attain such a pure essence, or as Scientologists call it, their 'native state'? Nope. Not a single person, including L. Ron Hubbard, has accomplished this, ever. But it's there up for grabs if you only buy enough audits! Did I mention that these audits, in the upper levels cost in the hundreds of thousands of US dollars? But since everyone wants to be a wizard at some point, people hand over the cash in exchange for a read over with an E-meter, which is the special device that is what they use for their audits. In my mind I imagine it looks like the ghost detector used in the movie "Ghostbusters".
But if you have made it into the church (which I should mention is officially labeled as a church, so they can receive tax exempt status) and moved up to the proper level, you get to learn some of their greatest secrets. From here the craziness only goes uphill so hold on. If you buy your way up to rank...I mean level OT III, you get access to what is considered by Scientologists to be their most significant document. It is nothing short of the true history of the human race! Yes, those pesky creationists got it wrong and so did those evil evolutionists, the real truth has been entrusted to a talentless hack of a writer. What could this truth, so secret that it must be hidden from lesser Scientologists until they have 'prepared' themselves for the shocking reality? Well it goes a little something like this...
About 75 million years ago there was a ruler of the "Galactic Confederation", which, despite using the word galactic, only had 75 planets to its name. Kind of like how American Baseball has the World Series when they only include themselves and one team from Canada…Anyway, this ruler was known as Xenu (not to be confused with Xena, warrior princess and one time planet demoted to plutoid [and stripped of its name and give a 'proper' one]) and he had a problem, his confederation was a bit overpopulated. Apparently, members of the "Galactic Confederation" were not Scientologists, but Catholic, because they hadn't become acquainted with proper birth control yet. But Xenu, being the resourceful fellow he was, what with being ruler and all, came up with a brilliant plan. When his subjects filled out their taxes (yes, they had to pay taxes as well, what else was he to do, rulers have to do something and taxes are as good as any to pass the time), they had to also get their tax forms inspected at audit centers (didn't we see that word a bit back?). When they entered, they were taken to a back room, anesthetized with an injection of Alcohol and Glycol (wait, what?) and frozen (that is not how suspended animation would work...I told you he was a bad writer, didn't I?).
Now Xenu just needed to figure out what to do with all these bodies (13.5 trillion of them to be precise). That is a lot of meat, what is a writer to do with all that meat. Well the idea of Soylant Green had already been taken by someone else (and I doubt Hubbard would have been clever enough to think of this anyway), so instead it was decided that they would all be taken to Earth, which they called "Teegeeack" back then (which may or may not be a name invented by a fourth grader). What were they transported in? Well the "Galactic Confederation" had all these space ships that looked just like our old DC-8 aircraft, except they had rockets instead of jet engines...which would still make for a horribly slow interstellar trip.
When they finally reached Earth...I mean Teegeeack, they dropped all 13.5 trillion people on the Canary and Hawaiian Islands...because those two are so close together and would fit that many people with no trouble at all. Now that the bodies were dropped off on some backwater planet, Xenu had to get rid of the evidence, so what does someone with the almighty technology of the DC-9 airliner...eh…space plane use? He of course grabs a few hydrogen bombs from his armory and tosses them into the volcanoes at these sites, somehow causing eruptions and killing everyone.
If you will indulge me in another quick detour, I have to ask, the height of this space faring race's munitions is a fusion bomb? This guy was completely unimaginative; he could have used molecular deconstructions or something that accelerates proton decay. But no, he just throws them a few thermonuclear bombs. Now we obviously would have signs of such an occurrence somewhere in the geographic strata, that is, if it were to of occurred. But really, why did Hubbard use items he read about around him, DC-9 space ships and H bombs, instead of something, I don't know, SCIENCE FICTION, he was supposed to be a sci-fi writer, correct?
Right, thank you for that, now back to the story. So Xenu erected some sort of electric field or whatnot to keep the immortal Thetan soul thingies on Teegeeack...Earth... or whatever (electricity stops souls...I never would have guessed). Xenu also had his minions (every evil ruler needs minions) build 3-D theatres for the freshly dead Thetan ghosts to watch (whether they got the red and blue glasses upon entry, we may never know). In these theatres they were forced to watch a false reality which brain (soul?) washed them into believing the reality we know today. That way they would no longer be a concern for Xenu any longer...even though he had already trapped them inside the planet, he apparently needed to confuse them as well.
Now at some point humanity comes along (not much detail spent on this, is it? Do they think we evolved from previously existing life or did we get dropped here by another irritated ruler?) and the brainwashed Thetans attach themselves to us which causes us to develop our psychological and physical ailments. Wait, weren't the lesser Sceintologists told that all our ills came from our past life memories? So that is all a sham now, is it? Does this mean that they deny our history, that it's just something watched by long dead ghosts stuck to us like they were made of velcro? So which is it then? I suppose if you were a member you would have to forget the old idea as a false memory and accept this new poorly written idea as ‘reality’. And by the way, when you get to this point, you are no longer of the same species. Nope, you leveled up from Homo sapiens to Homo novis, so get used to being a separate species and we will all hope that any breeding done with your previous species mates will not result in offspring as if you believe this shill, we don't want you reproducing.
So, yes, now they have to accept this new 'reality', got it. They now have to audit away the sticky Thetan souls that have attached to them like ethereal leeches. Which is what they were doing all along, except before they were pretending it was past life issues...
So whatever happened to old Xenu? Well part of the "Galactic Confederation" caught on to what was going on and rebelled, calling themselves the Marcab Confederation. This new rebellion then went on to fight what was left of the evil empire (wait, I could have sworn I heard this somewhere too...he's stealing Star Wars now? Has the man no shame?) Anyway, Xenu gets captured and locked inside a mountain...yes a mountain that is kept secure by an infinite battery (apparently Hubbard isn't familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics either). And now the relatives of Xenu are those who are criticizing the church the harshest. Yes, somehow the kin of Xenu, all those millions of years ago, passed the true secret down the blood lines until some of them were born on Earth, oddly enough as humans, and could ridicule the church properly when it finally was established. Nothing convoluted about that at all.
At this point, there really isn't much else I can say. Scientology makes a mockery out of itself well enough on its own. But still this church does prey on vulnerable people to join their ranks, telling them to stop contacting their families and give all their money to the church. It sucks the life out the desperate and leaves them as mere husks. So while their beliefs are a riot, the harm this idiocy does can be immense. In the end it is all about money and retaining their tax exempt status. So whenever you see something from Scientology, remember what kind of crazy they are tapping into here.
Thank you Misa Akane for this request!
Let's start by what you would hear if you go up to your average Scientologist and asked them what they can offer you. According to them, each individual has what equates to a soul, but they call it a Thetan. Apparently, in a separate universe there is an essence of spirit and thought that is called Theta, which we channel, imprecisely in our own universe. We channel it as individual 'thought units' that are claimed to be immortal. To explain how, Scientology just borrowed a few views on reincarnation. The Thetan cannot just disappear, so it somehow or another becomes another being. But when it becomes this nice new shiny being (it’s the newest model, all the craze), the Thetan brings with it all its traumas and issues from its past existences. So Scientologists get to have all the feel goods of immortal reincarnation from Eastern religions and fuses it with good old Catholic self hatred. Everything you did wrong then is still with you, and with no confession, there is no way to reduce the load. Instead they get audited, like from a tax collector. And just like a tax collector, they ask for money. Now let’s take a break for a moment, shall we?
Here we have a religion that instead of asking for money like your average boring televangelist, first tries to explain to you that you will be stuck with all your past-life traumas (sins) until you pay them. Yes, you have to quite literally ‘pay for your sins’. Which it turns out is a lot, as there were no auditors in your previous life so you are stuck with a few generations worth of traumas. This is insulting for a reason most people haven't quite realized. If something horrible happened in your 'past life' (I know it doesn't exist but follow my lead for a bit), you will have to pay for it now. So one can only imagine with this worldview the kind of trauma Holocaust victims suffered, or any of the other atrocities committed by humanity. All the suffering under Stalin, Pol Pot and whatever evil cult or bastard(s) you choose to name, all of that shit is on you now and you get to pay for it. The lives destroyed, the minds shattered, this was not enough according to Scientolgists. No, all that suffering is now why you are having a bad day. Try imagining that you were tortured under the horrid experiments of Josef Mengele and now you, as a separate being, have to pay money because of that. It is an insult to the memory of these people.
Now let’s try and get that bad taste out of our mouths, shall we? Now as I was saying, according to scientologists, we are Thetans, which are bits of the grand spirit/thought 'thing' that is Theta in another universe. Right, so our universe is known as MEST, Matter, Energy, Space and Time. Apparently, Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard, never heard of a little equation known as E=MC2 otherwise he would not have counted matter and energy as separate. So right from the start we see Hubbard's other life as a bad science-fiction writer coming through (and he was bad, the kind of bad sci-fi geeks would only inflict upon each other as a punishment). Now it is believed by Scientologists that if we can get rid of all our past traumas, we can free our inner Thetan. What does this get you? Well a free Thetan doesn't even need a physical body any longer, so you can go ahead and shed that old husk. You can also command everything in 'this' universe, all matter and energy will be at your disposal! It turns out that freeing your inner Thetan turns you into a wizard.
About now you may be asking yourself ‘how do they know this?’ Has anyone been able to attain such a pure essence, or as Scientologists call it, their 'native state'? Nope. Not a single person, including L. Ron Hubbard, has accomplished this, ever. But it's there up for grabs if you only buy enough audits! Did I mention that these audits, in the upper levels cost in the hundreds of thousands of US dollars? But since everyone wants to be a wizard at some point, people hand over the cash in exchange for a read over with an E-meter, which is the special device that is what they use for their audits. In my mind I imagine it looks like the ghost detector used in the movie "Ghostbusters".
But if you have made it into the church (which I should mention is officially labeled as a church, so they can receive tax exempt status) and moved up to the proper level, you get to learn some of their greatest secrets. From here the craziness only goes uphill so hold on. If you buy your way up to rank...I mean level OT III, you get access to what is considered by Scientologists to be their most significant document. It is nothing short of the true history of the human race! Yes, those pesky creationists got it wrong and so did those evil evolutionists, the real truth has been entrusted to a talentless hack of a writer. What could this truth, so secret that it must be hidden from lesser Scientologists until they have 'prepared' themselves for the shocking reality? Well it goes a little something like this...
About 75 million years ago there was a ruler of the "Galactic Confederation", which, despite using the word galactic, only had 75 planets to its name. Kind of like how American Baseball has the World Series when they only include themselves and one team from Canada…Anyway, this ruler was known as Xenu (not to be confused with Xena, warrior princess and one time planet demoted to plutoid [and stripped of its name and give a 'proper' one]) and he had a problem, his confederation was a bit overpopulated. Apparently, members of the "Galactic Confederation" were not Scientologists, but Catholic, because they hadn't become acquainted with proper birth control yet. But Xenu, being the resourceful fellow he was, what with being ruler and all, came up with a brilliant plan. When his subjects filled out their taxes (yes, they had to pay taxes as well, what else was he to do, rulers have to do something and taxes are as good as any to pass the time), they had to also get their tax forms inspected at audit centers (didn't we see that word a bit back?). When they entered, they were taken to a back room, anesthetized with an injection of Alcohol and Glycol (wait, what?) and frozen (that is not how suspended animation would work...I told you he was a bad writer, didn't I?).
Now Xenu just needed to figure out what to do with all these bodies (13.5 trillion of them to be precise). That is a lot of meat, what is a writer to do with all that meat. Well the idea of Soylant Green had already been taken by someone else (and I doubt Hubbard would have been clever enough to think of this anyway), so instead it was decided that they would all be taken to Earth, which they called "Teegeeack" back then (which may or may not be a name invented by a fourth grader). What were they transported in? Well the "Galactic Confederation" had all these space ships that looked just like our old DC-8 aircraft, except they had rockets instead of jet engines...which would still make for a horribly slow interstellar trip.
When they finally reached Earth...I mean Teegeeack, they dropped all 13.5 trillion people on the Canary and Hawaiian Islands...because those two are so close together and would fit that many people with no trouble at all. Now that the bodies were dropped off on some backwater planet, Xenu had to get rid of the evidence, so what does someone with the almighty technology of the DC-9 airliner...eh…space plane use? He of course grabs a few hydrogen bombs from his armory and tosses them into the volcanoes at these sites, somehow causing eruptions and killing everyone.
If you will indulge me in another quick detour, I have to ask, the height of this space faring race's munitions is a fusion bomb? This guy was completely unimaginative; he could have used molecular deconstructions or something that accelerates proton decay. But no, he just throws them a few thermonuclear bombs. Now we obviously would have signs of such an occurrence somewhere in the geographic strata, that is, if it were to of occurred. But really, why did Hubbard use items he read about around him, DC-9 space ships and H bombs, instead of something, I don't know, SCIENCE FICTION, he was supposed to be a sci-fi writer, correct?
Right, thank you for that, now back to the story. So Xenu erected some sort of electric field or whatnot to keep the immortal Thetan soul thingies on Teegeeack...Earth... or whatever (electricity stops souls...I never would have guessed). Xenu also had his minions (every evil ruler needs minions) build 3-D theatres for the freshly dead Thetan ghosts to watch (whether they got the red and blue glasses upon entry, we may never know). In these theatres they were forced to watch a false reality which brain (soul?) washed them into believing the reality we know today. That way they would no longer be a concern for Xenu any longer...even though he had already trapped them inside the planet, he apparently needed to confuse them as well.
Now at some point humanity comes along (not much detail spent on this, is it? Do they think we evolved from previously existing life or did we get dropped here by another irritated ruler?) and the brainwashed Thetans attach themselves to us which causes us to develop our psychological and physical ailments. Wait, weren't the lesser Sceintologists told that all our ills came from our past life memories? So that is all a sham now, is it? Does this mean that they deny our history, that it's just something watched by long dead ghosts stuck to us like they were made of velcro? So which is it then? I suppose if you were a member you would have to forget the old idea as a false memory and accept this new poorly written idea as ‘reality’. And by the way, when you get to this point, you are no longer of the same species. Nope, you leveled up from Homo sapiens to Homo novis, so get used to being a separate species and we will all hope that any breeding done with your previous species mates will not result in offspring as if you believe this shill, we don't want you reproducing.
So, yes, now they have to accept this new 'reality', got it. They now have to audit away the sticky Thetan souls that have attached to them like ethereal leeches. Which is what they were doing all along, except before they were pretending it was past life issues...
So whatever happened to old Xenu? Well part of the "Galactic Confederation" caught on to what was going on and rebelled, calling themselves the Marcab Confederation. This new rebellion then went on to fight what was left of the evil empire (wait, I could have sworn I heard this somewhere too...he's stealing Star Wars now? Has the man no shame?) Anyway, Xenu gets captured and locked inside a mountain...yes a mountain that is kept secure by an infinite battery (apparently Hubbard isn't familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics either). And now the relatives of Xenu are those who are criticizing the church the harshest. Yes, somehow the kin of Xenu, all those millions of years ago, passed the true secret down the blood lines until some of them were born on Earth, oddly enough as humans, and could ridicule the church properly when it finally was established. Nothing convoluted about that at all.
At this point, there really isn't much else I can say. Scientology makes a mockery out of itself well enough on its own. But still this church does prey on vulnerable people to join their ranks, telling them to stop contacting their families and give all their money to the church. It sucks the life out the desperate and leaves them as mere husks. So while their beliefs are a riot, the harm this idiocy does can be immense. In the end it is all about money and retaining their tax exempt status. So whenever you see something from Scientology, remember what kind of crazy they are tapping into here.
Thank you Misa Akane for this request!
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Intercessory prayer
The concept of intercessory prayer is one of many ideas of theists that I have major problems with. Sure, there are is the obvious reason to mention, the fact that double blind studies done on the effectiveness of prayer have, at best, shown it to be no better then placebo (and at its worst, increase rate of complications in the healing of the patient who knew they were being prayed for). But such data is easy enough to find for anyone who wishes to look it up. Instead, for the moment at least, I am interested in talking about it from the point of view of the religious.
According to many theists who believe in intercessory prayer, as long as you have strong enough faith, your wish is god's command. Apparently, to such people, their god has been demoted from universal creator to their own personal magic genie. In fact those who follow the Christian bible, there is a line contained within that states the power of faith. It is the often over quoted Mathew 17:20:
Really, that's all it takes? There must be mountains moving all over the place to the delight of Christians! Wait, wouldn't that cause massive tectonic upheaval resulting in devastating earthquakes and tsunamis around the globe on a frequent basis... So next time you hear a fundamentalist say that such a natural disaster was the result of god's anger at the 'evils' of homosexuals or whatever has got his ephemeral panties in a bind today, know that it just the Christian's way of covering their own tracks at moving around all that earth.
But in all seriousness, if so little faith is required for a miracle (and I define a miracle as an event occurring that no natural process could possibly explain. And no, your aunt who survived cancer was not a miracle but the result of doctors and researchers working tirelessly to save the lives of their fellow humans, thank them), then why do we not see them all over the bloody place? With such a tiny amount of faith being required to do a miracle, we should be so deep in them to not be able to ignore their statistical significance. But guess what, we don't. We don't see a single one. So either all Christians (and the members of other faiths who have similar doctrines about intercessory prayer and faith) are faking their piety or the whole concept is utterly devoid of fact.
About this time, someone from the background who thinks they are clever (thinks being the key word here) pipes up with "But god does answer prayers, he (And it is almost always a he, notice that? Why does god need a gender, is there a breeding colony of them somewhere? Is that why 'he' has been ignoring us? Has he has been to busy getting it on with Aphrodite?) just usually says no". About this time I have to do the stereotypical cartoonish blink a few times to let this new 'argument' process. To which I respond, "So your god just happens to answer prayers in exactly the same ratio as one would expect from a random system that is not ruled by any deity at all?" To which I hear "Yes! god works in mysterious ways, doesn't he?". About this time I have to run the conversation back through my head. Not because I am confused, but because I am desperately hoping I had missed something, as the alternative is far to painful for my mind to grasp. "So you are telling me" I will reply in a slow manner to make sure no words are lost "that your god is all powerful, yet he, for some mysterious reason, decides to ignore this and work at a rate no better then random chance?". If this question is answered in the affirmative, as it almost always is, my hope for my species dies just a little bit more.
Prayer has another serious problem about it. If your deity is omnipotent and omnipresent, why would it need some little peon like yourself to tell it what to do? Is the deity that incompetent that it needs its own minions to keep an eye out for it? And how exactly would this be a deity that is worth worshiping in the first place? This little bit of self contradiction shows that most theists really do not believe their deity is all knowing. In fact it makes it seem like they see their god as little more then a tool at their disposal.
But let's be fair. Let's suppose that they truly believe that unanswered prayers are the way their deity says no. In that case, can all the nut jobs who are protesting outside woman's health clinics, who are against the 'evils' of homosexuality, trying to get their myths inserted into school curriculum, who wish to stop president Obama from doing the, ironically, Jesus like thing of helping out his fellow man through universal health care, or whatever insane thing you hate today, could you stop and realize that all your prayers have thus far done nothing at all. If you so believe in your deity's existance, perhaps this is his way of telling you that you are wrong and that he likes these ideas. After all, if they were so evil, wouldn't your god step in and do something?
According to many theists who believe in intercessory prayer, as long as you have strong enough faith, your wish is god's command. Apparently, to such people, their god has been demoted from universal creator to their own personal magic genie. In fact those who follow the Christian bible, there is a line contained within that states the power of faith. It is the often over quoted Mathew 17:20:
"And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."
Really, that's all it takes? There must be mountains moving all over the place to the delight of Christians! Wait, wouldn't that cause massive tectonic upheaval resulting in devastating earthquakes and tsunamis around the globe on a frequent basis... So next time you hear a fundamentalist say that such a natural disaster was the result of god's anger at the 'evils' of homosexuals or whatever has got his ephemeral panties in a bind today, know that it just the Christian's way of covering their own tracks at moving around all that earth.
But in all seriousness, if so little faith is required for a miracle (and I define a miracle as an event occurring that no natural process could possibly explain. And no, your aunt who survived cancer was not a miracle but the result of doctors and researchers working tirelessly to save the lives of their fellow humans, thank them), then why do we not see them all over the bloody place? With such a tiny amount of faith being required to do a miracle, we should be so deep in them to not be able to ignore their statistical significance. But guess what, we don't. We don't see a single one. So either all Christians (and the members of other faiths who have similar doctrines about intercessory prayer and faith) are faking their piety or the whole concept is utterly devoid of fact.
About this time, someone from the background who thinks they are clever (thinks being the key word here) pipes up with "But god does answer prayers, he (And it is almost always a he, notice that? Why does god need a gender, is there a breeding colony of them somewhere? Is that why 'he' has been ignoring us? Has he has been to busy getting it on with Aphrodite?) just usually says no". About this time I have to do the stereotypical cartoonish blink a few times to let this new 'argument' process. To which I respond, "So your god just happens to answer prayers in exactly the same ratio as one would expect from a random system that is not ruled by any deity at all?" To which I hear "Yes! god works in mysterious ways, doesn't he?". About this time I have to run the conversation back through my head. Not because I am confused, but because I am desperately hoping I had missed something, as the alternative is far to painful for my mind to grasp. "So you are telling me" I will reply in a slow manner to make sure no words are lost "that your god is all powerful, yet he, for some mysterious reason, decides to ignore this and work at a rate no better then random chance?". If this question is answered in the affirmative, as it almost always is, my hope for my species dies just a little bit more.
Prayer has another serious problem about it. If your deity is omnipotent and omnipresent, why would it need some little peon like yourself to tell it what to do? Is the deity that incompetent that it needs its own minions to keep an eye out for it? And how exactly would this be a deity that is worth worshiping in the first place? This little bit of self contradiction shows that most theists really do not believe their deity is all knowing. In fact it makes it seem like they see their god as little more then a tool at their disposal.
But let's be fair. Let's suppose that they truly believe that unanswered prayers are the way their deity says no. In that case, can all the nut jobs who are protesting outside woman's health clinics, who are against the 'evils' of homosexuality, trying to get their myths inserted into school curriculum, who wish to stop president Obama from doing the, ironically, Jesus like thing of helping out his fellow man through universal health care, or whatever insane thing you hate today, could you stop and realize that all your prayers have thus far done nothing at all. If you so believe in your deity's existance, perhaps this is his way of telling you that you are wrong and that he likes these ideas. After all, if they were so evil, wouldn't your god step in and do something?
Sunday, January 10, 2010
It is not the size of the mind...
Recently, there has been quite the upheaval in thought surrounding the functionality of small brains. Quite a number of studies have shown that the size of an organisms brain does not reflect its inherent intelligence, as was thought for the longest time.
What is being found now is larger brains are more frequently found in larger organisms not because they are more intelligent, but because they have more body mass to regulate. Having a larger body requires more computing power to operate all the necessary functions. This is why Cetaceans have some 200 billion neurons yet are less intelligent then humans with our measly 85 billion neurons. A whale has much more bio-mass, larger muscles to regulate, and more massive systems or operate. As such, they need more neurons to simply perform daily life functions.
As well as needing more neurons for regulating larger amounts of tissue, larger brains are also known to have a great deal of redundancy. Entire pathways are written and re-written again. While this does help in the case of injury or for increased parallel processing, the extraneous neural routes also consume a great deal more energy, making the over all system less efficient. This redundancy is seen consistently throughout the animal kingdom as brains increase in size. The reason for this is the genetic code. Our genes do not list every neuron nor does it list every connection. If it were to attempt this, it would be hundreds if not thousands of times larger then it currently is. The reason for this is that our genes encode our neurons as a repeating pattern. So when the genes are read to begin forming the organism after conception, a base template is created and replicated through multiple iterations until the requisite amount of neural tissue is formed.
This trend can be seen in the other direction as well, as we are now learning. An insect does not have that much tissue to constantly regulate, so its required amount of neurons for basic life functions is relatively few. This allows for the remainder to be used for other processes. In fact only a few hundred are required for tasks such as counting and a mere few thousand neurons are needed to produce a very basic consciousness.
With this new information, we are realizing that insects are much more then simple reactionary beings, as we have assumed for so long. They are able to recognize objects and individuals, categorize objects, count how many of something there is and quite possibly much more. This, quite obviously, makes insects far more interesting. There is even a chance that when you watch a praying mantis and she appears to be looking back at you, she might just be pondering you just as you are contemplating her.
What really counts is the number of synapses, not the overall number of neurons. More synapses means more links, more connections. The more connections you have, the better parallel processing speed you have. More links also grant greater storage by being able to connect disparate concepts together in the mind.
This discovery is also quite important to computer scientists. With the knowledge that synapses, not neuron count, is what really matters, scientists and engineers can now start creating smaller systems of emulated neurons that will have greater functionality then we previously have had. Instead of relying on redundancy as higher organisms do, we could emulate neurons with an increased inter connectivity. This would grant a more complex system, but being built from a much simpler construct. Such knowledge may allow such neural emulations to bound forward faster then we had previously predicted.
What is being found now is larger brains are more frequently found in larger organisms not because they are more intelligent, but because they have more body mass to regulate. Having a larger body requires more computing power to operate all the necessary functions. This is why Cetaceans have some 200 billion neurons yet are less intelligent then humans with our measly 85 billion neurons. A whale has much more bio-mass, larger muscles to regulate, and more massive systems or operate. As such, they need more neurons to simply perform daily life functions.
As well as needing more neurons for regulating larger amounts of tissue, larger brains are also known to have a great deal of redundancy. Entire pathways are written and re-written again. While this does help in the case of injury or for increased parallel processing, the extraneous neural routes also consume a great deal more energy, making the over all system less efficient. This redundancy is seen consistently throughout the animal kingdom as brains increase in size. The reason for this is the genetic code. Our genes do not list every neuron nor does it list every connection. If it were to attempt this, it would be hundreds if not thousands of times larger then it currently is. The reason for this is that our genes encode our neurons as a repeating pattern. So when the genes are read to begin forming the organism after conception, a base template is created and replicated through multiple iterations until the requisite amount of neural tissue is formed.
This trend can be seen in the other direction as well, as we are now learning. An insect does not have that much tissue to constantly regulate, so its required amount of neurons for basic life functions is relatively few. This allows for the remainder to be used for other processes. In fact only a few hundred are required for tasks such as counting and a mere few thousand neurons are needed to produce a very basic consciousness.
With this new information, we are realizing that insects are much more then simple reactionary beings, as we have assumed for so long. They are able to recognize objects and individuals, categorize objects, count how many of something there is and quite possibly much more. This, quite obviously, makes insects far more interesting. There is even a chance that when you watch a praying mantis and she appears to be looking back at you, she might just be pondering you just as you are contemplating her.
What really counts is the number of synapses, not the overall number of neurons. More synapses means more links, more connections. The more connections you have, the better parallel processing speed you have. More links also grant greater storage by being able to connect disparate concepts together in the mind.
This discovery is also quite important to computer scientists. With the knowledge that synapses, not neuron count, is what really matters, scientists and engineers can now start creating smaller systems of emulated neurons that will have greater functionality then we previously have had. Instead of relying on redundancy as higher organisms do, we could emulate neurons with an increased inter connectivity. This would grant a more complex system, but being built from a much simpler construct. Such knowledge may allow such neural emulations to bound forward faster then we had previously predicted.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights any person can have. It allows us to question without fear of persecution or judicial response. Unfortunately not everyone believes in such equality. Some people would have us punished for questioning. They would pass laws against our right to say what we will. These people are, by the very definition of the word, evil. The idea that someone else can only speak after they have cleared it through some sort of filter is abhorrent. The making of any subject not only taboo but unlawful shows a close mind and a desire to control others for the benefit of the so self deluded 'be-knighted' few. A law has recently passed in Ireland that makes it a crime to publish any form of blasphemy. This plays right into the hands of theists who wish to control the few of us who actually have awakened and see the world for the beautiful place that it is. Such things can never be tolerated. They must be fought on all grounds, ethically of course, but with strength and resolve. In defiance of this repellent law, a group of atheist Irish bloggers have published a list of twenty-five blasphemous quotes. By there permission, I have reproduced it here so that others may see and here about their plight. Such tyranny shall never be tolerated.
1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.
2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.
3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.
4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name - The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy - he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.
5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”
6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities - how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”
7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.
8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”
9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”
10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”
11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine - but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good - and cares about any of it - to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”
12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.
13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”
14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”
15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”
16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”
17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.
18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”
19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”
20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”
21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”
22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”
23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”
24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.
25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.
1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.
2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.
3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.
4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name - The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy - he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.
5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”
6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities - how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”
7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.
8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”
9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”
10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”
11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine - but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good - and cares about any of it - to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”
12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.
13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”
14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”
15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”
16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”
17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.
18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”
19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”
20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”
21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”
22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”
23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”
24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.
25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.
Friday, October 16, 2009
He still has a job...why?
I recently came across a story about a justice of the peace in Louisiana who decided that refusing to marry an inter-racial couple was a good idea. Wait, it gets better...
His reasoning is as follows:
I'll give you all a moment to process all of that.
For those of you who's mind has not imploded due to the density of stupidity exceeding the Chandrasekhar limit, we have to ask ourselves some very simple questions. No, not 'how did this moron end up a judge' (although that is a rather good one and hopefully the answer involves him losing said position) but 'how can someone say so much wrong in so little time' for starters.
After one is done pondering that (and hopefully not lost complete faith in the future of our species), we, unfortunantly get to look a little closer in what exactly is wrong with what he said.
First he starts off with the classic phrase used so often to try and explain away bigotry "think of the children!". But besides the normal idiocy of this phrase, it has a second hidden level of wrong waiting to be uncovered (kind of like those annoying 'magic eye' pictures that I can never get to work which leads me to believe that it is all a conspiracy by the optometrists to get us to stare at blurry images thus ruining our eyes). He is essentially insinuating that if two people do not get married then they cannot have children (perhaps this explains why his state has one of the countries highest rates of teen pregnancy). If I had known this secret (one that seems only to be known to the mentally deficient) then I would never have to again worry about contraceptives (no wait, I almost forgot I'm not an idiot there for a moment).
Those two stupidities alone are bad enough, but put them together and you get one grand unifying theory of stupid (think of it as his own personal TOE of fail). This is the idea that if there are no mixed race couples, then there would be no mixed race children and therefor less racism! ...Wait, I think someone is confused (and its not just me trying to follow his bigoted crazy). This is like saying that the best way to reduce racism is to let there be less of that very race in the first place... Ok, still not following him. Oh wait, I figured it out, he thinks that if we put our heads in the sand and pretend such people don't exist they will go away and life will go back to the happy all white 1950's suburb.
Before I start sustaining brain damage by trying to understand this, I'm going to move on. Surly he couldn't have packed in more idiocy, right? ...right?
His next line starts with "I'm not a racist, but...". Dear non-existent deity, stop with the cliches already. Anytime anyone ever says anything along the lines of "I'm not a 'insert kind of asshole here', but...", you know that this individual is most assuredly that very kind of ass. I don't mean the kind of ass that is annoying in passing but the kind that is so pervasive that it may just be possible to bottle their hate in a scent that would attract bigots from miles around. Just like the phrase "I don't mean to offend, but" it is a way to announce to the world exactly what you are and are about you really think. Have people like this judge really not picked up on this little tidbit?
Next we go from cliche abuse to a combination of confusing and disturbing. He says that he has "piles and piles of black friends". Now many kinds of things can be described as being in piles. You can have a pile of leaves, a pile of rags, you can even have a steaming pile (like what this man's entire defense really is). Humans, however, don't tend to come in piles, at least not when they are in the best of working order (and one would certainly hope not when ones 'friends' are involved). No, humans tend to get in piles when they are placed there (or when they decide to jump on one another in the absurd spectacle that is American football). These poor individuals, more then likely, do not (or even more likely, did not) think that this was a fun proposition, as such active humans will actively try to scurry away from any piling. This can making piling quite difficult and can only be rectified by preventing said pileable humans from doing any scurrying.
Now that we have learned that the judge is either a mass murderer or is about as skilled with the English language as a narcoleptic ape is at driving a vehicle. We are left with one final vexing question about the content of this man's response. What does his allowing his black 'friends' to use his toilet have to do with absolutely anything, especially about how supposedly not racist he is? Is there a hidden racism gauge out there somewhere with the line between racist and not being racist set at if you let someone of another race relieve themselves in your house? How does that thought even come into someones head? Isn't there at least one part of the judge's internal filtering mechanism working that could have picked up on this line of idiocy?
I give up, this man is, besides a bigoted ass, far to stupid to actually walk around not drooling on himself constantly.
His reasoning is as follows:
A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
I'll give you all a moment to process all of that.
For those of you who's mind has not imploded due to the density of stupidity exceeding the Chandrasekhar limit, we have to ask ourselves some very simple questions. No, not 'how did this moron end up a judge' (although that is a rather good one and hopefully the answer involves him losing said position) but 'how can someone say so much wrong in so little time' for starters.
After one is done pondering that (and hopefully not lost complete faith in the future of our species), we, unfortunantly get to look a little closer in what exactly is wrong with what he said.
First he starts off with the classic phrase used so often to try and explain away bigotry "think of the children!". But besides the normal idiocy of this phrase, it has a second hidden level of wrong waiting to be uncovered (kind of like those annoying 'magic eye' pictures that I can never get to work which leads me to believe that it is all a conspiracy by the optometrists to get us to stare at blurry images thus ruining our eyes). He is essentially insinuating that if two people do not get married then they cannot have children (perhaps this explains why his state has one of the countries highest rates of teen pregnancy). If I had known this secret (one that seems only to be known to the mentally deficient) then I would never have to again worry about contraceptives (no wait, I almost forgot I'm not an idiot there for a moment).
Those two stupidities alone are bad enough, but put them together and you get one grand unifying theory of stupid (think of it as his own personal TOE of fail). This is the idea that if there are no mixed race couples, then there would be no mixed race children and therefor less racism! ...Wait, I think someone is confused (and its not just me trying to follow his bigoted crazy). This is like saying that the best way to reduce racism is to let there be less of that very race in the first place... Ok, still not following him. Oh wait, I figured it out, he thinks that if we put our heads in the sand and pretend such people don't exist they will go away and life will go back to the happy all white 1950's suburb.
Before I start sustaining brain damage by trying to understand this, I'm going to move on. Surly he couldn't have packed in more idiocy, right? ...right?
His next line starts with "I'm not a racist, but...". Dear non-existent deity, stop with the cliches already. Anytime anyone ever says anything along the lines of "I'm not a 'insert kind of asshole here', but...", you know that this individual is most assuredly that very kind of ass. I don't mean the kind of ass that is annoying in passing but the kind that is so pervasive that it may just be possible to bottle their hate in a scent that would attract bigots from miles around. Just like the phrase "I don't mean to offend, but" it is a way to announce to the world exactly what you are and are about you really think. Have people like this judge really not picked up on this little tidbit?
Next we go from cliche abuse to a combination of confusing and disturbing. He says that he has "piles and piles of black friends". Now many kinds of things can be described as being in piles. You can have a pile of leaves, a pile of rags, you can even have a steaming pile (like what this man's entire defense really is). Humans, however, don't tend to come in piles, at least not when they are in the best of working order (and one would certainly hope not when ones 'friends' are involved). No, humans tend to get in piles when they are placed there (or when they decide to jump on one another in the absurd spectacle that is American football). These poor individuals, more then likely, do not (or even more likely, did not) think that this was a fun proposition, as such active humans will actively try to scurry away from any piling. This can making piling quite difficult and can only be rectified by preventing said pileable humans from doing any scurrying.
Now that we have learned that the judge is either a mass murderer or is about as skilled with the English language as a narcoleptic ape is at driving a vehicle. We are left with one final vexing question about the content of this man's response. What does his allowing his black 'friends' to use his toilet have to do with absolutely anything, especially about how supposedly not racist he is? Is there a hidden racism gauge out there somewhere with the line between racist and not being racist set at if you let someone of another race relieve themselves in your house? How does that thought even come into someones head? Isn't there at least one part of the judge's internal filtering mechanism working that could have picked up on this line of idiocy?
I give up, this man is, besides a bigoted ass, far to stupid to actually walk around not drooling on himself constantly.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Purpose
I would first like to apologize. Despite my saying that I would try and update more I went for a bit without any word at all. The reason for this is because I have finally moved out from the middle of bloody nowhere and have moved into an apartment in what can at least vaguely be compared to civilization. It has certainly been a pleasant change for me.
Anyway, the real reason for this post is the concept of a purpose. One of the common critiques from theists on the atheistic standpoint is that it does not allow for there to be a purpose for ones life. It is a misconception that I come across time and time again. The only reason I think it still exists is a lack of imagination and drive on the part of the theists. They are used to having a worldview where their purpose and meaning are given to them on a platter. They do not need to work to attain it. They already think they have one. Granted they might not always know what it is, but to them the fact that it is there is all that matters. This leaves them as, if we want to reduce the idea down to its most basic form, nothing more then an automaton, working towards its predetermined goal even if that goal is invisible to the one who possesses it.
For those such as I without the belief in an higher guiding power, this preexisting reason can not possibly exist. Instead we are left blind to it entirely at first. To many of us (including myself for the longest time), this can be a bit daunting and bewildering. To think that we exist simply based on past occurrences and that any inherent purpose is not only lacking but a explanation that is contradictory to the evidence before us.
This point is generally when the theist gives up. They believe that if there isn't a preexisting reason then there cannot be any point for existence at all leaving one with a sense of hopelessness. But what they forget to look for is potential.
When a sculpture looks at a block of marble, they do not see a predestined design. In fact they cannot possibly do this as there never has been one. The marble is nothing more then a hunk of rock that was chemically and physically altered by intense heat and pressure. When the initial piece of granite was heated by the mantle, the Earth did not intend for it to one day be carved by the hands of a hairless ape with an imagination. It was simply processes causing other processes until two completely separate lines of events (the time line of the marble and the time line of the life of the artist) converge at a single moment in time. Nothing guided them to that intersection in time space. It just happened.
So then where does the purpose spring from if there was never even a place for it until that point? The purpose comes from the mind of the sculpture. He or she looks at the marble and envisions in their mind what it could potential be with just a bit of work. The see themselves picking up the tools, spending the energy and time to transform the haphazard stone into something of beauty or purpose.
The same can be said for our existence. When we look at our lives we can see all of our talents and desires. We can imagine what different combination of these could possibly achieve. In the end we create both our own purpose and the place to apply it. There was never a blank shelve were a purpose would fit perfectly, we create it all for ourselves based on our situations and capabilities.
For myself, creating a purpose was a long and arduous task. For the longest time I was never able to see my own self work or my impact upon those around me due to combination of chronic depression, physical disability and various other hurdles that were out of my control. But upon finally realizing what I am capable of, I was able to see what purpose I might have. In fact it was so clear it seemed to materialize out of my very existence as it is was intrinsic to my very being. Yet I know that it was not made for me, I formed it to suit me. I am the master of my purpose. I do not answer to it, but it to me.
This is an incredibly empowering idea. To think that my reason for existing is mine to own and control and that I am not set upon a preordained path. For this very reason I truly believe that the concept of a found purpose, a purpose we create ourselves, if far superior to those held by the theistic community. For they only believe they follow a path that exists for them instead of blazing their own. Any joy they get from theirs is a joy that is granted to them. For those who have made their purpose, the rapture they find in their own meaning is one they make for themselves. No one else has control over this. We make our own happiness, not depend upon some ethereal consciousness for it.
I would go so far to say that this is a more mature view point. I would compare the theistic concept of following a set path to that of a child following the commands of an adult. They are not trusted to make their own decisions in such important matters and must have their path lain before them. It gets to the point where the person walking that path won't even trust their own judgment any long and must hold the hand of their guide at all times.
On the other hand the one who has formed his or her own purpose is like the adult the child holds on to. We create our path from what is before us and what we have brought with us. We do not look to someone else to guide us along utterly defendant on their judgment and good will. We can trust in ourselves and do what we know to be right and proper. Yes, we will falter at times, everyone will, even the one who believes their path is set before them. But instead of wondering why we strayed from the path and hope to have our hands taken as we are walked back to it, we dust ourselves off and get right back on it ourselves.
Yet despite the usefulness of the analogies I have used, there is one simple problem with them. The problem being that the path that the theist has had layed out before them does not exist in the first place. It is fine to compare them to a child being guided by the hand throughout life. But the truth is that the path they believe they are walking and the hand they are taking does not exist in the first place. It is all an illusion created for their own comport. It is just a security blanket they have wrapped themselves in. Because of this they are even more lost then my analogy made it seem. If the path they are following is all imaginary then the are doing nothing more then wandering. There may be many times when something is accomplished or a destination reached. Yet it is because they did it themselves, even if they are to afraid to admit this and must attribute it all to their imaginary guide. It is sad that this must be so, that they must be so uncertain of their own capabilities.
More then just saddening it can also be incredibly dangerous. For if they believe the path is being created by another then there is absolutely no reason for them to take responsibility for their own actions. To them, what they are doing is the will of a wiser and more powerful being. As such it could not possibly be wrong and they have no reason to question it. This leads to someone who essentially has the personal reasoning skills of a child being granted immunity for the repercussions of the actions that are in fact their own. This is why the dangerous actions of religious extremists seems to alien to those of us who form our own purpose as we do not follow the same path of reasoning. This is one of the prime reasons people such as I speak out against theistic thinking such as this. We see the danger that is inherit and do not wish it to spread further then it has, to taint other minds and lives.
All of this was spawned by my discovering of my own purpose. Some may have wondered by this point what this purpose may be. What I have learned about myself is that I have the ability to aid others. Those I know have told me that I am someone that they can talk to about anything at all. That they know that I shall not judge them but instead put forth my own understandings to let them decide for themselves where they should go. If they wish me to guide them, but I won't condemn them. For that will only make them turn inwards, it will change nothing. These individuals also tell me that they see me as rather wise. That I can see to the heart of an issue and understand it with ease. Combine this with my a refined sense of empathy and I am able to connect with a person, give them a place to be themselves freely and grow without being threatened. All of this has led me to the conclusion that I possess the necessary talents to aid those around me. As such I strive to do this, to help when I can, connect with as many as possible and generally make this life a more enjoyable one.
For those of you reading, I would be quite interested to hear what proposes you might have found for yourself. What has led you to this realization. Many of us have taken very different roads yet each one has something that may aid others in their journey. As such I look forward to hearing how yours has gone thus far and where you see it going from here.
Anyway, the real reason for this post is the concept of a purpose. One of the common critiques from theists on the atheistic standpoint is that it does not allow for there to be a purpose for ones life. It is a misconception that I come across time and time again. The only reason I think it still exists is a lack of imagination and drive on the part of the theists. They are used to having a worldview where their purpose and meaning are given to them on a platter. They do not need to work to attain it. They already think they have one. Granted they might not always know what it is, but to them the fact that it is there is all that matters. This leaves them as, if we want to reduce the idea down to its most basic form, nothing more then an automaton, working towards its predetermined goal even if that goal is invisible to the one who possesses it.
For those such as I without the belief in an higher guiding power, this preexisting reason can not possibly exist. Instead we are left blind to it entirely at first. To many of us (including myself for the longest time), this can be a bit daunting and bewildering. To think that we exist simply based on past occurrences and that any inherent purpose is not only lacking but a explanation that is contradictory to the evidence before us.
This point is generally when the theist gives up. They believe that if there isn't a preexisting reason then there cannot be any point for existence at all leaving one with a sense of hopelessness. But what they forget to look for is potential.
When a sculpture looks at a block of marble, they do not see a predestined design. In fact they cannot possibly do this as there never has been one. The marble is nothing more then a hunk of rock that was chemically and physically altered by intense heat and pressure. When the initial piece of granite was heated by the mantle, the Earth did not intend for it to one day be carved by the hands of a hairless ape with an imagination. It was simply processes causing other processes until two completely separate lines of events (the time line of the marble and the time line of the life of the artist) converge at a single moment in time. Nothing guided them to that intersection in time space. It just happened.
So then where does the purpose spring from if there was never even a place for it until that point? The purpose comes from the mind of the sculpture. He or she looks at the marble and envisions in their mind what it could potential be with just a bit of work. The see themselves picking up the tools, spending the energy and time to transform the haphazard stone into something of beauty or purpose.
The same can be said for our existence. When we look at our lives we can see all of our talents and desires. We can imagine what different combination of these could possibly achieve. In the end we create both our own purpose and the place to apply it. There was never a blank shelve were a purpose would fit perfectly, we create it all for ourselves based on our situations and capabilities.
For myself, creating a purpose was a long and arduous task. For the longest time I was never able to see my own self work or my impact upon those around me due to combination of chronic depression, physical disability and various other hurdles that were out of my control. But upon finally realizing what I am capable of, I was able to see what purpose I might have. In fact it was so clear it seemed to materialize out of my very existence as it is was intrinsic to my very being. Yet I know that it was not made for me, I formed it to suit me. I am the master of my purpose. I do not answer to it, but it to me.
This is an incredibly empowering idea. To think that my reason for existing is mine to own and control and that I am not set upon a preordained path. For this very reason I truly believe that the concept of a found purpose, a purpose we create ourselves, if far superior to those held by the theistic community. For they only believe they follow a path that exists for them instead of blazing their own. Any joy they get from theirs is a joy that is granted to them. For those who have made their purpose, the rapture they find in their own meaning is one they make for themselves. No one else has control over this. We make our own happiness, not depend upon some ethereal consciousness for it.
I would go so far to say that this is a more mature view point. I would compare the theistic concept of following a set path to that of a child following the commands of an adult. They are not trusted to make their own decisions in such important matters and must have their path lain before them. It gets to the point where the person walking that path won't even trust their own judgment any long and must hold the hand of their guide at all times.
On the other hand the one who has formed his or her own purpose is like the adult the child holds on to. We create our path from what is before us and what we have brought with us. We do not look to someone else to guide us along utterly defendant on their judgment and good will. We can trust in ourselves and do what we know to be right and proper. Yes, we will falter at times, everyone will, even the one who believes their path is set before them. But instead of wondering why we strayed from the path and hope to have our hands taken as we are walked back to it, we dust ourselves off and get right back on it ourselves.
Yet despite the usefulness of the analogies I have used, there is one simple problem with them. The problem being that the path that the theist has had layed out before them does not exist in the first place. It is fine to compare them to a child being guided by the hand throughout life. But the truth is that the path they believe they are walking and the hand they are taking does not exist in the first place. It is all an illusion created for their own comport. It is just a security blanket they have wrapped themselves in. Because of this they are even more lost then my analogy made it seem. If the path they are following is all imaginary then the are doing nothing more then wandering. There may be many times when something is accomplished or a destination reached. Yet it is because they did it themselves, even if they are to afraid to admit this and must attribute it all to their imaginary guide. It is sad that this must be so, that they must be so uncertain of their own capabilities.
More then just saddening it can also be incredibly dangerous. For if they believe the path is being created by another then there is absolutely no reason for them to take responsibility for their own actions. To them, what they are doing is the will of a wiser and more powerful being. As such it could not possibly be wrong and they have no reason to question it. This leads to someone who essentially has the personal reasoning skills of a child being granted immunity for the repercussions of the actions that are in fact their own. This is why the dangerous actions of religious extremists seems to alien to those of us who form our own purpose as we do not follow the same path of reasoning. This is one of the prime reasons people such as I speak out against theistic thinking such as this. We see the danger that is inherit and do not wish it to spread further then it has, to taint other minds and lives.
All of this was spawned by my discovering of my own purpose. Some may have wondered by this point what this purpose may be. What I have learned about myself is that I have the ability to aid others. Those I know have told me that I am someone that they can talk to about anything at all. That they know that I shall not judge them but instead put forth my own understandings to let them decide for themselves where they should go. If they wish me to guide them, but I won't condemn them. For that will only make them turn inwards, it will change nothing. These individuals also tell me that they see me as rather wise. That I can see to the heart of an issue and understand it with ease. Combine this with my a refined sense of empathy and I am able to connect with a person, give them a place to be themselves freely and grow without being threatened. All of this has led me to the conclusion that I possess the necessary talents to aid those around me. As such I strive to do this, to help when I can, connect with as many as possible and generally make this life a more enjoyable one.
For those of you reading, I would be quite interested to hear what proposes you might have found for yourself. What has led you to this realization. Many of us have taken very different roads yet each one has something that may aid others in their journey. As such I look forward to hearing how yours has gone thus far and where you see it going from here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)