I had a few questions and comments that I obviously was not able to convey last night during the debate. I saw your contact information and decided, sure I will give it a shot and see if he will write back. Whats the harm you know!
First of all, I want to express my intentions. I am an atheist, only because I see it as my natural default since it neither claims to have all the answer nor is it in any way an organization which seeks to convert people to its belief, I use that term very lightly and in no way to imply any faith. My goal is to learn about faith and religion, not to disgrace or in any way insult anyone, as I see insulting any one for any reason is uncalled for in rational social interaction.
With that said...
I am currently reading a book regarding the parallels between myths. I would like to bring out the story of Jesus and how that story dated back to stories such as Attis (a Greek god, 1700 BC), Mithra (Persian god 1200 BC) Kirshna (Indian God 900BD) , Iranian Prophet Zoroaster (630 BC), but what I can not understand is why Christianity does not give credit to these precursory myths/ religions as a basis for its own writing? I mean it is sort of like plagiarism in a sense, being that the story of Jesus is not, entirely, original. Granted specific details are vastly different, i.e. polytheism, legends of prophets foretelling of these beings and such. but I can not get around the fact that it seems that the story is just an oral myth passed down, and like all myths go through variations and thus lead to a different story, but with the same general origins. I know this has probably been brought up to you before but it was a question I had and wanted your view on it.
I did have a chance to ask you, briefly, about your stance on creationism being taught in school science classes. You said no, which I found shocking given your general stance. If I am mistaken, and I did not make question clear, I apologize it was a rushed question after the event and during the book signing and did not want to impede the line of curious and admiring people to follow. However, if you are against creationism being taught in a science classroom how come so many that side with you on faith and policy, are so advantageous and die hard about getting it into modern text books to be taught along science? I mean there is an entire museum dedicated to the "science of creation." How come some theists believe one thing, and other theists (of the same religion) believe another when they both read the same book?
Not to mention the fact that the those of faith are so divided in their own actual beliefs. I cannot recount how many times I have quoted scripture (both new and old testament) to someone and they say that "my god, the god I worship and serve, would never do/ say such things." For example, after you debate last night, I was engaged in a conversation/ debate with a theist friend of mine (she identifies herself as Christian) and I mentioned a passage, which we both had to look up for accuracy and clarification, Luke 12 49-51. In this passage, Jesus says that he does not bring peace but division, just before this passage Jesus spoke of beating slaves who do not follow their masters so I do not believe we are reading this out of context, I do admit to paraphrasing but if figure you can just as easily look up the entire thing here. She immediately said "That is not the Jesus I learn from and not the son of the god I worship." It just seems like there are so many inconsistencies with which theists believe. They accept some contraindications and injustices but deny others in the very pages they deem the word of their god. So next I asked her flat out is this the word of god, she hasn't given me an answer yet.
As a theist this argument is moot for us, as theists are usually free thinking individuals. That in and of itself leads to a vast array of differences and opinion, which is completely encouraged and supported by other atheists. There are so few atheists that think exactly as I do, and with the ones who think different we have lively debates as is the nature of our core value as atheists.
Jack's Rantastic Blog
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Dinesh D'Souza Visits USF Preliminary Blog and points I want to make...
Christianity is a religion of translation, transition and migration from previous religions. Because of the Paulists and other Hellenistic add-ons, is more theoretical, with conditional joy, and strained, convoluted guilt and denial. Christianity has at its core a determined mindset to parse the humanity from us, most obviously in its suppression of sex, and notion of "Original Sin." By splitting God into three, and having a mutilated corpse as its central icon, Christianity becomes Anti-Messiah as a Messiah brings peace...not gore, Anti-Semetism. BY its nature, Christianity is a contradiction as the story of a Jesus goes all the way back to Attis (a Greek god from around 1700 BC), Mithra (Persian god 1200 BC) Kirshna (Indian God 900BD) and even the Iranian Prophet Zoroaster (630 BC), now with all these gods and prophets that that the biblical Jesus is based on how can there be no god but the Christian god?
A major theme of his book "WHAT’S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY" is that there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory between theism in general or Christianity in particular on the one hand, and modern science on the other. To say that there are no inconsistencies or contradictions between theism and science is to say there is no difference between a Diamond and a clump of Coal. In this case the coal being the dark, unstable structure that falters under fire and science being the diamond with structure and development that grows as it is put under pressure. The notion that the universe has a beginning is a young idea, and there are many more to say otherwise which are just as young and valid as the next. I personally think the big bang is the most accurate account of what may have happened, Stephen Hawking goes into how the event was inevitable given the law of gravity. Where a deity comes into play is when you ignore the evidence around you. To say that the laws of the universe are god’s law is like saying to a child that chocolate milk comes from brown cows. Just because we don’t know the whole scene yet does not mean that there is a man behind the curtain pulling strings.
Another point is that he Dinsesh D'Souza tries to rebut the idea that religion in general or Christianity in particular are responsible for the crimes of history. He claims that Atheist hide from the atrocities committed by atheists. Where are Atheists trying to hide? I, as well as many other Atheists, am perfectly willing to admit that it is a fact; human beings are capable of the more heinous acts and atrocities. Atheism is the absence of delusion that there must be a god. Political agenda and economic philosophy are not requisite to be atheist. Atheism gives no moral guidance, code amongst brethren or any sort of common dogma to follow. As the French Mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace once said when questions about the creator “I Have no need for that Hypothesis,” simply put we are perfectly capable of determining right from wrong, our own statures of moral and do not need dogma or common convention to lead us to enlightenment. To say that bad things happened because of atheism is analogous to bad things happen when people wear colored clothes. Atheists, just like theists, have done bad things. It is the reason for these bad things that comes to question. For example you mention in Chapter 19 of your book the Soviets. I am going to make an argument here that may sound cold and callous and disrespectful of the dead but, I assure it is not. From a propaganda point of view when waging war and being tyrannical, destroying the other forms of influence is a major tactic that leads to success. So in the shoes of those in charge, if a religion or group was against me, or if I felt they were a counter influence to my brand of intoxication of the mind then of course, I would be done with them. But this is not to be put at the heels of Atheism, as it is not an intent to spread atheism or rule by atheism (which itself would be a notion which I would argue against myself) as was the intent of historical atrocities made in the name of the Christian god in an effort to combat heresy, which is the historical intent of these callous acts.
The author also makes bold claims of an inferred scientific designer. I honestly can not help but become exhausted about this whole "science proves god." No, science does not show a design, a plan or an architect for either the universe or even more specific life. In an interview the author found it ironic that some believe in a multi-universe theory. he makes the leap from, saying the universe if "fine Tuned" for life. Where in any scientific publication does it ever say that the universe is prime tuned just for the purpose of life. I would say the universe if a very hostile place for life, and that although it is statistically plausible that life does in fact exist else where in the universe, please pay attention here, it does not mean that the universe is a nice fluffy cloud and life just happens to pop up around every corner. So infer that the universe, or life in the universe is plentiful and abundant is not only an insult to science, but also an insult to your own intelligence and understanding. Multiple universes is not a cop out to how life exists, in fact if has nothing to do with life, it is simply another theory to try to explain the observations and models that we have of the current universe.
The author also stipulates about the atheistic attributes of Marxism. I am the first to observe, Marx very much disregarded theism, deism, pantheism...pretty much if a god was at the center of the idea then Marx was against it. In a letter Marx wrote
“...the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogey man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people.” [Letter to Ruge, November 24, 1842]
He clearly is explaining that he insists that people be told the content of the thought rather than just the thought itself and rely that those perpetuating the idea had put their due diligence into logically deducing its correctness.
Marxism does express the conjecture that violence will ensue during any revolution, that it is inevitable. I would agree with that, I have yet to read of a true bloodless revolution. However, even though ti does allow for this realistic perpetration of violence, it does make it clear that the belief that the (or social classes that are against revolution against the norm will inevitably use violence against the organized workers' movement. As a realist can you find any historical inaccuracy with that statement. Marxism does not promote violence, but rather accepts that it is a realistic outcome of the revolutionary agenda. I am not saying I support the ideology, or the outcomes of that philosophy just submitting fact.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
At the Funeral...
Anyone who knows me in real life knows I have dated older woman, some of them have had children. One of my previous interests, who got very close for a period of time, had two children both with physical disabilities. I won't go into specifics save to say they were both bed ridden and replied on a nurse at home 24/7. She loves them both to death and they were and always will be a major part of her life.
Recently, her youngest passed away. I was called by a mutual friend and informed about the funeral. I went...these are my thoughts.
I haven't been to a viewing since my grandmother died when I was around 12 or so. I was never too close to her, and to me it just looked like an old woman's body. I didn't really care too much about her but was fascinated by the fact that a dead person was in front of me. Thursday was much different; I cared not only for the mother, but also for the little girl that smiled every time she squeezed my finger. She made laughing noises when I would say her name in funny voices. She was such a sweet heart.
There she lay, looking like a chubby cheeked doll in her dwarf sized coffin. She was so young, and small. The teddy bear someone had propped on the side of her body was almost the size of her. She looked beautiful, just like she was sleeping. Only now there were no hoses, air tubes, IV lines or pill bottles.
As I walked up to the coffin, her mother was crying. We aren't seeing each other and this was totally in appropriate timing I guess but she look so beautiful, I couldn't help but think wow, her child is dead, she is crying her eyes out but yet I cannot help but look at how gorgeous she is. I wiped a tear from her face after she gave me a loving hug.
I didn't quite know what to say other than I am sorry, I mean I am only 23 no kids, she is 38 now and just lost her first child. How could I really console her or comfort her. I felt sad, I felt as though the world has lost a sweet little girl, and her mother has lost her youngest child.
What could I say to anyone that lost someone they cared about? I left soon afterward, I felt ashamed that I could not be anything to anyone more than a young, stupid kid. This is the first time I have felt like that since I really was a young stupid kid.
I suddenly felt bad for almost everyone there. Most of them are religious in some way, and I couldn’t help but think “how could they be so delusional?” But of course this again is the wrong time. I felt bad that they were convinced she was in a “better place.” I hate that I hate these thoughts at all the wrong moments. I almost wish I wasn’t so logical, that way I would feel more comfortable around all the people saying “she is happy now running around in gods land.”
Recently, her youngest passed away. I was called by a mutual friend and informed about the funeral. I went...these are my thoughts.
I haven't been to a viewing since my grandmother died when I was around 12 or so. I was never too close to her, and to me it just looked like an old woman's body. I didn't really care too much about her but was fascinated by the fact that a dead person was in front of me. Thursday was much different; I cared not only for the mother, but also for the little girl that smiled every time she squeezed my finger. She made laughing noises when I would say her name in funny voices. She was such a sweet heart.
There she lay, looking like a chubby cheeked doll in her dwarf sized coffin. She was so young, and small. The teddy bear someone had propped on the side of her body was almost the size of her. She looked beautiful, just like she was sleeping. Only now there were no hoses, air tubes, IV lines or pill bottles.
As I walked up to the coffin, her mother was crying. We aren't seeing each other and this was totally in appropriate timing I guess but she look so beautiful, I couldn't help but think wow, her child is dead, she is crying her eyes out but yet I cannot help but look at how gorgeous she is. I wiped a tear from her face after she gave me a loving hug.
I didn't quite know what to say other than I am sorry, I mean I am only 23 no kids, she is 38 now and just lost her first child. How could I really console her or comfort her. I felt sad, I felt as though the world has lost a sweet little girl, and her mother has lost her youngest child.
What could I say to anyone that lost someone they cared about? I left soon afterward, I felt ashamed that I could not be anything to anyone more than a young, stupid kid. This is the first time I have felt like that since I really was a young stupid kid.
I suddenly felt bad for almost everyone there. Most of them are religious in some way, and I couldn’t help but think “how could they be so delusional?” But of course this again is the wrong time. I felt bad that they were convinced she was in a “better place.” I hate that I hate these thoughts at all the wrong moments. I almost wish I wasn’t so logical, that way I would feel more comfortable around all the people saying “she is happy now running around in gods land.”
The Bible Tells Me So.....
In my research about religious history and origins of belief, I stumbled across this article written by Scott Marley. Although I have included these very points in portions of my analysis of religion, primarily Christianity, this article sums everything up so well I could not help but post it. It is very short, very clear and even verifiable. The following is a column taken from the April 26, 1994 San Francisco Chronicle.
Scott Marley
--The `sin' that obsesses some Christians did not rate a mention by [Jesus] himself.
Why do Christian fundamentalists hate homosexuals? Because (so they tell us) they believe the Bible is infallibly true. And the Bible (so they tell us) condemns homosexuals.
I've heard that over and over again all my life: The Bible condemns homosexuals. And I accepted it without question -- until the last couple of years when I've started reading the Bible for myself. And I'm more than a little surprised at how little it actually says about homosexuals -- and how much it says about those who condemn them.
The Bible's alleged condemnation of homosexuals boils down pretty much to three passages: the story of Sodom, two verses from Leviticus, and the first chapter of Romans.
The Sodom story is Genesis 19. Some angels came to Sodom to visit Lot, and the men of Sodom gave the angels a hard time, so God destroyed the city. If you think the word "know" in verse five means "have carnal knowledge of" (which it occasionally does in the Bible, though not nearly as often as people seem to think), then maybe the men wanted to rape the angels, and I suppose that's a homosexual act of a sort.
But there are dozens of later references to Sodom, and not once is any kind of sexual behavior mentioned. In Ezekiel 16:48-49, God Himself even spells out the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality is not on His list. And the Bible is infallibly true.
Leviticus condemns homosexuality twice, in 18:22 and 20:13. It's part of the Mosaic law, a long list of foods and acts that were considered unclean, from eating shellfish to cursing your father. And one of the big themes of the New Testament, I've been discovering, is that Christians are not bound by Mosaic law. If the Bible is infallibly true, then Christians may use their own judgment in choosing whether to follow the Mosaic law, and should stop all this fretting about those who choose differently.
And there's the first chapter of Romans, where Paul describes people who worship idols instead of God, "wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness," and they turned to homosexuality and a long list of other wrongs running the gamut from murder and deceit to whispering. I've never heard any of these fundamentalists quote this passage all the way to its punch line: "Therefore art thou inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself." Paul isn't telling this story to condemn the homosexuals: He's condemning the people who condemn the homosexuals.
Read Romans all the way through and its hard to miss Paul's point: He's writing to a group of Jewish Christians who have been criticising gentile Christians for not keeping the Mosaic law, and Paul is telling them, politely but firmly, to knock it off. If the Bible is infallibly true, it's wrong to use Leviticus as a basis for condemning homosexuals.
Jesus wasn't faced with AIDS, of course, so we can't be sure what he would have said or done about it. But he did know another disease much like AIDS, both in its incurability and in the way that society shunned its victims. I've read the New Testament a couple of times through, and I just haven't come across the passage where Jesus goes to the funerals of lepers carrying a picket sign.
So it seems to me that a real fundamentalist would be preaching that it's wrong for a church to exclude people solely because they're gay, and it seems to me that a real fundamentalist would be following Jesus' example and trying to bring comfort to people with AIDS, and perhaps even working toward a cure. The more I get to know the Bible for myself, the less I think these so-called fundamentalists are any such thing. I think they're wolves in Lamb of God's clothing.
--Scott Marley is a writer and editor in the Bay Area.
Scott Marley
--The `sin' that obsesses some Christians did not rate a mention by [Jesus] himself.
Why do Christian fundamentalists hate homosexuals? Because (so they tell us) they believe the Bible is infallibly true. And the Bible (so they tell us) condemns homosexuals.
I've heard that over and over again all my life: The Bible condemns homosexuals. And I accepted it without question -- until the last couple of years when I've started reading the Bible for myself. And I'm more than a little surprised at how little it actually says about homosexuals -- and how much it says about those who condemn them.
The Bible's alleged condemnation of homosexuals boils down pretty much to three passages: the story of Sodom, two verses from Leviticus, and the first chapter of Romans.
The Sodom story is Genesis 19. Some angels came to Sodom to visit Lot, and the men of Sodom gave the angels a hard time, so God destroyed the city. If you think the word "know" in verse five means "have carnal knowledge of" (which it occasionally does in the Bible, though not nearly as often as people seem to think), then maybe the men wanted to rape the angels, and I suppose that's a homosexual act of a sort.
But there are dozens of later references to Sodom, and not once is any kind of sexual behavior mentioned. In Ezekiel 16:48-49, God Himself even spells out the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality is not on His list. And the Bible is infallibly true.
Leviticus condemns homosexuality twice, in 18:22 and 20:13. It's part of the Mosaic law, a long list of foods and acts that were considered unclean, from eating shellfish to cursing your father. And one of the big themes of the New Testament, I've been discovering, is that Christians are not bound by Mosaic law. If the Bible is infallibly true, then Christians may use their own judgment in choosing whether to follow the Mosaic law, and should stop all this fretting about those who choose differently.
And there's the first chapter of Romans, where Paul describes people who worship idols instead of God, "wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness," and they turned to homosexuality and a long list of other wrongs running the gamut from murder and deceit to whispering. I've never heard any of these fundamentalists quote this passage all the way to its punch line: "Therefore art thou inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself." Paul isn't telling this story to condemn the homosexuals: He's condemning the people who condemn the homosexuals.
Read Romans all the way through and its hard to miss Paul's point: He's writing to a group of Jewish Christians who have been criticising gentile Christians for not keeping the Mosaic law, and Paul is telling them, politely but firmly, to knock it off. If the Bible is infallibly true, it's wrong to use Leviticus as a basis for condemning homosexuals.
Jesus wasn't faced with AIDS, of course, so we can't be sure what he would have said or done about it. But he did know another disease much like AIDS, both in its incurability and in the way that society shunned its victims. I've read the New Testament a couple of times through, and I just haven't come across the passage where Jesus goes to the funerals of lepers carrying a picket sign.
So it seems to me that a real fundamentalist would be preaching that it's wrong for a church to exclude people solely because they're gay, and it seems to me that a real fundamentalist would be following Jesus' example and trying to bring comfort to people with AIDS, and perhaps even working toward a cure. The more I get to know the Bible for myself, the less I think these so-called fundamentalists are any such thing. I think they're wolves in Lamb of God's clothing.
--Scott Marley is a writer and editor in the Bay Area.
On facebook a family member said that liked the comment:
DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN.
I know this was meant as a joke. And I am the first to admit I made my fair share of jokes about quite a few presidents...from Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and the both of the Bush presidents. I hesitated sending this to you but I had a question...so I put it as a blog post to let out my feelings about this.
First, I am not a theist in the traditional sense. I have my own beliefs, and just like any other person on this planet I can not answer every question. All I can do is research and read and figure it out as I go. Some would call me an atheist; actually a lot of people, some theist and some not and then there were some that had no idea and admitted it lol. I have lost a few friends over my beliefs, I was even called immoral simply because I do not believe in the god of Abraham. This has happened more than once, and only once they have learned of my beliefs. Up until then one of my friends called me "one of the best people they know." Now, though, I am suddenly immoral because I am "atheist." this only reminds me of Matthew 22:36-40.
Second, this "joke" I think is wrong in so many ways. i was against it when they put Charlie Christs name in there, and I am against it for Obama, the damn joke is just tasteless and immoral. Even as a joke. I have made some crazy jokes, or puns or impersonations. I have done the "happy birthday Mr. president" joke too many times to count. I am pretty sure that i wore out the cigar and clinton joke. I made fun of the Bush name in more ways than I can remember. But I have never, and i will never, make a joke about the death of someone, even if I don't like them. I have always thought that even though I disagree with a lot of politicians that they deserve just as much respect as the next person. I don't like Bushs' policies for the msot part, but I think he was really trying to do good in his own way, the only way he knew how. I criticized his policy, but never said a joke close to saying I want him to die. Matthew 22:36-40
Third, they say that the bible teaches morals, a life philosophy that boasts helping others. I have read the bible, the qu' ran, the apocrypha, bhagavad-gita and a few other religious texts. I have seen some good and some questionable stories in each of them. The aim though, I think of any religion is to teach patience, respect, love, a sense of hope and the idea of being better than what you thought you could be. This "joke" spits in the face of all those many morals that religious people have, and that I apparently lack. You are saying that you want a man to die, whoever the joke was intended to Charlie or Barack. You realize these men have people, just like you and I that love them. Family that they care for just like you! And you are making a joke about them dying. how is that Christian of you. Matthew 22:36-40
Finally, suppose your younger cousin was the one running in the election. Now you may not agree with his politics, his religious beliefs or even his stance of life in general. How would you feel, as a christian, to have heard those words spoken like this:
DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PERSON IS JACK LEVY. AMEN.
...and then what if your children wrote that at school in pretty colors and brought it home for you to put on the refrigerator.
Like I said, I have read the bible (KJV). the first thing that comes to my mind when hearing this joke is: Matthew 22:36-40
36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
I personally do not believe in god, so I have failed at the first. granted...but when it comes to humanity, to my neighbor, I believe you have failed.
I have spoke my peace about this. I, as always, respect your beliefs, do not understand your politics possibly but will fight for your right to voice your opinion. But I now, if you really feel this way towards someone, I can not respect you as much as I had. I am sorry that you feel that Barack is not doing well for the country. I have one last thing to say...I don't think Obama wants to turn America into a socialist country...that being said your logo on the page was misleading and the quote even more so "socialism...because it worked so well for the USSR." the union up until the end of the cold war, in the early 90's don't know when exactly, was lead by pretty much one party, the Communist party of the Soviet union. it was founded and lead by Lennin. Communism is pretty screwed up I agree. the idea of socialization however, has been a part of America since the 1700s. Libraries, social security, public education...all these are socialist ideas. Just thought you ought to know.
DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN.
I know this was meant as a joke. And I am the first to admit I made my fair share of jokes about quite a few presidents...from Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and the both of the Bush presidents. I hesitated sending this to you but I had a question...so I put it as a blog post to let out my feelings about this.
First, I am not a theist in the traditional sense. I have my own beliefs, and just like any other person on this planet I can not answer every question. All I can do is research and read and figure it out as I go. Some would call me an atheist; actually a lot of people, some theist and some not and then there were some that had no idea and admitted it lol. I have lost a few friends over my beliefs, I was even called immoral simply because I do not believe in the god of Abraham. This has happened more than once, and only once they have learned of my beliefs. Up until then one of my friends called me "one of the best people they know." Now, though, I am suddenly immoral because I am "atheist." this only reminds me of Matthew 22:36-40.
Second, this "joke" I think is wrong in so many ways. i was against it when they put Charlie Christs name in there, and I am against it for Obama, the damn joke is just tasteless and immoral. Even as a joke. I have made some crazy jokes, or puns or impersonations. I have done the "happy birthday Mr. president" joke too many times to count. I am pretty sure that i wore out the cigar and clinton joke. I made fun of the Bush name in more ways than I can remember. But I have never, and i will never, make a joke about the death of someone, even if I don't like them. I have always thought that even though I disagree with a lot of politicians that they deserve just as much respect as the next person. I don't like Bushs' policies for the msot part, but I think he was really trying to do good in his own way, the only way he knew how. I criticized his policy, but never said a joke close to saying I want him to die. Matthew 22:36-40
Third, they say that the bible teaches morals, a life philosophy that boasts helping others. I have read the bible, the qu' ran, the apocrypha, bhagavad-gita and a few other religious texts. I have seen some good and some questionable stories in each of them. The aim though, I think of any religion is to teach patience, respect, love, a sense of hope and the idea of being better than what you thought you could be. This "joke" spits in the face of all those many morals that religious people have, and that I apparently lack. You are saying that you want a man to die, whoever the joke was intended to Charlie or Barack. You realize these men have people, just like you and I that love them. Family that they care for just like you! And you are making a joke about them dying. how is that Christian of you. Matthew 22:36-40
Finally, suppose your younger cousin was the one running in the election. Now you may not agree with his politics, his religious beliefs or even his stance of life in general. How would you feel, as a christian, to have heard those words spoken like this:
DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PERSON IS JACK LEVY. AMEN.
...and then what if your children wrote that at school in pretty colors and brought it home for you to put on the refrigerator.
Like I said, I have read the bible (KJV). the first thing that comes to my mind when hearing this joke is: Matthew 22:36-40
36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
I personally do not believe in god, so I have failed at the first. granted...but when it comes to humanity, to my neighbor, I believe you have failed.
I have spoke my peace about this. I, as always, respect your beliefs, do not understand your politics possibly but will fight for your right to voice your opinion. But I now, if you really feel this way towards someone, I can not respect you as much as I had. I am sorry that you feel that Barack is not doing well for the country. I have one last thing to say...I don't think Obama wants to turn America into a socialist country...that being said your logo on the page was misleading and the quote even more so "socialism...because it worked so well for the USSR." the union up until the end of the cold war, in the early 90's don't know when exactly, was lead by pretty much one party, the Communist party of the Soviet union. it was founded and lead by Lennin. Communism is pretty screwed up I agree. the idea of socialization however, has been a part of America since the 1700s. Libraries, social security, public education...all these are socialist ideas. Just thought you ought to know.
WTF! How come...
how come when people talk to me, they usually think I am reasonably intelligent. SOme people even ask me for advice of look to me for some sort of logical deduction of the situation that might help them see things clearer. But, when it comes to things like LGBT issues, or religions and major issues in our society they instantly say that i "just don't understand?" How can I understand physics, philosophy, Shakespeare, computers...or be so up to date on politics and understand whats is happening in the government...but I just can't understand why you choose to think the way you do? When I ask questions you have no answers to, like why not allow for gay marriage or adoption rights, do you instantly think that I am just lost and have sort of mental block? I ask you, besides religious reason why not allow for LGBT marriage and adoption of our countries lost children? Why not keep state and church separated as much as possible? Why is it that a woman can not have the right to choose what medical procedures she wants to endure and suffer through? How are people pro-life but all for capital punishment and war profiteering? There is corruption everywhere, the church, the school system, the government even in small businesses...why not work to improve the situation rather than continue on the separatist path? What is wrong with progress, or moving towards a new idea that may (or may not) promote better life styles for everyone? Not every idea is worth pursuing, but all of them are worth looking at through the eyes of bettering quality lives? I may be idealistic, I may be young and stupid at times and I may even be a bit hard headed at times but I can not even come close to figuring out why conservative ideas and old ways of thought are still prevalent in a modern society of computers, science, medicine and varying theologies. Ok I am done lol!
This has been a PRA (Public Rant Announcement) by your local cynic. We will now return you to normal broadcasting stations and let you become brainwashed.
This has been a PRA (Public Rant Announcement) by your local cynic. We will now return you to normal broadcasting stations and let you become brainwashed.
The modern telegram is a text message...
Google it (v): etymology: from the word Googol (coined by Edward Kasner) meaning the digit 1 followed by one hundred zeros in decimal representation. Definition: to pose the internet a query with an expectation to have been presented hundreds of choices for an answer.
Modern technology is the way we make a community out of over populated towns and cities. We use modern methods of conveying information at speeds never before seen and unpredicted by the greatest mind of the past. As we look at our modern life we soon see that Facebook becomes our news source, Twitter our headlines and Myspace a market place tabloid. We use the intellectual collective as our readers’ digest of the modern era. Technology has given the masses outlets for creativity and opened the doors to exploration beyond our earthly confines and human frailties. If you could traverse the wealth of knowledge pouring out of a city blocks cable/DSL lines, you would have gone from the moon and back more times than your heart beats in a day. Picture for a moment the multitudes perusing the framework of your mind, the allegory would elude anyone not outside of themselves; and yet we have created this very vision. Networks of processing centers conveying data and relaying information have designed the earth as the neural center for your digital body. Newspapers, morning news reports and “water cooler talk” are a nostalgic dream for the generation of digital consumers. We live a reality where a sense of self has become represented with an avatar and emoticons. Virtual arms reach for communal kinship, “reply to all” is our bulletin board and visiting family includes using Skype. Discipline is being kicked from a server, rejection is ignoring a friend request and narcissism is wondering if your friends ignore your status update. This is the world we live in, Google it!
Modern technology is the way we make a community out of over populated towns and cities. We use modern methods of conveying information at speeds never before seen and unpredicted by the greatest mind of the past. As we look at our modern life we soon see that Facebook becomes our news source, Twitter our headlines and Myspace a market place tabloid. We use the intellectual collective as our readers’ digest of the modern era. Technology has given the masses outlets for creativity and opened the doors to exploration beyond our earthly confines and human frailties. If you could traverse the wealth of knowledge pouring out of a city blocks cable/DSL lines, you would have gone from the moon and back more times than your heart beats in a day. Picture for a moment the multitudes perusing the framework of your mind, the allegory would elude anyone not outside of themselves; and yet we have created this very vision. Networks of processing centers conveying data and relaying information have designed the earth as the neural center for your digital body. Newspapers, morning news reports and “water cooler talk” are a nostalgic dream for the generation of digital consumers. We live a reality where a sense of self has become represented with an avatar and emoticons. Virtual arms reach for communal kinship, “reply to all” is our bulletin board and visiting family includes using Skype. Discipline is being kicked from a server, rejection is ignoring a friend request and narcissism is wondering if your friends ignore your status update. This is the world we live in, Google it!
Why I can't be president of the United States of America..
I was thinking about this the past few days, what would prevent me from being voted into office by the majority of Americans. I could probably get into some other office, like mayor or maybe governor. I might even be (once I get qualifications in line) nominated to be on the cabinet. But this is a short list of what would prevent me from getting elected to Presidency (or nominated VP for that matter) or stop me from getting into congress.
1. Religion: I am an atheist. the religious activists will complain that i will not have any regard for life and spirituality and will attempt to rid our country of religious freedoms. On the contrary, I would be imposing religious freedoms by clearly separating church and state. I will have a strong regard for life because I believe when you are dead there is no more, no happy place after. That would make me think twice about sending brothers, sisters mothers and fathers into war because I would be under the influence that I am taking my own countries life, and they aren't going to a better place for their efforts, so I would think long and hard before making a decision to send them to the end of the road. I would also hold freedom of expression above all else.
2. Not liberal or conservative: I have conservative views on fiscal responsibility, but and too liberal on social agendas. I am progressive, I want to move forward and try new things and give new ideas a shot. People don't like change, they find it hard to cope with and like things to stay the same so they know how to work things out. I hate when a government become stagnant and opposed to progress.
3. i am not a wealthy man, and I don't really want to be. That limits my start up funds for a campaign. not to mention the personal expense after elected which requires moving, new furnishings, new bills ect... the fact that i don't have money will make me seem like I am not in the upper echelon as far as intelligence and that will be seen as a weakness.
on going....
1. Religion: I am an atheist. the religious activists will complain that i will not have any regard for life and spirituality and will attempt to rid our country of religious freedoms. On the contrary, I would be imposing religious freedoms by clearly separating church and state. I will have a strong regard for life because I believe when you are dead there is no more, no happy place after. That would make me think twice about sending brothers, sisters mothers and fathers into war because I would be under the influence that I am taking my own countries life, and they aren't going to a better place for their efforts, so I would think long and hard before making a decision to send them to the end of the road. I would also hold freedom of expression above all else.
2. Not liberal or conservative: I have conservative views on fiscal responsibility, but and too liberal on social agendas. I am progressive, I want to move forward and try new things and give new ideas a shot. People don't like change, they find it hard to cope with and like things to stay the same so they know how to work things out. I hate when a government become stagnant and opposed to progress.
3. i am not a wealthy man, and I don't really want to be. That limits my start up funds for a campaign. not to mention the personal expense after elected which requires moving, new furnishings, new bills ect... the fact that i don't have money will make me seem like I am not in the upper echelon as far as intelligence and that will be seen as a weakness.
on going....
A poem and a thought with a side of athiesm
Dante Gabriel Rossetti wrote one of my favorite poems ever. This puts them right up there with people that I would have liked to have met one and thank for their creativeness. The poem is below if anyone is interested:
I HAVE been here before,
But when or how I cannot tell:
I know the grass beyond the door,
The sweet keen smell,
The sighing sound, the lights around the shore. 5
You have been mine before,—
How long ago I may not know:
But just when at that swallow’s soar
Your neck turn’d so,
Some veil did fall,—I knew it all of yore. 10
Has this been thus before?
And shall not thus time’s eddying flight
Still with our lives our love restore
In death’s despite,
And day and night yield one delight once more? 15
Thanks to Google, I was given a quote by the author of this poem.
"The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank."
First I love that poem, it has been a favorite of mine for years. The quote is what I want to address. When I am thankful for something usually there is someone to thank directly. But once in a while what seems like a miracle or the byproducts of lucky timing, great things might happen and there is no one directly to thank. Like when, for example, you are the last person to get sold out tickets for your fave bands concert. Of course you could thank the person who physically gave you the ticket, or the manager of that person for hiring them to give you the ticket. But that really does seem a bit ridiculous, I mean they really didn't have much to do with you being the last one for the sold out concert. Of course out of courtesy, definitely thank the person giving you the ticket physically, its just a common courtesy! But who should i thank?
A theist would thank g-d, even if that theist were going to an Eminem concert, or even worse Black Sabbath or the like. but as an atheist who should I thank for giving me the last possible ticket out there. Personally, I look at the ticket, look at the name of the performer and thank them for coming to my city because I like you enough to spend money to come and see you in person. But who/ what do other atheists thank? Probably the most logical person to thank is yourself. i mean you got up, got dressed and got to work on time 5 days out of the week, you saved for the ticket, you drove there and you are the one that will always have that memory. What exactly did g-d do for you in this case? if you say that he/ she was the one that got you there just in time to grab the last ticket, well then is he to blame if your are the person right behind the person who got that last ticket? While that person is thanking g-d, are you to be blaming him for not getting you ahead of that person? No, of course not, you blame yourself for procrastinating and waiting until you knew you would be towards the back end of the line to get the tickets!
This is not to sound egotistical, but it is simply to state, thank yourself for the things you accomplish. Especially if you do them all on your own. Why give credit to an invisible man in the sky if you are the one who really put the time, work and effort into getting it accomplished. Be proud of what you did, and be especially proud if you did it all by yourself!
I HAVE been here before,
But when or how I cannot tell:
I know the grass beyond the door,
The sweet keen smell,
The sighing sound, the lights around the shore. 5
You have been mine before,—
How long ago I may not know:
But just when at that swallow’s soar
Your neck turn’d so,
Some veil did fall,—I knew it all of yore. 10
Has this been thus before?
And shall not thus time’s eddying flight
Still with our lives our love restore
In death’s despite,
And day and night yield one delight once more? 15
Thanks to Google, I was given a quote by the author of this poem.
"The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank."
First I love that poem, it has been a favorite of mine for years. The quote is what I want to address. When I am thankful for something usually there is someone to thank directly. But once in a while what seems like a miracle or the byproducts of lucky timing, great things might happen and there is no one directly to thank. Like when, for example, you are the last person to get sold out tickets for your fave bands concert. Of course you could thank the person who physically gave you the ticket, or the manager of that person for hiring them to give you the ticket. But that really does seem a bit ridiculous, I mean they really didn't have much to do with you being the last one for the sold out concert. Of course out of courtesy, definitely thank the person giving you the ticket physically, its just a common courtesy! But who should i thank?
A theist would thank g-d, even if that theist were going to an Eminem concert, or even worse Black Sabbath or the like. but as an atheist who should I thank for giving me the last possible ticket out there. Personally, I look at the ticket, look at the name of the performer and thank them for coming to my city because I like you enough to spend money to come and see you in person. But who/ what do other atheists thank? Probably the most logical person to thank is yourself. i mean you got up, got dressed and got to work on time 5 days out of the week, you saved for the ticket, you drove there and you are the one that will always have that memory. What exactly did g-d do for you in this case? if you say that he/ she was the one that got you there just in time to grab the last ticket, well then is he to blame if your are the person right behind the person who got that last ticket? While that person is thanking g-d, are you to be blaming him for not getting you ahead of that person? No, of course not, you blame yourself for procrastinating and waiting until you knew you would be towards the back end of the line to get the tickets!
This is not to sound egotistical, but it is simply to state, thank yourself for the things you accomplish. Especially if you do them all on your own. Why give credit to an invisible man in the sky if you are the one who really put the time, work and effort into getting it accomplished. Be proud of what you did, and be especially proud if you did it all by yourself!
as an athiest...and the loss of friendships with theists
Over the past few years I have noticed a strong decline in the number of theist friends I have. I am a pretty go judge of character and with that being said, I am surprised at the character of some of the people who are on the other side of the fence. I can understand why I am not friends with people of different political views; conservatives really don't get really like me because I am too liberal and apparently "just don't understand." but given that I have lost contact with many religious people after I got the nerve to stand up for my own beliefs.
It seems like once I tell people that I don't believe in g-d, I first get this micro expression of disgust, followed by the expression of confusion (since I am not a bad/evil person, druggie or some kind of Satan worshiper) and lastly they always feel they need to pray for me so that i eventually "see the light and follow the path of the lord." Then the next thing that happens is they offer me the bible and tell me to read it and see if I change my mind. I have been studying various religions for at least 7 years now. Before that I admit I was not well versed in much more than my own ideas, then I learned what is the real worth of my thoughts without learning what others had to say. It was almost like I was blowing off other opinions and theories without ever hearing them...I did change my ways on that.
I started researching starting with the KJV of the Holy Bible, since other than my encyclopedias that was my only form of reference I had regarding religion. I read that in the 10 grade or so. I analyzed it down to the last mystery, to the very sentence and interpreted it myself. I was still quite regarding my faith, sometimes shying away from the discussion leaving it as "to each their own."
Then began studying other religious Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism and other forms of mythos ranging from Egyptian to Mayan...I even read about the flying spaghetti monster lol. I began to gain confidence in my knowledge, and further synthesizing what I would come to hold as the center of my always evolving theories and beliefs. I started voicing my opinion when asked both publicly and in private discussion.
Slowly, I noticed how my friendship pool became more and more theologically anorexic. I even asked a few of my christian friends flat out, what happened? A simple answer was that I had become too questioning of their beliefs of that I was too argumentative. I make it a point never to say anything unless directly asked or if brought up in general discussion. I do not, "preach" on a corner, hand out fliers, knock on doors or even run up to strangers insulting they beliefs. Yet my former friends were saying that I was too much for them and had lost desire to be my friend. A simple point I would like to make here is, how come my christian friends couldn't be more Christ-like instead of the, now realized, typical exclusionary Christian. Christ accepted those who were different, he sat and talked to those who wanted to speak with him and my have had questions or differing opinions, he was a man that by historical context was accepting and noble. I even had a discussion with a man preaching at a school once. When I asked questions that he couldn't answer he said I was just trying to argue, when I said something doesn't make sense (like how Lot gave his two daughters to be raped which just seemed wrong I mean the angels were freaking angels they had the almighty helping and protecting and if G-d can protect Cain long enough to build a city then he can protect his angels from a mob). The man just got mad with me.
I just find it so discouraging that most theists have a hard time accepting someone that doesn't believe like they do. Like I am some kind of a Leper and if they get too close they will be infected with my atheism. Be accepting. patient and understanding. Most of all, listen to other opinions..I certainly have, and before you judge me as a sinner and condemn me to your variation of hell I would ask you to listen to mine and the thousands of others who aren't saying exactly what you are...whether I agree with all of them too, is another story but I will always listen and try to understand but will always be questioning...as should you.
It seems like once I tell people that I don't believe in g-d, I first get this micro expression of disgust, followed by the expression of confusion (since I am not a bad/evil person, druggie or some kind of Satan worshiper) and lastly they always feel they need to pray for me so that i eventually "see the light and follow the path of the lord." Then the next thing that happens is they offer me the bible and tell me to read it and see if I change my mind. I have been studying various religions for at least 7 years now. Before that I admit I was not well versed in much more than my own ideas, then I learned what is the real worth of my thoughts without learning what others had to say. It was almost like I was blowing off other opinions and theories without ever hearing them...I did change my ways on that.
I started researching starting with the KJV of the Holy Bible, since other than my encyclopedias that was my only form of reference I had regarding religion. I read that in the 10 grade or so. I analyzed it down to the last mystery, to the very sentence and interpreted it myself. I was still quite regarding my faith, sometimes shying away from the discussion leaving it as "to each their own."
Then began studying other religious Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism and other forms of mythos ranging from Egyptian to Mayan...I even read about the flying spaghetti monster lol. I began to gain confidence in my knowledge, and further synthesizing what I would come to hold as the center of my always evolving theories and beliefs. I started voicing my opinion when asked both publicly and in private discussion.
Slowly, I noticed how my friendship pool became more and more theologically anorexic. I even asked a few of my christian friends flat out, what happened? A simple answer was that I had become too questioning of their beliefs of that I was too argumentative. I make it a point never to say anything unless directly asked or if brought up in general discussion. I do not, "preach" on a corner, hand out fliers, knock on doors or even run up to strangers insulting they beliefs. Yet my former friends were saying that I was too much for them and had lost desire to be my friend. A simple point I would like to make here is, how come my christian friends couldn't be more Christ-like instead of the, now realized, typical exclusionary Christian. Christ accepted those who were different, he sat and talked to those who wanted to speak with him and my have had questions or differing opinions, he was a man that by historical context was accepting and noble. I even had a discussion with a man preaching at a school once. When I asked questions that he couldn't answer he said I was just trying to argue, when I said something doesn't make sense (like how Lot gave his two daughters to be raped which just seemed wrong I mean the angels were freaking angels they had the almighty helping and protecting and if G-d can protect Cain long enough to build a city then he can protect his angels from a mob). The man just got mad with me.
I just find it so discouraging that most theists have a hard time accepting someone that doesn't believe like they do. Like I am some kind of a Leper and if they get too close they will be infected with my atheism. Be accepting. patient and understanding. Most of all, listen to other opinions..I certainly have, and before you judge me as a sinner and condemn me to your variation of hell I would ask you to listen to mine and the thousands of others who aren't saying exactly what you are...whether I agree with all of them too, is another story but I will always listen and try to understand but will always be questioning...as should you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)