that hideous strength

move...

2008-03-24T01:04:00.003-04:00

I have moved my blog to my own domain. You may go there now...

Things that are True*

stevencavins.com/blog

2007-11-14T18:42:00.001-05:00

in rainbows

2007-10-10T21:30:00.000-04:00

Enjoying my free and completely legal download of Radiohead's new LP.

2007-09-25T13:04:00.000-04:00

who is watching who

2007-09-23T20:23:00.000-04:00

I got plenty of flack for my admiration for Eli Roth's "Hostel", which was probably a good thing--but nonetheless, I couldn't help but think that the criticism was more about not wanting to like a film like that, than being surprised that you might like a film like that.

Sex and violence--probably the two most cinematic events in film. They translate very well on film, practically jumping off the screen. Sex is almost always voyeuristic on screen, which is part of the thrill. It seems only natural that violence could lend so well in this regard, notably in Hostel, and most certainly criticized in Michael Haneke's "Funny Games," a film that through its violence reminds us of our voyeurism throughout--which could be much like being caught with pornography. It's not bad until you get caught with it.

Rob Zombie's "Halloween," which I did not see, had great success that reminded us that the public really likes dead teenagers...the prettier, the better. I suppose it's a sadistic geek fantasy that everyone finds so endearing. It's only when we admit it that it becomes a problem.

Explicit Content

2007-09-10T21:20:00.000-04:00

My television binge has led me to HBO's new show, "Tell Me You Love Me," a melodrama about couples with various couple issues--primarily sex, in this case. From the first episode, I can say I find it rather compelling, to say nothing of its controversial nature that even made a Drudge Report headline some months ago.

What spurred it, of course, was its willingness to show the male genitalia, the organ which is so often missing from television and film, and what will at once nominate you for a safe NC-17 rating. For once, a television show balances the sexes and revels in the fact that it takes two to tango. It also seems so obvious now that our concepts of decency is incredibly sexist--that the total display of the female body is somehow less erogenous or profane than the naked male body.

I recommend the documentary film, "This Film is Not Yet Rated" if you'd like to see not only how nonsensical the MPAA really is, but how dangerous it is to the very art of cinema. One scene claims that a rater on the MPAA board seems to believe that their censorship "made the film better," instead of simply just censoring it.

You might also find "Inside Deep Throat" a fascinating film about the first lucrative film that made pornography mainstream, and created a straw man for the religious right for years to come.

NC-17 seems to brand films as sinful, and therefore many studios will not release a film that earns this rating, despite the inherit quality of the film. One recent notable exception is Ang Lee's "Lust, Caution" which has the NC-17 rating, and is winning awards just the same. This is a great first step towards free artistic expression.

I modestly propose a choice: that I might be able to choose between the NC-17 cut, or the R rating. If only theatres had the imagination to offer this choice. The public already prefers their DVDs in unrated forms over MPAA cut fests, so why not offer the same choice in theatrical release? There's plenty of reasons why they won't, and almost all of them involve the mighty dollars of the soft drink industry.

Obscenity is relative; every day you witness content that, if filmed, would be considered profane. Showering for one, sex another. If we do not consider our daily rituals obscene, then why should we in an artistic context?

Maybe it's time we treated each other like adults.

2007-08-20T18:26:00.000-04:00

netflix

2007-08-18T14:47:00.000-04:00

i just noticed that netflix has a shipping location in toledo now, which explains why my dvds were coming in so fast... cool.

nice day for an exorcism.

2007-08-18T11:52:00.000-04:00

"I would say that it was vulgar and shocking, but I don't know if I would actually call it 'scary'. I wonder if it's been built up so much as being so horrifying that nothing could live up to that hype?"

This is a common criticism of "The Exorcist" that I hear a lot, and a truly acceptable one. There was certainly a time when "The Wolf Man" could scare the pants off of anyone back in 1941. Watch it now, and you're asking yourself why a wolf man's only weapon of attack seems to be pushing people over.

When I was very young, I remember when my parents took me to see "The Never Ending Story" at the drive-in. I remember spending most of the time on the floor under the glove box, terrified to look at the screen. It was the giant turtle in the swamp, who referred to itself in the royal sense, having isolated itself for thousands of years, to merely proclaim to one lone visitor, "We don't even care whether or not we care."

I suppose when I was young, a giant turtle in itself might have been quite frightening. But I suppose these days, any fear I have to spare for it would be more or less a cerebral one.

That is more or less my feelings of "The Exorcist," a film I saw in a theatre-setting but once, a few years ago. Much to my surprise, most of the audience was laughing through it. Go a few decades back, and the experience would have been quite different.

"The Exorcist" derives its scare-tactics not from what's actually on screen, but from how you process what you see. The film, itself, never shows its cards as to whether what's happening is really supernatural or not. So what we have then, is simply a story of good and evil. It matters not whether you subscribe such ethical assertions from religion or simply humanistic philosophy.

We read of, hear of, and occasionally see real evil in our world, and we can come to grips with it in our own way. But there seems to be a strong consensus that the evil should be left among the adults, and never subjected towards children. News television always runs stories on "protecting our children from x, y, or z", and we have a general sense of dismay when innocence is subjected to evil, as opposed to a comprehensive adult.

So when evil occurs upon a child, almost randomly, and causes the child to become a vile, unspeakable creature, it not only shakes our notion of a social blasphemy, but causes a ripple effect amongst the rest of the characters and their own notions of good, evil, life and death. The mother, an unbeliever, seeks to protect her child. A priest, battling with his loss of faith in the face of imminent death (his mother), seeks to regain his faith, and becomes a martyr.

Even more importantly, the themes of religion and technology come to light. We see a tortured girl surrounded by metal machines performing x-rays and cat scans. When the mother asks for an exorcism, the priest simply replies, "You'd have to take a time machine back to the middle ages." Science has come to show what once appears as demonic possession can be explained through mental health. Most, believers or not, would not automatically presume insanity to be the result of a demonic host, in the face of enlightenment and technological advancement.

If you've watched a family member deteriorate to Alzheimer's Disease as I have, you probably can relate to experiencing what once was considered to be demonic possession. But science is continually chipping away at it, and it may be a thing of the past in time.

But demons exist in religions. The New Testament tells of Lazarus, possessed by a demon which is cast out and embedded among pigs who jump to their death (not a good deal for the pigs.) Islamic religion tells of Djinns, demons from the desert who perform evil at their whim. Satan, himself, a central character for Christianity, though our understanding of Satan derives more from culture than from the Holy Scriptures themselves. A believer must constantly translate and subscribe good and evil towards themselves, or god, or from Satan, certainly a mental activity I would never wish upon anyone.

How we answer the questions posed by "The Exorcist" is where the true terror comes from. Is evil an idea, or a material object? What it the meaning of life, and death? Am I subjected to celestial discretion, whether for good, or for evil? And if I believe in god, who is the creator of all things, I must believe that evil is created and willingly volunteered upon us by him. Where can I draw the line, then, between god and satan?

If I am a non-believer, I must face my own death. I must also face the fact that the universe doesn't care what I eat, or drink, who I sleep with or what I do in my spare time. If there is any evil in the world, it is from humanity, and not a horned beast underground. But if there is good, it is also from us, and our own minds must create the distinction between the two.

Whether you're a believer or not, you have to answer those questions, and live accordingly, in the face of a world that seems to do as it pleases anyway: war, famine, murder, and terror. And we must deal with the consequences.

Lorem Ipsum

2007-08-14T01:55:00.000-04:00

But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?

On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.

2007-08-03T00:05:00.000-04:00

i've argued that religion does not enhance the user-experience of life, but merely pollute it with nonsensical gibberish that has no supporting evidence--and they've had, according to them, some 6,000 years to come up with some. on the other hand, the scientific method in comparison has brought us mounds of evidence that has brought us great progress, but no light has yet been shed on immaculate conceptions.

but can you separate science from religion? is science, as some has commented, merely a tool of humanity, while spirituality another? not bloody likely. everything is science. if you can consider it, question it, examine it, it is worthy of scientific study.

the most common, and least practical, theological argument for god goes something like this: "god is beyond science, and therefore cannot be tested by it. since there is an effect (matter) there must be a cause, which cannot be matter, and therefore, only god can fill that role."

of course, with this logic, you can believe anything you want. and it doesn't answer for the type of god: a deism view, or that of a personal god, or that of a trinity, perhaps a god that really likes ice cream. that leap is made by means of our historical and geographical placement in social history.

there are currently dozens of popular perspectives on what god is, and guess what--they're not compatible. so either one perspective is correct, or none of them are.

in light of these great odds and great enlightenment through science and reason, what types of compelling evidence do believers have to offer when it comes to their affirmations?

"well, i believe...[sic]"

can reason stand a chance in the face of belief?

in my own experience, believers and non-believers pan out at about 50/50. i could dissect each side and probably find that about 25/50 believers are probably bullshitting themselves and everyone else. the other 25 probably don't think much about it--it's more or less cultural convenience than dogma in such cases.

i still wait for some compelling evidence, but i won't hold my breath. and so i am.

Obama Rama

2007-07-30T23:31:00.000-04:00

this story popped up on "the raw story"

"Obama defends his stance on Christian right 'hijacking faith'"

Highlights:

"When you have pastors and television pundits who appear to explicitly coordinate with one political party; when you're implying that your fellow Americans are traitors, terrorist sympathizers or akin to the devil himself; then I think you're attempting to hijack the faith of those who follow you for your own personal or political ends," the freshman Illinois Senator said at The Brody File.

"[S]omewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together...Faith started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hijacked," the New York Times reported.

He went on, "Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers."

i would at least concede that obama is reaching out to a demographic of unbelievers in a way that was previously demonized by previous presidencies. the political nature of religion is nothing new; there are literally hundreds of books on bush's political use of christianity that you can pick up.

faith, again, that magic word--it always comes up, nonetheless, as something to be applauded--a virtuous, spiritual act. just what is so special about having faith, and in what other context would it be applauded to blindly accept something to which has no evidence?

obama's convenient conversion to christianity from a secular background seems a little phoney...and i'd speculate it's all for show, but nonetheless we don't need another decade of blind faith.

Pope defends Evolution; What else is new...

2007-07-26T21:38:00.000-04:00

Full Article

Some highlights...

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”

Though not necessarily a revelation for some religious figureheads to proclaim so-called respect towards evolution, it is not such a impressive concession considering that the religious probably know as much about their own faiths as they do about real science.

You can't have it both ways.

It is one thing to say that science does not answer our origins. It possibly cannot. But still, to just glaze over it and say, "well, it must be God," is such an incredible gap of logic that science simply is not prepared to make, and thus, earning my respect.

Of course, no practicing theologists will be able to explain where god comes from, thus making their "origins" point mute. This is to say nothing of the incredible intricacies of religious belief and the church itself, the sheer egoism of believing in the correct deity and knowing what that deity wants and doesn't want.

It is a silly admission, in the end, because the religious will never give science the credit it deserves, or really seem to provide signs of a real understanding of how science utterly demolishes theism over and over again. Their faith is a comfort blanket that they cannot rid of, no matter how unnecessary.

(And may I speculate that the real reason for all this talk of fusing religion with science is merely a conversion strategy for the more reason-minded individuals.)

2007-07-23T19:39:00.001-04:00

Circumcision is Mutilation.

2007-07-19T22:59:00.000-04:00

A post title you probably weren't expecting, but nonetheless, onward with conscience-raising! A question I pose to others when I'm feeling saucy, particularly those yet childless, is the following: Will you circumcise your children?

It's almost as off-putting as asking someone if you are a registered organ donor. There probably is not a single good reason why wouldn't donate organs, and yet, some won't do it. I've heard rather interesting explanations for this, none that made a lick of sense, and most involve some sort of zombie after-life I cannot comprehend.

And so it goes for circumcision, which is, in effect, legalized, involuntary mutilation which provides not a speck of scientific or otherwise social relevance. It's not something we talk about in casual conversation, and yet the vast majority of us American males have had the privilege of entering this world of ours to a steel blade, to have a piece of our otherwise "perfectly" designed body removed--for what reasoning?

The science is in: there is no justifiable health benefit. Simply google "Doctors Against Circumcision" and read away if you aren't convinced. I won't comment further on this point, other than say that the "inconveniences" of a foreskin, as some claim, are no more off-putting than the need to wash your underarm. And it's certainly true that we might avoid a lot of maintenance if we simply removed the hair from our bodies. Fortunately for us, our hair can grow back if we've had enough.

What other reason, perhaps? It may come as a surprise that a good deal of our sacred texts (Galatians, etc.) are devoted to the principle and execution of circumcision in accordance with our celestial dictator who would like nothing more than to create your foreskin, and then symbolically (and physically) command it removed in order to create a psychological state of submission and perverted perspective of sexuality. I can't say this is something that might be useful to a god who considered your body his creation and wanted his creation to be fruitful. It might, however, be very useful to the men who really made it up. (...but why these men, and some Jews today, wish to take their newly circumcised sons into their mouth, I will never have a good answer.)

And some, including the great faith of Islam, have pondered, why leave the fun for just men? Let's just slice off all of the female genitalia we can get to, tie it up with string and call it a day.

Perhaps George Carlin is correct in saying that "symbols" are for the "simple" minded. But a circumcised penis is in fact, a symbol. But not for great scientific advancements or social enlightenment. It is, in fact, a physical casualty of the total ignorance of a culture riddled with obscene faith-based philosophy.

2007-07-10T00:44:00.000-04:00

Ape Aid: Chimps share altruistic capacity with people

Bruce Bower
Science News
Week of June 30, 2007; Vol. 171, No. 26

Many researchers have asserted that only people will assist strangers without receiving anything in return, sometimes at great personal cost. However, a new study suggests that chimpanzees also belong to the Good Samaritan club, as do children as young as 18 months of age.

Without any prospect of immediate benefit, chimps helped both people and other chimps that they didn't know, and the 18-month-olds spontaneously assisted adults they'd never seen before, say psychologist Felix Warneken of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and his colleagues.

The roots of human altruism reach back roughly 6 million years to a common ancestor of people and chimps, the researchers propose in the July PLoS Biology.

"Learning and experience are involved in altruistic helping, but our claim is that there is a predisposition [in chimps and people] to develop such behavior without explicit training," Warneken says.

His team conducted three experiments with adult chimps living on an island sanctuary in Uganda and two experiments with 18-month-old German children. In the chimp version of the first experiment, 36 animals watched one at a time from a barred enclosure as an experimenter in an adjacent room—who had had virtually no prior contacts with the animals—reached through the bars for a stick on the other side. The stick was within reach of only the observing chimp.

Most chimps snatched the stick and gave it to the experimenter, whether or not the experimenter offered a piece of banana as a reward. No assistance came if the experimenter didn't first reach in vain for the stick.

A similar trial with 36 youngsters yielded comparable altruistic behavior, regardless of whether the experimenter offered toys as a reward.

The second round of experiments included 18 chimps and 22 infants who had helped at least once in the first experiment.

The chimps still retrieved a stick for an experimenter, although they now had to climb a 2.5-meter-high platform to reach the item. The children navigated barriers and hurdles to get a pencil for an experimenter. No reward was offered in either case.

The third experiment tested nine chimps' willingness to aid other chimps that they neither knew nor were related to. One chimp watched another in a separate room try to enter an adjacent space through a chained door in order to obtain food. Only the observing chimp could remove a peg in its enclosure to release the chain, allowing the other chimp to nab a snack.

All but one observing chimp did just that in numerous trials.

"These are wonderful experiments and present a real challenge to previous findings," remarks anthropologist Joan B. Silk of the University of California, Los Angeles. Silk and other investigators have reported that chimps don't give food rewards to their comrades, even at no cost to the potential donor.

Chimps may help others who fail to achieve observable goals, as in the new experiments, Warneken suggests. Further studies need to compare individuals' reactions to different types of cooperative tasks, Silk says.

The results "come as no surprise to any field worker who has spent lots of time close to wild chimpanzees," comments anthropologist William C. McGrew of the University of Cambridge in England.

2007-07-08T12:51:00.000-04:00

The London car-bomb plot was designed to kill women.

By Christopher Hitchens
Slate Magazine
Posted Monday, July 2, 2007, at 1:11 PM ET

Why on earth do people keep saying, "There but for the grace of God …"? If matters had been very slightly different over the past weekend, the streets of London and the airport check-in area in Glasgow, Scotland, would have been strewn with charred body parts. And this would have been, according to the would-be perpetrators, because of the grace of God. Whatever our own private theology or theodicy, we might at least agree to take this vile belief seriously. More...

2007-07-05T22:00:00.000-04:00

I was a fanatic

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. More...

yes, we will blame their politics, their economics, and our globalization. but we will never blame their faith. we won't do that because it would cast light on our own, and show the hypocrisy and utter evil that is produced when one group of people decides that their god is better than your god. it's not so much that horror has been produced from myth, but rather that such myth has been allowed to persist as truth.

even while the masses revel in their religious mediocrity, barely shuffling in and out of church and afraid to read a verse outside of what their pastors have to offer in passive comfort, your altruism and tolerance for faith cultivates this mythic evil.

2007-06-27T21:23:00.000-04:00

This I Believe

Penn Gillette

I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word ''elephant'' includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire? Listen or Read

2007-06-27T17:50:00.000-04:00

i was recently asked the question of the influence or success of a confrontational and perhaps tactless approach to my ideals. here's an amusing video when dawkins was asked the same thing.

2007-06-27T14:24:00.000-04:00

Science of the Soul? ‘I Think, Therefore I Am’ Is Losing Force

By CORNELIA DEAN

Published: June 26, 2007
NEW YORK TIMES

In 1950, in a letter to bishops, Pope Pius XII took up the issue of evolution. The Roman Catholic Church does not necessarily object to the study of evolution as far as it relates to physical traits, he wrote in the encyclical, Humani Generis. But he added, “Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”... more

2007-06-25T12:58:00.000-04:00

Chris also brought up questions about the adjacent quote:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you’d have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

a short explanation:

no, the quote is not detailed enough to account for the gray area you speak of--though i wouldn't hold that against it. otherwise you can toss in a few "sometimes" after each claim, and what you have as result is a pointless, null statement.

take women's suffrage. which message gets the point across more clearly? "women should vote" or "women should vote according to the law and by means of the necessary legislative stipulations." no doubt we can agree on the effectiveness of sharp, tidy messages. the ten commandments are particularly notable in this regard. "thou shalt not murder." many accept this, though we know this statement is plagued with fine print and thorough exceptions that don't exactly fit well if you're creating a marketing campaign for morality.

the point, and the reason i like this statement, is that it shows that many evils come as result of religion that might not otherwise occur. there is no good deed that cannot be performed by a non-theist, and there is no reason to believe that religion alone is responsible for good deeds, or that the concept of good deeds will dissolve with the passing of religion.

but there is a great many evil deeds that people perform that would not occur if not for spiritual justification--and perhaps if such justification can be thwarted, we might be able to deal directly with law and morality, un-muddied by fundamentalism or religious objectivity. non-theism would promote good for good's sake; no cracker-jack prizes necessary. sure, there is secular evil, as stated, but it would be exactly that--evil. religion makes the line between good and evil a rather blurred one. many claim secularism does this very thing--but i've made many arguments against this claim elsewhere.

note that i do not mean to discredit a thorough examination. your questions and points are valid, and most certainly would be helpful and effective in the execution of an ideal, but you would be absolutely worthless in the marketing department.

2007-06-24T23:31:00.000-04:00

Chris asks:
I'm quite curious, what do you think of a person like me, someone who is disturbed by religion as you described it in this past post, yet still has their own different sincere religious experience? Someone who also fully embraces science/evolution/etc., has no problem questioning anything (including their faith, which they realize is a faith), and is (or at least thinks she or he is) more than willing to reject parts or all of their faith if they ever find enough reason to (as for example, I've rejected certain ideas that I was taught early on as a Christian but now consider to be close minded and untenable)? (See comments from previous post for full text)

Good question. First of all, I will submit that I think people can have authentic, sincere spiritual experiences. Even I can--that is, as long as that experience doesn't come with rules and collection plates. It's probably inhuman to be unimpressed by the beauty and wonder of nature--so much that people, the little egomaniacs that we are, will want to project such wonders as yet another great invention, if not by us, then by our gods. it wasn't enough for adam in genesis to live within nature--he had to rule it.

i could easily take all the examples of your scrutiny and skepticism towards fundamentalism and faith, and apply it to myself at one such point. as you know, several years ago i did consider myself a christian. only, in this case, the skepticism lead me to completely rid of it, as opposed to keeping some self-made version of it, which i tend to really dislike in people, albeit quite common to find. there really comes a point where your point-of-view evolves to the place where you don't know where the religion ends and your own thoughts begin.

that's why i think that most who consider themselves christian, really fall into some hybrid version of it, that they have allowed to flex around their own world view. what's the point, then, if you're going to take some of the tenants of religion and not others? is it an insurance policy? are people really that duped by pascal's idiotic wager? it goes without saying that it really bothers me, then, that some will have the audacity to use the whole kitchen sink against others, when they themselves are only using a dish rag.

i suppose in terms of your question, i can't say i would be against skepticism, but i find it curious that through all of it, you could still hook your star to an implausible celestial being. it seems the very conclusion that would contradict such honest questioning and philosophical discretion. perhaps being religious really is a genetic trait that is impossible to shed--the most common case of OCD--that even the candidates who might seem as if they've mutated and evolved past religious belief, are still held captive to it?

9 out of 10 reasons people give for believing in god can pretty much be objectively debunked by science, history, or philosophy. that 1 remaining reason would simply be that god can not be disproved--which is true. but this concession that god can't be disproved doesn't even begin to explain it, let alone provide justification for the tenants of modern christianity.

but is it okay for you, with everything you know, to still play that supernatural lottery game and come out a winner? i think, considering all, you wouldn't be an immediate threat--no doubt your output into society might be as beneficial or detrimental as a non-believers might be. that's assuming you respected our constitution, didn't evangelize your faith to others, and let your children make their own choices regarding the matter.

but as i always harp on, i think your potential could be all the greater if only you pulled out that little thorn in your toe and accepted what is most likely the most probable perspective of the universe and our roles within it (or lack thereof). religion belongs to the dark ages of our history--many of its positives easily replaced and improved upon by non-theism, and all others simply debunked by modern science and moral philosophy.

i think it's probably a matter of time before this is concluded by all--and statistically, atheism is climbing. would the world be a better place without religion? in a word, yes.

what is good, and what is easy.

2007-06-21T23:20:00.000-04:00

does your god belief make life easier for you?

it's one claim that's always being presented to me: that without god, we would have no concept of right and wrong. we would have no hope. we would live a life without meaning. there would be no comfort in times of need, no love in times of despair.

i would jest that, yes, some things are easier, particularly in our society, if one bears total solidarity towards their religion. it is, unlike many other things, above a level of scrutiny. your faith is protected and sacred--whereas my criticism would seem tactless and disrespectful. is it so much to ask that such a thing could be scrutinized as harshly as anything else? we expect our cars, our airplanes, and our prescription drugs to be thoroughly studied and tested to the fullest, to ensure the integrity of the product. somehow, i doubt you'd be impressed if the pilot of the plane you'd about to fly on bore no credentials or license, and tried to win your confidence by only his "belief" that he could fly.

but that is exactly what you are expected to do, and what you expect of others, when it comes to your blind faith.

and in this society, it is easier, in many ways, to just believe. you will rarely, if at all, experience religious persecution. you will earn the trust and love of your family, if they too are believers. you will take comfort, if you could in such a thing, that there is a celestial force above you, who created the universe for the sole reason of placing you in it. you could even become president.

disregard infinite space, black holes, supernovas, thousands of galaxies with meteors and planets which bear no life, and the one we now live on which barely does that, and which will not some day in the future. this was all for you.

and probably most importantly, you can take comfort that death is merely an illusion...a passing towards eternal servitude in heaven with all your loved ones and your creator. for many, this is enough, if you go for that sort of thing.

in these ways, your belief in god can help you, whichever you happen to choose (yes, you have thousands of options, thus forcing you to be an atheist towards the rest.)

but what are the downsides? many struggle with original sin, and never being able to achieve a fascist standard set beyond human ability. you would have to squirm every time you read another scientific discovery, and either completely discredit it or contort until it somehow becomes compatible with your ancient dogmas. you have to justify the common wickedness of your holy books into either allusions or the (gasp) evolution of one's own creator from angry to loving (islam has yet to make this transition.) you have to accept miracles and supernatural events can occur, and yet wonder why they never happen in your neighborhood. if you are a woman, you have to accept a spiritual pecking order that believes menstruation to be "unclean" and a broken hymen to be even more contemptible. you would have to believe that every embryo that spontaneously aborts from a mother's womb was sentenced to limbo for being unsaved (or where ever else.)

as a non-believer, i simply don't have to consider such issues, and have them weigh heavily as society advances and makes it seem all the sillier, and having to defend it and keep my faith in a vacuum untouched by technological advancements. (i am, however, quite sure that in a moment of physical distress at a hospital, you'd rather find an evolutionist with a clipboard than a creationist with a holy book.)

it is not that a non-believer does not consider such issues of morality. in fact, we do even more so, and have a long history of philosophy concerned with it. we simply do not need a celestial surveillance camera, and i simply detest anyone who claims they are only moral because of it. it is not the kind of person i would want to live next to.

and for many, asking such questions as i have laid here, would be a sin in itself. many households keep religion for sunday, and the rest of the time it is stricken from conversation.

what an grand assumption about existence to bear so nonchalantly!

could it be, for the fact, that many embrace the social benefits of religion, but in secret know that it is truly mythology propagated by fear and social control? and even as i have rid myself of such a thing, i have received a level of resistance that i'm sure women received when asking for suffrage, or blacks when asking for freedom, or homosexuals when asking for acceptance.

what wickedness, what utter cruelty do we bear in silent obedience, as we shuffle in and out of our pews, to treat our wives to subtle misogyny, our children totalitarianism, our enemies a refined sense of entitlement.

to rid of it all, to live not as a hypocrite but as a human being in a world of wonder and greatness, is a breath of fresh air i wish everyone could experience, instead of toiling in servitude to a celestial being that simply mirrors mankinds worst deeds and deepest fears.

let my people go

2007-06-12T21:59:00.000-04:00

it is quite impressive how little people actually know of their chosen (or inherited) faiths. when discussing christianity with people whom i know is christian, i find that their overall knowledge of the actual subject is quite limited, both historically and literary. i do not pretend to suppose that i am a religious scholar, but nonetheless it is often the case that i would have a better grasp to argue even for the validity of christianity than the trivial commentary of the faithful.

these conversations almost always end with the faithful wriggling out, in even a casual tone where i am not being aggressive but merely conversing over christian ideals objectively. i recently had a conversation with someone who proclaimed their total obedience and respect for the ten commandments--though when i rhetorically asked the individual to state all ten of them, the wriggling began. ironic, how something so iconic and beloved in the faith can never be recited verbatim by most--though i'm sure many of them could sing back several kelly clarkson songs to me without missing a beat.

no doubt, for the more apocalyptic-minded, you'll find a great admiration for the pulp and silly left behind series, but i'm sure they have not so much as a read one pass through the entirety of revelations. the laws of god are cherry-picked and watered-down into marketable, hollywood fiction--so much, i am pressed to think that a reading through exodus can be easily summarized in a charlton heston film for many.

i think an easy observation would be that it takes that kind of commitment to actually believe in such a thing. and is it not fear of finding the profane, the irrational, the ludicrously stupid, that keeps people from delving into their holy books and finding such ghastly scripture that they'd most certainly censor and abhor in secular contexts?

in fact, some of my most beloved arguments against the validity of christianity occur in those very holy texts--from the book of job, to ecclesiasticus. i doubt many have even read these texts beyond a paraphrased reference by a pastor, or a lively coloring book at sunday school (and i am quite sure that sunday schools can't keep enough red crayons on hand.)

of course, in what other study or field of thought could ignorance not only be admitted, but praised as virtuous? not any worth mentioning, except for the malevolent strategy of government totalitarianism that abhors rationality and instead instructs blind obedience, backed by laws impossible to be followed.

it took until the new testament to really take hold of the people's fear of death, and trade it for a euphoric but equally problematic gift of immortality. and perhaps, setting aside obvious cultural and historic justifications for the continuation of faith in an otherwise educated society, it is this very fear of death that keeps the collection plates full, and which keeps the human potential from climbing beyond its infancy.

suffer the little children

2007-06-07T19:06:00.000-04:00

children, in many respects, serve as a continuation of the human species, a society, or a way of life. we hear a lot of fuss about them, particularly on evening talk shows. it seems, it our so-called "secular" society, that half of us are protecting our children, and the rest are attempting to physically and mentally rape them of all inherent innocence.

because children are looked upon as valuable objects for the above reasons, many view them as personal property that they are assigned to protect and, likewise, serve.

one of the popular ways in which we protect and serve our children is to indoctrinate them with our belief systems at an incredibly early age. in fact, many evangelical units operating in our fair country considers it an empirical part of spreading their superstitions.

and what are the attributes of children? trusting, naive, impressionable--not quite enough life context to differentiate fact from fiction, particularly when they are inundated (or primed) early on with mythical beings such as easter bunnies and santa clauses. when i was but five years old i knew who satan was, and i knew of a place called hell where i might be sent if i stole another cookie from the cookie jar.

is this fair of us to herd our children to these churches, sunday schools, and confirmations, to be so indoctrinated? do children have the necessary means to truly understand, discuss, and critically consider the dogmas of our choosing?

i suppose when you are dealing out absolute truth, the phrase "critical thought" doesn't have much stock. the impressions, no doubt, are quite deep. and those lucky enough to have their conscience raised above such dogmatic beliefs can never quite shed the slightest stab of guilt for doing so.

but it was god who claimed that everyone should approach their faith as children--who are meek, naive, and trusting. what other, but religion, requires its followers to be so dim?

Mark 10:14 Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God.15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

A Letter

2007-06-02T20:09:00.000-04:00

(from unknown source)

Dear Mr Robertson,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

wax museum

2007-05-30T18:16:00.000-04:00

let us, for a moment, indulge the creationists that the universe and earth was created by a deity. this concept has been cleverly made politically correct through terms such as "intelligent design." suppose we ignore all evidence of evolution; we ignore tooth and claw, immunizations, and halibut (a fish that was clearly distorted quite pathetically not by beautiful design but through environment.)

does this even begin to suggest that we know anything about god? from simply a scientific perspective, god would appear either comedic or cruel. lions have claws and teeth, and antelopes have legs in which to flee. which does god prefer? perhaps neither, but simply a great violent spectacle such as the romans enjoyed at the colosseum.

it's also been within our inventiveness to conceive of thousands of gods, and intricate soap operas where supernatural deities defend egos amongst themselves, often times using humans like chess pieces within their celestial games. is it fair to say that our concepts of god are merely based upon time and place?

take the judeo-christian god. in our earliest concepts of this god, there was no mention of microscopic organisms. adam was presented with lions and tigers (and to some, dinosaurs) in which to preside over. why not bacteria? why not yersinia pestis (otherwise known as the bubonic plague)? could it be that we humans could not conceive of such a thing as disease at this time and place?

surely--for it wasn't holymen telling the europeans to wash their hands and avoid rodents. the black plague was punishment by god for sin. now we know quite different. but it simply was the best gauge for the situation as we were able to conceive...a supernatural bridge between humanity and understanding the natural world.

it is even more fascinating (and disappointing) that even today, pastors will claim that HIV is god's punishment for homosexuality, with as much as we know about microbiology. this religious theory does not explain, however, that lesbians rarely, if at all, contract HIV through sexual intercourse. earthquakes and tsunamis represent the great anger of a vigilant god, but in reality are simply the scientific result of a cooling planet.

the truth remains that even if we accept a creationist point of view, we still have to deal with evidence. the fact is, no evidence leads us to conclude that any one god, or gods, are correct. so then we're still reliant on faith--the belief in something where there is no supporting evidence.

the chaos as result would be incredible. even now, i think most believers do have doubt about their beliefs, and consider that they might be (gasp) mistaken about their religion. this doubt, for all purposes, might be the last shred of reason and rationality that keeps them sane and functioning in a civilized world.

if we all were absolute true believers in any single god, much would have to change. we could, without reservation, sacrifice our children to our deity. we could pass theocratic laws supporting the systematic genocide of adulterers, thieves, homosexuals, and the college student with a sunday evening shift at the laundromat.

the perseverance of those who promote intelligent design would hopefully conclude that jesus is the son of god, but it will not. instead, the possibility of all gods that ever existed in our minds and history are fair game.

and if that day should come, i think i'd be a Thor worshipper.

Hitchens vs. Hannity

2007-05-29T00:28:00.000-04:00

Christopher Hitchens spars with Hannity & Colmes over the life of Jerry Falwell

belief in believing

2007-05-28T22:59:00.000-04:00

a co-worker of mine introduced a book to me entitled, "hidden messages in water," by masaru emoto. the premise is quite simple. a so-called "doctor" in alternative medicines from the east performed some experiments with water crystals to see if water, in itself, has the ability to react to external variables--in this case, types of music, types of imagery, even select words such as "fool" or "cute." the hypothesis is simply that water, making up a substantial portion of our bodies, can be affected by positive or negative energies, and thus, react in a way that would affect our spirit.

the author presented images of the crystals that appear to react to these variables. water presented with symphonic melodies, or positive words such as "cute", formed crystals that were found to be symmetrical and harmonious. on the other hand, water presented with heavy metal or negative words such as "fool" spawned ugly, fractured crystals. some crystals, the author claimed, formed images of guns and children.

james randi, a skeptic who is known for offering large sums of money in exchange for paranormal proof, has offered one million dollars if emoto can replicate the results in a double-blind study--a feat that has yet to occur, no doubt as result of emoto's apparent popularity in the new age world of paranormal quantum faith healing.

like the "theory" of intelligent design, paranormal claims have attempted to infiltrate the realm of science, skew the results and ignore the grueling scientific method, in order to create false truths about life. and it's popular, as well. walk into any bookstore and compare the science section (usually small and tucked away) to the new age section, vast and littered with tarot cards and other paraphernalia.

some recent gallop polls have suggested that 25-40% of americans believe in at least one paranormal event, anything from ESP, astrology, ghosts or telepathy. even more recently, gallop suggested that 82% of americans believe in god, and another 9% believe in some sort of "universal spirit." mind you, that each of these subjects have zero scientific evidence. the common solution for believers of the paranormal is to claim that either "faith and god is beyond scientific understanding" or simply choose to distort and twist science so that it somehow concludes their point correct.

i find the latter to be more prevalent, simply because modern science is doing such a profound job at discrediting the supernatural, that it is almost impossible to ignore the evidence.

the "creation museum" has recently opened in kentucky, proclaiming the scientific truth of creationism--which usually represents the belief that the universe and the world was created by god not more than 6,000 years ago. this museum features (wait for it) humans walking alongside dinosaurs--even noah stored baby dinosaurs upon the ark (well, now that that's settled.) the blatant disregard for the facts, and ultimately truth, is so prevalent in our culture that it astounds me that we all still bear the psychological grounding to function together.

well, perhaps astound is not completely correct. god certainly gets plenty of lip service, but do people really believe in their so-called faiths? religion and new ageism had bridged the gap between us and our world in human infancy, filling it with gods and mysticism when the scientific method and technology was unavailable to us. there is much we know now--third graders know more about the universe than did the so-called great theologians of our past--st. aquinas, augustine and the rest. (it was of course, st. aquinas who taught the archaic belief that unsaved children are sent to a state of limbo, now just recently renounced. are these the types of things we should spent our years on this planet considering?)

no doubt, the belief may require no evidence, but it is clear that people want to believe--or as carl sagan put it, the "belief [is based] on the deep-seated need to believe." and obviously, most can't tell the difference.