Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Mythical Interviews: Hermes
GINX: With me today is Hermes, the messenger of the Gods.
HERMES: [sigh]
GINX: Is there a problem?
HERMES: Oh, nothing. My achievements include giving mankind writing, inventing the lyre on the very day I was born, not to mention on my first night stealing the cattle of my older brother, the all-seeing sun. I am the patron god of shepherds, poets, orators, sports, science, travel, merchants and thieves, though the last two are basically one in the same.
GINX: I’m sorry.
HERMES: It’s just… you do one job as an intern and you meet a lot of people while doing it… and they all associate you with that forever. I’m so much more than my father’s errand boy.
GINX: I didn’t mean to insult you.
HERMES: You know, I also escort souls to Hades. I meet everyone at least that one time.
GINX: Hopefully I survive the interview then.
HERMES: It hasn’t been an auspicious start.
GINX: Right. Well… I decided to interview you next because I’ve had a bit of writer’s block.
HERMES: Oh, I see. You didn’t want to bother going through one of the muses, so you figured talking to me might cure your creative constipation. You need a linguistic laxative, so you call on a god.
GINX: I—
HERMES: I love how you people only pay attention to us when you need something.
GINX: Human nature, I guess.
HERMES: You don’t have to explain it to me. I was the one who had to explain to your race the concept of exchange.
GINX: Oh?
HERMES: I am the founder of commerce, as well as thievery. I pretty much oversee all exchanges of goods. The French still honor me in this fashion, with the word, “merci,” which derives from my Latin name, Mercury. It usually translates as “thank you,” but it literally means, “paid.”
GINX: Huh, I didn’t realize.
HERMES: I started out a thief, founded commerce, and now I am a socialist. I went from mercenary, to merchant, to merciful, all cognates of my name.
GINX: Plus you have a line of cars named after you.
HERMES: [sigh]
GINX: And a planet.
HERMES: A scorched rock? Thanks.
GINX: Oh, and an element on the periodic table.
HERMES: You named a poisonous substance after me.
GINX: Okay, fine. We as human beings have failed to recognize you and the accomplishments you gave mankind. Happy?
HERMES: I would be, if you lost the attitude.
GINX: You’re an all-powerful god, what do you care what I think?
HERMES: I’m not all-powerful. I can’t even get you to be polite.
GINX: Fine. How do I know you did all of these things?
HERMES: And now the accusations begin.
GINX: Am I to take you at your word, or do you have some sort of proof?
HERMES: What proof do you require? It’s not as though I had a camcorder. I was there, I did great things for mankind, and by Jove I deserve a little respect.
GINX: Okay, when did you teach man to write?
HERMES: A long time ago.
GINX: Let me guess, “… in a galaxy far, far away?” What is this, Star Wars? Give me some dates.
HERMES: We gods do not experience time as you do. I recall it was in the autumn.
GINX: Uh huh. You realize this is not a very compelling argument, right?
HERMES: Let’s put it this way: I have something you want, and you have something I want. We can trade and we can both be happy. Sure, we’re both taking a risk that one may be duping the other, but the mutual trust between us will facilitate the transaction.
GINX: Wait… what do you have that I want?
HERMES: How soon you forget… inspiration. Haven’t you been looking for something to write about? I can give you all that you need if you show me a little appreciation.
GINX: What am I supposed to do, get down on my knees and bow before you?
HERMES: I’d settle for a literary reward. Make your next mythical interview about me.
GINX: Metahumor, very amusing. How could it not be about you?
HERMES: You could be like one of the monotheists, and claim it was an angel or Yahweh. You could neglect to give me credit.
GINX: Well, if I’m going to interview you, I should ask some questions.
HERMES: Go ahead.
GINX: How about… why do the gods eat humans?
HERMES: Well, actually we subsist on human experience. We don’t exactly “consume” you, nor do we obliterate your soul in the process. Though to be fair, you are never the same again. As for “why” we do this… what would you have us do? Would you prefer we all die out?
GINX: Perhaps.
HERMES: Look, I know you think you have to disgrace the divine at every turn, but the truth is that the gods are at the core of human knowledge. Your ability to conceive of our existence indicates you are creatures capable of abstract thought. You are also the only earthly beings capable of sustaining the deities.
GINX: Can we cease to… “sustain” you?
HERMES: It is in our nature to reveal ourselves again and again, often taking new forms, new names. I am fairly certain that the only world without gods is a world without humans.
GINX: Okay. I have a final question, this one ethical. Is it better to do good works or to avoid evil deeds?
HERMES: To be perfectly honest, there is no good or bad. I interpret what you say to mean, “Is it better to actively comfort others or attempt to abstain from causing suffering?” Does this seem accurate?
GINX: Sure.
HERMES: In that case, it is far greater to strive “to do good” rather than “to avoid evil.” Though it is good to minimize the suffering you cause to the best of your ability, it is also impossible to live without inflicting some suffering upon others. However, the comfort one can provide others is limitless. Therefore, I advise one to give freely and encourage people to busy themselves with good deeds, which will in itself prevent one from doing harm.
GINX: I appreciate you taking the time to chat with me, Hermes.
HERMES: I hope your… blog… thing… goes well.
GINX: Thanks.
HERMES: [sigh]
GINX: Is there a problem?
HERMES: Oh, nothing. My achievements include giving mankind writing, inventing the lyre on the very day I was born, not to mention on my first night stealing the cattle of my older brother, the all-seeing sun. I am the patron god of shepherds, poets, orators, sports, science, travel, merchants and thieves, though the last two are basically one in the same.
GINX: I’m sorry.
HERMES: It’s just… you do one job as an intern and you meet a lot of people while doing it… and they all associate you with that forever. I’m so much more than my father’s errand boy.
GINX: I didn’t mean to insult you.
HERMES: You know, I also escort souls to Hades. I meet everyone at least that one time.
GINX: Hopefully I survive the interview then.
HERMES: It hasn’t been an auspicious start.
GINX: Right. Well… I decided to interview you next because I’ve had a bit of writer’s block.
HERMES: Oh, I see. You didn’t want to bother going through one of the muses, so you figured talking to me might cure your creative constipation. You need a linguistic laxative, so you call on a god.
GINX: I—
HERMES: I love how you people only pay attention to us when you need something.
GINX: Human nature, I guess.
HERMES: You don’t have to explain it to me. I was the one who had to explain to your race the concept of exchange.
GINX: Oh?
HERMES: I am the founder of commerce, as well as thievery. I pretty much oversee all exchanges of goods. The French still honor me in this fashion, with the word, “merci,” which derives from my Latin name, Mercury. It usually translates as “thank you,” but it literally means, “paid.”
GINX: Huh, I didn’t realize.
HERMES: I started out a thief, founded commerce, and now I am a socialist. I went from mercenary, to merchant, to merciful, all cognates of my name.
GINX: Plus you have a line of cars named after you.
HERMES: [sigh]
GINX: And a planet.
HERMES: A scorched rock? Thanks.
GINX: Oh, and an element on the periodic table.
HERMES: You named a poisonous substance after me.
GINX: Okay, fine. We as human beings have failed to recognize you and the accomplishments you gave mankind. Happy?
HERMES: I would be, if you lost the attitude.
GINX: You’re an all-powerful god, what do you care what I think?
HERMES: I’m not all-powerful. I can’t even get you to be polite.
GINX: Fine. How do I know you did all of these things?
HERMES: And now the accusations begin.
GINX: Am I to take you at your word, or do you have some sort of proof?
HERMES: What proof do you require? It’s not as though I had a camcorder. I was there, I did great things for mankind, and by Jove I deserve a little respect.
GINX: Okay, when did you teach man to write?
HERMES: A long time ago.
GINX: Let me guess, “… in a galaxy far, far away?” What is this, Star Wars? Give me some dates.
HERMES: We gods do not experience time as you do. I recall it was in the autumn.
GINX: Uh huh. You realize this is not a very compelling argument, right?
HERMES: Let’s put it this way: I have something you want, and you have something I want. We can trade and we can both be happy. Sure, we’re both taking a risk that one may be duping the other, but the mutual trust between us will facilitate the transaction.
GINX: Wait… what do you have that I want?
HERMES: How soon you forget… inspiration. Haven’t you been looking for something to write about? I can give you all that you need if you show me a little appreciation.
GINX: What am I supposed to do, get down on my knees and bow before you?
HERMES: I’d settle for a literary reward. Make your next mythical interview about me.
GINX: Metahumor, very amusing. How could it not be about you?
HERMES: You could be like one of the monotheists, and claim it was an angel or Yahweh. You could neglect to give me credit.
GINX: Well, if I’m going to interview you, I should ask some questions.
HERMES: Go ahead.
GINX: How about… why do the gods eat humans?
HERMES: Well, actually we subsist on human experience. We don’t exactly “consume” you, nor do we obliterate your soul in the process. Though to be fair, you are never the same again. As for “why” we do this… what would you have us do? Would you prefer we all die out?
GINX: Perhaps.
HERMES: Look, I know you think you have to disgrace the divine at every turn, but the truth is that the gods are at the core of human knowledge. Your ability to conceive of our existence indicates you are creatures capable of abstract thought. You are also the only earthly beings capable of sustaining the deities.
GINX: Can we cease to… “sustain” you?
HERMES: It is in our nature to reveal ourselves again and again, often taking new forms, new names. I am fairly certain that the only world without gods is a world without humans.
GINX: Okay. I have a final question, this one ethical. Is it better to do good works or to avoid evil deeds?
HERMES: To be perfectly honest, there is no good or bad. I interpret what you say to mean, “Is it better to actively comfort others or attempt to abstain from causing suffering?” Does this seem accurate?
GINX: Sure.
HERMES: In that case, it is far greater to strive “to do good” rather than “to avoid evil.” Though it is good to minimize the suffering you cause to the best of your ability, it is also impossible to live without inflicting some suffering upon others. However, the comfort one can provide others is limitless. Therefore, I advise one to give freely and encourage people to busy themselves with good deeds, which will in itself prevent one from doing harm.
GINX: I appreciate you taking the time to chat with me, Hermes.
HERMES: I hope your… blog… thing… goes well.
GINX: Thanks.
The Delusion vs. The Delusional
One of the more important concepts in religion is often spoken about, but I see it practiced far less often than I would like. It can be summed up in the Christian theology with the adage, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”
I try to subscribe to a similar ideology, though I fail quite frequently: “Ignore the delusional, address the delusion.” Ad hominem attacks are just too emotionally satisfying to avoid, especially if someone has been getting on my nerves and I want nothing more than to cause them to experience a comparable level of annoyance.
However, I should not waste energy metaphorically killing the messenger. Believers didn’t come up with this garbage on their own. They are just doing what they’ve been trained to do: spread the good news. As a skeptic who is aware of this, I must keep another Christian idea in mind, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
While I often indulge in criticizing religious figures, the only good that can come from discussions on atheism are those which address the abstract concepts, the philosophy and theology of the various religions. The religious have no difficulty in disassociating any earthly human and their actions from the divine. Any religious person who does something wrong is merely seen as having “lost his way.”
This is even the argument of some when it comes to problems regarding the Bible: it’s a work of man. Luckily there are still fundamentalists who believe it is the literal word of God, who apparently stopped speaking Semitic languages in the 1st century and switched to Greek, only to go with Arabic in the 7th when speaking to Mohammad… But, arguing with someone who thinks the Bible is the literal word of God is pointless. There’s nothing we can do about kids who were dropped on their heads as children.
Personally, I think the most success might come from educating someone about cults, or even other religions. Nothing can compare to exposing someone to the reality that all of these other groups rely upon the same mechanics, have the same “success” among their followers, and even believe basically the same things.
At some point, everyone is capable of realizing their religion is as insane as Scientology. After that, how can you keep going through the motions of standing, sitting, singing, etc. every week at church?
I try to subscribe to a similar ideology, though I fail quite frequently: “Ignore the delusional, address the delusion.” Ad hominem attacks are just too emotionally satisfying to avoid, especially if someone has been getting on my nerves and I want nothing more than to cause them to experience a comparable level of annoyance.
However, I should not waste energy metaphorically killing the messenger. Believers didn’t come up with this garbage on their own. They are just doing what they’ve been trained to do: spread the good news. As a skeptic who is aware of this, I must keep another Christian idea in mind, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
While I often indulge in criticizing religious figures, the only good that can come from discussions on atheism are those which address the abstract concepts, the philosophy and theology of the various religions. The religious have no difficulty in disassociating any earthly human and their actions from the divine. Any religious person who does something wrong is merely seen as having “lost his way.”
This is even the argument of some when it comes to problems regarding the Bible: it’s a work of man. Luckily there are still fundamentalists who believe it is the literal word of God, who apparently stopped speaking Semitic languages in the 1st century and switched to Greek, only to go with Arabic in the 7th when speaking to Mohammad… But, arguing with someone who thinks the Bible is the literal word of God is pointless. There’s nothing we can do about kids who were dropped on their heads as children.
Personally, I think the most success might come from educating someone about cults, or even other religions. Nothing can compare to exposing someone to the reality that all of these other groups rely upon the same mechanics, have the same “success” among their followers, and even believe basically the same things.
At some point, everyone is capable of realizing their religion is as insane as Scientology. After that, how can you keep going through the motions of standing, sitting, singing, etc. every week at church?
Friday, May 28, 2010
Is There a Problem With Churches?
I ended up espousing the polar opposite of the prevailing viewpoint among my generation. Young people today are very likely to identify themselves as “spiritual, but not religious.” I find myself being quite religious, but not the least bit spiritual.
I live by strict moral rules, I have weird dietary habits, I actively try to help people… but I just can’t bring myself to believe there’s anyone watching me and keeping score. I would like to think I act this way because I know that I am part of a community of individuals who rely upon each other.
Which got me thinking… many people complain about “organized religion” and churches while simultaneously claiming there is something greater out there. Is it really the churches that are the problem?
Don’t get me wrong, churches have done bad things, but churches have also done a great many good things. Churches today are particularly devoid of most of the atrocities that could be pinned on them throughout history, limited largely to political intervention that imposes their ideas upon others.
This is a far cry from human sacrifice, crusades, inquisitions, female circumcision, etc. Sure, gay people can’t marry, but we would find it atrocious as a culture if they were stoned to death. Clearly there has been some progress, and hopefully there will be more to come.
Bringing people together as a cohesive group is necessary in order to overcome the obstacles we face in life. Churches are not the only way to do this, though they have proven their ability to do so with great efficiency. I guess I have far more positive things to say about churches than the gods they worship, probably because I find it easier to despise a delusion than it is to despise living, breathing human beings.
I live by strict moral rules, I have weird dietary habits, I actively try to help people… but I just can’t bring myself to believe there’s anyone watching me and keeping score. I would like to think I act this way because I know that I am part of a community of individuals who rely upon each other.
Which got me thinking… many people complain about “organized religion” and churches while simultaneously claiming there is something greater out there. Is it really the churches that are the problem?
Don’t get me wrong, churches have done bad things, but churches have also done a great many good things. Churches today are particularly devoid of most of the atrocities that could be pinned on them throughout history, limited largely to political intervention that imposes their ideas upon others.
This is a far cry from human sacrifice, crusades, inquisitions, female circumcision, etc. Sure, gay people can’t marry, but we would find it atrocious as a culture if they were stoned to death. Clearly there has been some progress, and hopefully there will be more to come.
Bringing people together as a cohesive group is necessary in order to overcome the obstacles we face in life. Churches are not the only way to do this, though they have proven their ability to do so with great efficiency. I guess I have far more positive things to say about churches than the gods they worship, probably because I find it easier to despise a delusion than it is to despise living, breathing human beings.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Rand Paul, Christian Idiot
Rand Paul is a brainwashed douchebag who was named after a horrible novelist, and he is proving once again that nepotism is alive and well in politics. More than that, Rand manages to get libertarian fanboys creaming in their pants over his victory. But what exactly makes Rand Paul different than an extreme right-wing Republican?
Gay marriage? Oposes it. Guantanamo Bay? Loves it. Gun regulations? Hates them. Defense spending? Just show him where to sign.
He even believes the US should be Christian, and that we would be better off if everyone followed Christ [*barf*]. From an interview on CBN (that’s the Christian Broadcasting Network, home of Pat Robertson):
Did I mention he’s pro-life, but he wants to protect “freedoms?” Not individual freedoms, of course… more like the freedom for companies to be deregulated so they can sell us poisoned garbage. Government can only step in when a woman is deciding whether she wants to start a family, not when businesses are trying to exploit that family. Since a lot more people will be dying over frivolous things, we clearly need more babies in the world of Rand Paul.
We all appreciate Rand Paul handing Kentucky to the Democrats.
Gay marriage? Oposes it. Guantanamo Bay? Loves it. Gun regulations? Hates them. Defense spending? Just show him where to sign.
He even believes the US should be Christian, and that we would be better off if everyone followed Christ [*barf*]. From an interview on CBN (that’s the Christian Broadcasting Network, home of Pat Robertson):
I’m a Christian. We go to the Presbyterian Church. My wife’s a Deacon there and we’ve gone there ever since we came to town. I see that Christianity and values is the basis of our society… 98% of us won’t murder people, won’t steal, won’t break the law and it helps a society to have that religious underpinning. You still need to have the laws but I think it helps to have a people who believe in law and order and who have a moral compass or a moral basis for their day to day life.
Did I mention he’s pro-life, but he wants to protect “freedoms?” Not individual freedoms, of course… more like the freedom for companies to be deregulated so they can sell us poisoned garbage. Government can only step in when a woman is deciding whether she wants to start a family, not when businesses are trying to exploit that family. Since a lot more people will be dying over frivolous things, we clearly need more babies in the world of Rand Paul.
We all appreciate Rand Paul handing Kentucky to the Democrats.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
WTF Moment of the Month
From the Huffington Post:
Two-Year Old Toddler Smokes Cigarettes - Watch more Funny Videos
Seems healthy? The kid is chubby, and that's putting it politely.
Advice to kid: hold the smoke in. You're not even inhaling it half the time. And quit trying to lick the lit end. What the fuck is wrong with you? You don't look cool if you burn yourself, which negates the whole point of smoking. Kids today...
Below is an image of Ardi Rizal, aged 2, who smokes two packs of cigarettes a day.
The Sumatran toddler was first given a cigarette when he was just 18 months old.
'I'm not worried about his health, he looks healthy,' shrugged the boy's father Mohammad Rizal.
'He cries and throws tantrums when we don't let him smoke. He's addicted.'
Two-Year Old Toddler Smokes Cigarettes - Watch more Funny Videos
Seems healthy? The kid is chubby, and that's putting it politely.
Advice to kid: hold the smoke in. You're not even inhaling it half the time. And quit trying to lick the lit end. What the fuck is wrong with you? You don't look cool if you burn yourself, which negates the whole point of smoking. Kids today...
Monday, May 24, 2010
Dirty Lessons
One of the more disappointing things about being a skeptic is not being able to blindly overlook the glaring flaws of those who ideologically agree with me. There have been a host of nutty ideas presented in the hopes of stemming the oil spill in the gulf. I know they’re all well intended, but…
BP has tried a handful of ill-conceived schemes. Kevin Costner is toting a machine that he claims will separate oil from water. I even saw a video with farmers trying to sell their surplus hay as oil sponges.
A good heart is no substitute for a decent bullshit detector.
The sad truth is, BP is the most capable company for the job when it comes to stopping the problem. They are the largest international oil corporation, and they have the greatest deep-water capability. The problem is, they also have a vested interest in protecting their assets and turning a profit. How do I know they are doing their best to protect the environment and the thousands (if not millions) of jobs outside the oil industry which will be destroyed as a result?
Sometimes the best man for the job… actually isn’t.
At some point the government needs to step in. Maybe that time was days or weeks ago, maybe it is fast approaching, but I do know BP seems to be taking its sweet time. There’s no fire under their ass. They fear nothing, which is why we’re in this situation in the first place: because those who fear nothing never bother to plan for the worst.
Ambition can so easily get the better of caution.
BP has tried a handful of ill-conceived schemes. Kevin Costner is toting a machine that he claims will separate oil from water. I even saw a video with farmers trying to sell their surplus hay as oil sponges.
A good heart is no substitute for a decent bullshit detector.
The sad truth is, BP is the most capable company for the job when it comes to stopping the problem. They are the largest international oil corporation, and they have the greatest deep-water capability. The problem is, they also have a vested interest in protecting their assets and turning a profit. How do I know they are doing their best to protect the environment and the thousands (if not millions) of jobs outside the oil industry which will be destroyed as a result?
Sometimes the best man for the job… actually isn’t.
At some point the government needs to step in. Maybe that time was days or weeks ago, maybe it is fast approaching, but I do know BP seems to be taking its sweet time. There’s no fire under their ass. They fear nothing, which is why we’re in this situation in the first place: because those who fear nothing never bother to plan for the worst.
Ambition can so easily get the better of caution.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Separation of God and Religion
This began as a reply to Punch’s comment, which I will reproduce in whole below:
I miss funny bible quotes, too. I plan to start posting funny Quran quotes once my job settles down. If you thought the bible was fucked up…
Anyway, back to the meat of your comment. I can only speak for myself, but I can honestly say I have contemplated gods outside of religion for long stretches of time. There are far too many gods for me to disprove one by one. If you provide me characteristics of a particular god, I can elucidate for you why I reject that particular god. The only characteristic common to all gods seems to be unfeasibility.
I also cannot help but notice you use a singular form of “god.” Can I assume you consider this god to fulfill roles including creator (whether it be of the universe, life, or whatever), sustainer, destroyer, law maker, and other traditional roles? I am essentially an igtheist, ignorant of your very definition of god, until you provide me some traits.
Please tell me you aren’t one of those, “spiritual, but not religious” people. They’re usually the weirdest, as they often think they have had a religious experience, sometimes even claiming to have a direct link to the divine.
Claiming that you “believe there is more to this life than meets the eye” must be a metaphor, as I’m sure you’re aware there are all kinds of things we cannot see (radio waves, for one). I have to assume you mean there are things we do not understand, but I feel comfortable in pursuing answers rather than lazily saddling mysteries with a divine cause.
The part of your comment that most disturbs me is your call for me to not proselytize, especially after I pretty bluntly stated I would never do such a thing. I thought I was explicit, but I’ll say it again: I have no interest in cornering someone on the issue of atheism.
I don’t think pointing out my lack of belief is such a bad thing, especially when it is largely done in the hope of preventing people from being a jackass to me. I know they aren’t trying to piss me off, but it does. I’m sure guys who “compliment” a woman’s ass in whatever article of clothing she’s wearing didn’t mean to be offensive, but intent is completely irrelevant when it comes to interpretation.
I have no interest in harboring disdain for people who have no idea what they’re doing is causing me discomfort. I have no control over the fact that I find religion annoying, but I can control whether or not those around me are aware of the effects their words have on me.
If they keep doing it, that’s their choice. I can snidely insult their precious beliefs if I’m having a particularly bad day, or I can choose to ignore it. That is also my choice. I just prefer situations where everyone involved is informed.
Since this job is only temporary anyway, I have nothing to lose in the long-run if I am disliked. Even if it were a long-term career choice, I would want those I worked with to know who I am. If they can’t handle that, I shouldn’t be working there. The mask of normalcy is too uncomfortable to wear every day.
Besides, I find that atheism is so rarely an applicable topic of conversation. It’s not like every religious comment has to be accompanied by a rude retort on my part. But when I’m telling someone about my mother’s health and how she has lived longer with her disease than the doctors said she would, and the person says “the Lord works in mysterious ways,” next time I have to point out: “No, it was actually the tireless work of several teams of doctors and nurses who studied for years in order to gain the knowledge necessary to keep her alive… that and the huge amounts of money required to pay them.”
The problem as I see it arrives as you now begin to tell me about no god.
I don’t not believe in or trust any of the organized religions as practiced in America or the world, in general.
But I do believe there is more to this life than meets the eye.
To have to wade through an atheist’s point of view is as tiring as hearing yet another religious point of view.
To attempt to see god without the husk shroud given the concept, by years of political influence, is a daunting task.
Your view of god or religion is your view, please do not try to proselytize.
Hell that sounds like what I doin’ here.
Sorry.
I miss your ‘funny bible quotes’
I miss funny bible quotes, too. I plan to start posting funny Quran quotes once my job settles down. If you thought the bible was fucked up…
Anyway, back to the meat of your comment. I can only speak for myself, but I can honestly say I have contemplated gods outside of religion for long stretches of time. There are far too many gods for me to disprove one by one. If you provide me characteristics of a particular god, I can elucidate for you why I reject that particular god. The only characteristic common to all gods seems to be unfeasibility.
I also cannot help but notice you use a singular form of “god.” Can I assume you consider this god to fulfill roles including creator (whether it be of the universe, life, or whatever), sustainer, destroyer, law maker, and other traditional roles? I am essentially an igtheist, ignorant of your very definition of god, until you provide me some traits.
Please tell me you aren’t one of those, “spiritual, but not religious” people. They’re usually the weirdest, as they often think they have had a religious experience, sometimes even claiming to have a direct link to the divine.
Claiming that you “believe there is more to this life than meets the eye” must be a metaphor, as I’m sure you’re aware there are all kinds of things we cannot see (radio waves, for one). I have to assume you mean there are things we do not understand, but I feel comfortable in pursuing answers rather than lazily saddling mysteries with a divine cause.
The part of your comment that most disturbs me is your call for me to not proselytize, especially after I pretty bluntly stated I would never do such a thing. I thought I was explicit, but I’ll say it again: I have no interest in cornering someone on the issue of atheism.
I don’t think pointing out my lack of belief is such a bad thing, especially when it is largely done in the hope of preventing people from being a jackass to me. I know they aren’t trying to piss me off, but it does. I’m sure guys who “compliment” a woman’s ass in whatever article of clothing she’s wearing didn’t mean to be offensive, but intent is completely irrelevant when it comes to interpretation.
I have no interest in harboring disdain for people who have no idea what they’re doing is causing me discomfort. I have no control over the fact that I find religion annoying, but I can control whether or not those around me are aware of the effects their words have on me.
If they keep doing it, that’s their choice. I can snidely insult their precious beliefs if I’m having a particularly bad day, or I can choose to ignore it. That is also my choice. I just prefer situations where everyone involved is informed.
Since this job is only temporary anyway, I have nothing to lose in the long-run if I am disliked. Even if it were a long-term career choice, I would want those I worked with to know who I am. If they can’t handle that, I shouldn’t be working there. The mask of normalcy is too uncomfortable to wear every day.
Besides, I find that atheism is so rarely an applicable topic of conversation. It’s not like every religious comment has to be accompanied by a rude retort on my part. But when I’m telling someone about my mother’s health and how she has lived longer with her disease than the doctors said she would, and the person says “the Lord works in mysterious ways,” next time I have to point out: “No, it was actually the tireless work of several teams of doctors and nurses who studied for years in order to gain the knowledge necessary to keep her alive… that and the huge amounts of money required to pay them.”
Turn Your Faith Dial Down...
I must interact daily with many devoutly religious individuals.
Work conversations are peppered with Biblical references and overtly over-religicized aphorisms. Weekend schedules revolve around liturgical services. I have stopped sharing anything personal with anyone, because everything good that happens must be a “blessing,” or “providence,” or all part of “God’s plan.” [Sometimes they point to the sky at this point, for emphasis.]
I am presented with the biggest moral dilemma for an atheist which pertains solely to the trait of atheism: should one speak out?
From reading my blog, you might assume I’m pretty assertive. The truth is, I have two personalities: I have a personality for public/strangers/co-workers, and a personality for friends/family/anonymity.
Strangely, the face I show my friends and family is pretty horrific and in-your-face, so they deserve a round of applause for putting up with that. My public face is the person you would meet on the street for the first time: patient, soft-spoken, agreeable, smiling… everything I’m usually not.
I’ve worked with this group of people for at least three weeks now, and I can easily gauge at this point who I want be honest with and those for whom I must always don the mask of polity.
I’ve told one person off-handedly who is roughly my age and who volunteered that she was Jewish in a discussion about how I was meeting my wife’s parents for the first time on our one-year anniversary. It was pertinent to the discussion (we are not an inter-faith couple, as we are both atheist), she was the only one around, and we were just making small talk while packing up to leave.
But why hold back at all? So many throw it in my face, so why can’t I at the very least merely inform everyone of my stance? Maybe the religious allusions will stop, though I find most mannerisms are tough habits to break.
I certainly won’t be pointing any of them to my blog, especially the Muslim ones… at least not until after “Draw Mohammad Day” is off the front page.
All of this reminds me of why atheists do need to speak out. I prefer a medium such as blogging, which is not a captive audience. If I offend someone at any point, they can choose to stop reading and never have to be exposed to my ideas again.
The thing about religious people that I hate so much is that they incorporate their faith into every aspect of their lives and personal interactions. I want nothing to do with that. Unlike religion, atheism is not a club; it is neither an exclusive group nor a blunt object for hitting others over the head. I refuse to adopt the tactics of the faithful. I believe fighting fire with fire only ensures we are all burned.
… but that doesn’t mean I can’t bitch about it here.
Work conversations are peppered with Biblical references and overtly over-religicized aphorisms. Weekend schedules revolve around liturgical services. I have stopped sharing anything personal with anyone, because everything good that happens must be a “blessing,” or “providence,” or all part of “God’s plan.” [Sometimes they point to the sky at this point, for emphasis.]
I am presented with the biggest moral dilemma for an atheist which pertains solely to the trait of atheism: should one speak out?
From reading my blog, you might assume I’m pretty assertive. The truth is, I have two personalities: I have a personality for public/strangers/co-workers, and a personality for friends/family/anonymity.
Strangely, the face I show my friends and family is pretty horrific and in-your-face, so they deserve a round of applause for putting up with that. My public face is the person you would meet on the street for the first time: patient, soft-spoken, agreeable, smiling… everything I’m usually not.
I’ve worked with this group of people for at least three weeks now, and I can easily gauge at this point who I want be honest with and those for whom I must always don the mask of polity.
I’ve told one person off-handedly who is roughly my age and who volunteered that she was Jewish in a discussion about how I was meeting my wife’s parents for the first time on our one-year anniversary. It was pertinent to the discussion (we are not an inter-faith couple, as we are both atheist), she was the only one around, and we were just making small talk while packing up to leave.
But why hold back at all? So many throw it in my face, so why can’t I at the very least merely inform everyone of my stance? Maybe the religious allusions will stop, though I find most mannerisms are tough habits to break.
I certainly won’t be pointing any of them to my blog, especially the Muslim ones… at least not until after “Draw Mohammad Day” is off the front page.
All of this reminds me of why atheists do need to speak out. I prefer a medium such as blogging, which is not a captive audience. If I offend someone at any point, they can choose to stop reading and never have to be exposed to my ideas again.
The thing about religious people that I hate so much is that they incorporate their faith into every aspect of their lives and personal interactions. I want nothing to do with that. Unlike religion, atheism is not a club; it is neither an exclusive group nor a blunt object for hitting others over the head. I refuse to adopt the tactics of the faithful. I believe fighting fire with fire only ensures we are all burned.
… but that doesn’t mean I can’t bitch about it here.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
It's May 20th Somewhere...
Since Pakistan banned Facebook over “Draw Muhammed Day,” and since it is May 20th in Pakistan, I figured I’d release another cartoon:
[Comments appear to be malfunctioning. I assure everyone that I won't delete a thing.]
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Two Dudes: Early Cartoon
It probably seems like I’m really busy, and I am. I haven’t had much time to post to the blog, but I have spent what little free time I have working on a few cartoons for May 20th. I figured I’d post one now, since I don’t plan to post before then (my wife’s graduation is Monday, our families are coming into town, my work is eating most of my time, and my car needs to get fixed). This one is perfect for releasing early, since it has nothing to do with Muhammad.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Importance of Action
Civil disobedience is an important part of every healthy society. Civil disobedience is a non-violent act performed with full knowledge that negative consequences may be inflicted by others.
Often, it is the government that is being targeted for exposure as the heavy-handed reactionary: black people sitting in seats designated for white people, Indians making salt despite a British ban on the practice, even drug dealers selling their wares despite the threat of incarceration.
However, in some cases, it is not a government that reacts to an act of defiance. May 20th has been arbitrarily selected as “Draw Mohammad Day.” I for one have been feverishly working on Photoshopping some things together. I may even drag out the pen and paper to actually create something brand new.
But why do it? For one thing, we can. There is nothing morally wrong with lampooning someone’s religion. Islam is not special, it deserves no special respect or reverence. I refuse to even admit Islam is the craziest and most violent faith.
Sure, they took down the two towers and4,000 3,000 people, but the largely Christian army of America takes out more buildings and people in any given month over there. I’m just not too frightened by a society that still rides camels and builds car bombs out of fireworks.
So let’s pretend some Muslims will try to kill people who draw Mohammad. If a couple people do something, it’s easy to scare them with threats. If thousands of people do it… let’s be honest, they don’t have the time. They’re too busy praying five times a day.
The more people who do it, the more improbable it becomes that violence will follow the depiction of that 7th century child fucker. The more people who draw Mohammad, the safer it will become to do so.
“But Ginx, I can’t draw.” Great! Just take a brown marker and draw an oval. Fill it in and there you have it: Poohammad. “Who over 7 years old still has markers?” Fine, use MS Paint. It’s really not about quality, it’s about quantity.
So warm up your imagination and start sketching those incendiary drawings and cartoons. Islam deserves to be treated the same as any other faith.
Often, it is the government that is being targeted for exposure as the heavy-handed reactionary: black people sitting in seats designated for white people, Indians making salt despite a British ban on the practice, even drug dealers selling their wares despite the threat of incarceration.
However, in some cases, it is not a government that reacts to an act of defiance. May 20th has been arbitrarily selected as “Draw Mohammad Day.” I for one have been feverishly working on Photoshopping some things together. I may even drag out the pen and paper to actually create something brand new.
But why do it? For one thing, we can. There is nothing morally wrong with lampooning someone’s religion. Islam is not special, it deserves no special respect or reverence. I refuse to even admit Islam is the craziest and most violent faith.
Sure, they took down the two towers and
So let’s pretend some Muslims will try to kill people who draw Mohammad. If a couple people do something, it’s easy to scare them with threats. If thousands of people do it… let’s be honest, they don’t have the time. They’re too busy praying five times a day.
The more people who do it, the more improbable it becomes that violence will follow the depiction of that 7th century child fucker. The more people who draw Mohammad, the safer it will become to do so.
“But Ginx, I can’t draw.” Great! Just take a brown marker and draw an oval. Fill it in and there you have it: Poohammad. “Who over 7 years old still has markers?” Fine, use MS Paint. It’s really not about quality, it’s about quantity.
So warm up your imagination and start sketching those incendiary drawings and cartoons. Islam deserves to be treated the same as any other faith.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Robin Hood: Libertarian or Socialist?
Suspend the anachronistic nature of the question, and help me discern whether the legend of Robin is more Libertarian or Socialist? It seems to be both: you have a libertarian who bears arms and fights tyranny, and you have a socialist who robs from the rich and gives to the poor. Is Robin Hood the perfect fusion of the two, a timely hero for modern America?
Here Come The Fashion Police
“Courts have looked at dusty shoes and pants and backpacks with water bottles on the person indicating that he has just completed a long journey... All of these things can constitute individual factors that add up to reasonable suspicion.”Arizona did not give law enforcement freedom to racially profile. No, they just became the fashion police.
- Connie's Congres
Backpackers beware: Arizona is full of feeble old people who hate seeing you flaunt your youth. If it ain’t a fanny pack, get the hell out!
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Most Ironic Thing...
If you’re expecting some sort of deep religious or political criticism, this post won’t be it.
My wife put an Obama campaign sign in our window two years ago. Like most liberals, we’ve been too lazy to take it down. I noticed the red coloring on the sign had faded almost completely, which is what made me remember… the most ironic thing I ever saw.
I was driving around, minding my own business, when I passed a tanning salon. They put up posters in the storefront window. I could tell they were once images of bronze, swimsuit clad models. However, the sun had bleached the color right out of the poster, reducing the models to a washed out white.
A tanning salon… whose sole job it is… to darken people’s skin… by simulating the sun… displaying images of pale people… which were once golden skinned… until the sun’s rays burned out the color…
It was an infinite loop of irony. It was more ironic than McDonald’s sponsoring the Olympics.
My wife put an Obama campaign sign in our window two years ago. Like most liberals, we’ve been too lazy to take it down. I noticed the red coloring on the sign had faded almost completely, which is what made me remember… the most ironic thing I ever saw.
I was driving around, minding my own business, when I passed a tanning salon. They put up posters in the storefront window. I could tell they were once images of bronze, swimsuit clad models. However, the sun had bleached the color right out of the poster, reducing the models to a washed out white.
A tanning salon… whose sole job it is… to darken people’s skin… by simulating the sun… displaying images of pale people… which were once golden skinned… until the sun’s rays burned out the color…
It was an infinite loop of irony. It was more ironic than McDonald’s sponsoring the Olympics.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Wednesday Word: Baracknophobia
Baracknophobia: the irrational fear that Obama will spin a web of tyranny
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Response on Immigration
Regarding Arizona’s decision to become a fascist police state, No Guy In The Sky commented (my reply in non-italics):
Really retarded is what I think of your thought process. Have you read anything since third grade?
Sorry, I must have missed “The Turner Diary.”
I am not a racist. I have friends that were illegal. I have friends that are illegal. I could easily turn their whole families lives upside down by reporting them. That is not my job.
But if paid to do so, you would? The only thing keeping you from being a monumental douchebag is laziness? Who says two wrongs can’t make a right...
It is the job of the government to protect its citizens[’] jobs. Which it isn’t doing when it ignores illegal immigrants.
I hate to stop you right there, but economies don’t work by a process of finite jobs that must be defended and set aside for certain people. Employment is reliant upon the operating capital of the private sector, which has shrunk as wealth is consolidated into the hands of a few who merely stash their boon in investment schemes which provide no real productive output.
The only reason to oppose “illegal immigration” is because you don’t like immigrants. Anyone with a cursory understanding of economics knows that an increased pool of cheap labor only solidifies the foundations on which the middle-class rests. Immigrants ought to be given citizenship, pay taxes, and abide by all laws (including those regarding minimum wages, though these may have to be lowered).
So you think schools are free? Sewers? That is all free?
You[’]r[e] an idiot. We have an immigration policy for a reason. Why do you think it is? You didn’t answer the first time I asked.
Functionalism is bunk, but I agree there is a “reason” for immigration policy, and that reason is racism, a reason dating back to the Immigration Act of 1924, when limits were initially placed on how many people could gain citizenship (it was based on how many people of that background were already here). Prior to this, and according to the intentions of this nation’s founding principles that all are created equal, immigration was completely open, and merely required the filing of paperwork. There were no limits, no lines, no families split by borders, no bureaucratic red tape...
And as I stated earlier, legal citizens pay taxes and help pay for sewers to flush turds like you.
Doors wide open sounds great if you want to completely fuck all working class citizens. Only the hot ones... You are brilliant. Thank you. Since you[’]r[e] talking out of your ass. Please explain how supply(workers) and demand(jobs) works in your situation.
As per economic theory that extends beyond simplistic 101 level supply and demand charts (which are primarily used for the cost of goods, and certainly not applied to complex labor markets), immigration supplies a market with low-cost labor. You know how factories are closing and going to other countries? Instead of going to where the cheap labor is, we can bring the cheap labor to companies here. Having the means of production in your home nation creates economic stability and jobs beyond the low-level grunts. We don’t have “real” Americans lining up to do factory work for minimum wage without benefits, and what you’re suggesting is to force Americans to do so. Limitations on immigration simultaneously lowers the standard of living for Americans and weakens our productive output.
You obviously were dropped on your head when as you said “Your cunt of a mother shit you out!”
I did not use an exclamation point, because using one would have been tacky. It’s like laughing at your own joke. And you left out the part of America’s soil being greasey.
FYI - Dumb Ass! Being against illegal immigration does not make me racist. Your thinking that way shows severe retardation.
You want people to leave your country based on their heritage, but you aren’t racist... I think you’re late for your hood fitting...
Why is America supposed to open the doors?
Because some jackass racists closed them for no good reason
Is the rest of the world open? Australia? Thailand? Russia? China? England? France? Doors open? Nope. Why is that? Research that ya melon head. Heard about passports? Why do we need them? [Confusing repetition of z deleted]
Like I said earlier, if you want to live in Australia, Thailand, Russia, China, England, France, etc., please go for it. You will not be missed.
America should be open to all who wish to reside and work here because that is what made us better than all of those nations you listed. Ignorant dolts like yourself are making a move to Scandinavia seem appealing.
Really. What the fuck is wrong with you?
I can tolerate living near people who are different?
Really retarded is what I think of your thought process. Have you read anything since third grade?
Sorry, I must have missed “The Turner Diary.”
I am not a racist. I have friends that were illegal. I have friends that are illegal. I could easily turn their whole families lives upside down by reporting them. That is not my job.
But if paid to do so, you would? The only thing keeping you from being a monumental douchebag is laziness? Who says two wrongs can’t make a right...
It is the job of the government to protect its citizens[’] jobs. Which it isn’t doing when it ignores illegal immigrants.
I hate to stop you right there, but economies don’t work by a process of finite jobs that must be defended and set aside for certain people. Employment is reliant upon the operating capital of the private sector, which has shrunk as wealth is consolidated into the hands of a few who merely stash their boon in investment schemes which provide no real productive output.
The only reason to oppose “illegal immigration” is because you don’t like immigrants. Anyone with a cursory understanding of economics knows that an increased pool of cheap labor only solidifies the foundations on which the middle-class rests. Immigrants ought to be given citizenship, pay taxes, and abide by all laws (including those regarding minimum wages, though these may have to be lowered).
So you think schools are free? Sewers? That is all free?
You[’]r[e] an idiot. We have an immigration policy for a reason. Why do you think it is? You didn’t answer the first time I asked.
Functionalism is bunk, but I agree there is a “reason” for immigration policy, and that reason is racism, a reason dating back to the Immigration Act of 1924, when limits were initially placed on how many people could gain citizenship (it was based on how many people of that background were already here). Prior to this, and according to the intentions of this nation’s founding principles that all are created equal, immigration was completely open, and merely required the filing of paperwork. There were no limits, no lines, no families split by borders, no bureaucratic red tape...
And as I stated earlier, legal citizens pay taxes and help pay for sewers to flush turds like you.
Doors wide open sounds great if you want to completely fuck all working class citizens. Only the hot ones... You are brilliant. Thank you. Since you[’]r[e] talking out of your ass. Please explain how supply(workers) and demand(jobs) works in your situation.
As per economic theory that extends beyond simplistic 101 level supply and demand charts (which are primarily used for the cost of goods, and certainly not applied to complex labor markets), immigration supplies a market with low-cost labor. You know how factories are closing and going to other countries? Instead of going to where the cheap labor is, we can bring the cheap labor to companies here. Having the means of production in your home nation creates economic stability and jobs beyond the low-level grunts. We don’t have “real” Americans lining up to do factory work for minimum wage without benefits, and what you’re suggesting is to force Americans to do so. Limitations on immigration simultaneously lowers the standard of living for Americans and weakens our productive output.
You obviously were dropped on your head when as you said “Your cunt of a mother shit you out!”
I did not use an exclamation point, because using one would have been tacky. It’s like laughing at your own joke. And you left out the part of America’s soil being greasey.
FYI - Dumb Ass! Being against illegal immigration does not make me racist. Your thinking that way shows severe retardation.
You want people to leave your country based on their heritage, but you aren’t racist... I think you’re late for your hood fitting...
Why is America supposed to open the doors?
Because some jackass racists closed them for no good reason
Is the rest of the world open? Australia? Thailand? Russia? China? England? France? Doors open? Nope. Why is that? Research that ya melon head. Heard about passports? Why do we need them? [Confusing repetition of z deleted]
Like I said earlier, if you want to live in Australia, Thailand, Russia, China, England, France, etc., please go for it. You will not be missed.
America should be open to all who wish to reside and work here because that is what made us better than all of those nations you listed. Ignorant dolts like yourself are making a move to Scandinavia seem appealing.
Really. What the fuck is wrong with you?
I can tolerate living near people who are different?
The Arizona Solution
The past couple of days, I have pondered how best to handle the idiocy coming from the Arizona state legislature. There have been protests, and there are those who are boycotting the state. However, I think the solution requires something a little more…
The United States should cede Arizona to Mexico. Think about it. We acquired Arizona from Mexico in the Mexican-American War, so it may be argued we have no legitimate right to the land. We also don’t need Arizona. The state is largely old, white, racist retirees, and the money we could save not paying for their Medicare would far outweigh the meager benefits the state provides. [The Grand Canyon is nothing but North America’s asscrack.]
While we’re at it, we should give back California and Texas, too. Texas is an obvious choice, but why would I suggest getting rid of Cali, the liberal Mecca? Well, their insurmountable debt problem makes the decision appealing. Politicians who suggest policies that circumvent Constitutional amendments would be another.
Being faced with trying to [re]gain American citizenship might instill a sense of empathy in the hearts of these desert-dwelling bigots.
The United States should cede Arizona to Mexico. Think about it. We acquired Arizona from Mexico in the Mexican-American War, so it may be argued we have no legitimate right to the land. We also don’t need Arizona. The state is largely old, white, racist retirees, and the money we could save not paying for their Medicare would far outweigh the meager benefits the state provides. [The Grand Canyon is nothing but North America’s asscrack.]
While we’re at it, we should give back California and Texas, too. Texas is an obvious choice, but why would I suggest getting rid of Cali, the liberal Mecca? Well, their insurmountable debt problem makes the decision appealing. Politicians who suggest policies that circumvent Constitutional amendments would be another.
Being faced with trying to [re]gain American citizenship might instill a sense of empathy in the hearts of these desert-dwelling bigots.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Origins
I haven’t talked too much about the bible lately, so I figured I’d give it another whirl. What better place to start than the beginning…
The Bible picks things up at Day 1, but I’m more interested in Day 0. What happened on Day 0? Trick question, there is no Day 0, just as there is no year 0. However, one can imagine what one would call the era denoting these prior days: BG, Before God.
What were things like back then? Well, according to the Bible, it was wet. It’s pretty fuzzy beyond that.
I sometimes wonder why religious people would trust a being which won’t even explain where it came from. If you met someone and asked where they’re from, and they said “I have always been,” you would probably bury your head in a book or put headphones on and ignore them.
There is, in fact, an innate human fear of outsiders. There is a legitimate function to this, sociologically. Exile was a common punishment throughout history, and self-imposed exile (otherwise known as “fleeing”) is also a common practice. Societies do not want criminals joining their ranks, and they have little way of distinguishing between those kicked out or escaping punishment for crimes, and those innocently seeking asylum from persecution or famine.
How is it that right-wingers hate undocumented immigrants, but take God at His word?
The Bible picks things up at Day 1, but I’m more interested in Day 0. What happened on Day 0? Trick question, there is no Day 0, just as there is no year 0. However, one can imagine what one would call the era denoting these prior days: BG, Before God.
What were things like back then? Well, according to the Bible, it was wet. It’s pretty fuzzy beyond that.
I sometimes wonder why religious people would trust a being which won’t even explain where it came from. If you met someone and asked where they’re from, and they said “I have always been,” you would probably bury your head in a book or put headphones on and ignore them.
There is, in fact, an innate human fear of outsiders. There is a legitimate function to this, sociologically. Exile was a common punishment throughout history, and self-imposed exile (otherwise known as “fleeing”) is also a common practice. Societies do not want criminals joining their ranks, and they have little way of distinguishing between those kicked out or escaping punishment for crimes, and those innocently seeking asylum from persecution or famine.
How is it that right-wingers hate undocumented immigrants, but take God at His word?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
