"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Sounds good, doesn't it? For those from the world outside America, and even for some within, this is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Simply put it says: "No laws about religion, No stopping free speech, No stopping the press, No stopping peaceful protests and No stopping petitions to the government." Man, America must be a utopian society, with such a statement, right? Wrong. Let me explain.
Straight up there is to be no law for or against religion or religious practices. There are laws that prohibit certain practices, but those laws apply to everyone, not specific religions. This is why churches pay no tax. That would violate the first amendment. Fortunately there is a flip side, churches can't have their beliefs made into law. Or they shouldn't. They spend millions of dollars annually to get laws passed. Something must be done.
I have seen many things whilst goofing around on the net. It is from these things that I became a 'militant' (see: outspoken) atheist. I have seen many non-religious people crying to have the churches taxed. I disagree. To tax the church would cut the first part of the amendment out entirely, justifying their spending with no way of stopping it without being hypocritical. Many churches in America do not lobby, and can only afford to continue as is by being tax exempt. The ones that do try to pay for law, are the giant mega churches, whose business like structure are certain to find a way around paying appropriate taxes anyway.
No, what needs to happen is a firmer enforcing of the first amendment. Stop them from lobbying, if that's even possible. That would be mire in-line with the state the founding fathers envisioned. However, because of the power the church holds, no such law will come to fruition. Neither will they ever be taxed. The people won't stand for it. The president of the US must be Christian, or from one of it's splinter religions. This isn't a legal issue, but a social one. If an Islamic person ran for president, he'd be drowned in bad publicity from the get go. And an atheist wouldn't even get to be a senator. The church is powerful, rich and incredibly sly when it comes to politics. This is a dangerous combination. Add to the mix a general dislike of education and love of bigotry, and you can see a problem. Finally, sprinkle on some holy righteousness, and what have you got? A shitstorm of hate and regression.
America? We need to talk.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Friday, December 16, 2011
Death of an Idol
On December 15th, 2011, a great man lost his life. This is not a post saying how great he was. I will admit I've not read any of his work. I plan too, but I haven't yet. This post is not about wallowing in pity about this loss, because there is no point in such a course of action. This post is not talking about the large number of people he inspired, or helped, though that would be a worthy post. This post, one that reaches only very few, will be talking about douche-bag reactions to the death of Christopher Hitchens.
First off, I have ALREADY SEEN some dick headed, heartless responses to the grave news. It seems that a minority (at least I hope it's a minority) of people think this is good news. "HA HA Burn in hell" or the like is common, though there are other more colourful responses... The fact that he hasn't been dead for a day and people are CELEBRATING it. Claiming God's will is to blame. FUCK YOU! A MAN IS DEAD! Anyone who can derive happiness for the passing of another is fundamentally sick. Also, he died of cancer, not act of god. Either accept that ALL people killed by diseases die naturally (and more often than not, painfully), or believe that God decided to make most people suffer for no discernible reason, killing indiscriminately. Claiming that an atheist died because he was atheist is pathetic, and only serves to alienate you further from the rest of the civilized society.
Another type of comment follows this kind of template: "A good man has died, he now knows the Truth". All I can say to this is, shut up. His death proves nothing about your faith. Using the death of another human, the loss of their mind, and potential ideas, to further the goals of his enemies is unethical. It is a sad and failing attempt, and complimenting him in the same breath is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Lastly, in anticipation of all the 'bedside conversion' rumors that will inevitably begin circulation, Christopher Hitchens said this: "As a terrified, half-aware imbecile, I might even scream for a priest at the close of business, though I hereby state while I am still lucid that the entity thus humiliating itself would not in fact be 'me.' (Bear this in mind, in case of any later rumors or fabrications.)" This is an awesome quote, and I will be sure to point it out to any douche bag that tries to convert me with stupid crap like this.
First off, I have ALREADY SEEN some dick headed, heartless responses to the grave news. It seems that a minority (at least I hope it's a minority) of people think this is good news. "HA HA Burn in hell" or the like is common, though there are other more colourful responses... The fact that he hasn't been dead for a day and people are CELEBRATING it. Claiming God's will is to blame. FUCK YOU! A MAN IS DEAD! Anyone who can derive happiness for the passing of another is fundamentally sick. Also, he died of cancer, not act of god. Either accept that ALL people killed by diseases die naturally (and more often than not, painfully), or believe that God decided to make most people suffer for no discernible reason, killing indiscriminately. Claiming that an atheist died because he was atheist is pathetic, and only serves to alienate you further from the rest of the civilized society.
Another type of comment follows this kind of template: "A good man has died, he now knows the Truth". All I can say to this is, shut up. His death proves nothing about your faith. Using the death of another human, the loss of their mind, and potential ideas, to further the goals of his enemies is unethical. It is a sad and failing attempt, and complimenting him in the same breath is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Lastly, in anticipation of all the 'bedside conversion' rumors that will inevitably begin circulation, Christopher Hitchens said this: "As a terrified, half-aware imbecile, I might even scream for a priest at the close of business, though I hereby state while I am still lucid that the entity thus humiliating itself would not in fact be 'me.' (Bear this in mind, in case of any later rumors or fabrications.)" This is an awesome quote, and I will be sure to point it out to any douche bag that tries to convert me with stupid crap like this.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Answering creationist "arguments"
I said this post would be good, and while it is not particularly unique, it is very entertaining. This is of course an incomplete list, but I'll expand upon it later when I find some more "arguments".
Okay, well first off, that's fucked up. Second, there are many reasons why a false result could have been achieved. First and foremost, radiometric dating is to brides on very old things. Fossils, or rocks that are at least a couple hundred years old. Thief younger than this are going to give a false result. Or, if you were using a more appropriate dating method (and thus disproving your conclusion anyway) there is a high chance for human error. I doubt you have a degree in any of the sciences, which makes it unlikely that you know the correct processors. Or perhaps it was confirmation bias comung into play. Doing multiple tests and only one of them was wrong, so you hold it up as a triumph. Silly creationists, tricks don't work well in science.
I respond to this thusly: ever eaten an orange, or a lemon? Those have citric acid in them. And not just a kittle. How come your teeth and stomach didn't dissolve? Remembering from my Chen days (a couple years back) I think an acid is defined as having a readily bonding hydrogen atom on it. Like HCl, or hydrochloric acid. The acidity is determined by the number of free H+ ions in a solution, I think. I'll check my facts and comment the results on this post.
So that is it for the arguments I've seen/heard. If you know of any that you want me to answer, or want to challenge my answers on these, just comment, and I'll get right on it.
If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?Ok, almost everyone has heard this one, and almost everyone thinks it is stupid. But for those who think it is convincing, I'll explain it this way. All dogs were bred from wolves, so how come there are still wolves? It's because only a small group was changed. And there are so many different breeds of dog, but they all have the same ancestor species, the wolf. The same thing applies to humans and monkeys, and apes. We all evolved from a common ancestor. It wasn't a monkey or an ape of today. It was something that had the shared traits of all, and most likely in a more primitive form. There was a divergence of genetics in the past, one side went on to become monkeys, the other to become apes (humans are just really smart apes).
Creatures don't live for millions of years!Once again, this is stupid, even to some creationists. The million year timeline isn't for the individual, but for the genetic group it is part of. Their defendants over the course of millions of years adapt to survive in drastic ways (depending on the circumstances). If a being did live for millions of years, that'd be amazing, and worthy of study and preservation.
I did a (insert radiometric dating technique here) on my dead cat and found it to be thousands of years old. Therefore radiometric dating is false.
Okay, well first off, that's fucked up. Second, there are many reasons why a false result could have been achieved. First and foremost, radiometric dating is to brides on very old things. Fossils, or rocks that are at least a couple hundred years old. Thief younger than this are going to give a false result. Or, if you were using a more appropriate dating method (and thus disproving your conclusion anyway) there is a high chance for human error. I doubt you have a degree in any of the sciences, which makes it unlikely that you know the correct processors. Or perhaps it was confirmation bias comung into play. Doing multiple tests and only one of them was wrong, so you hold it up as a triumph. Silly creationists, tricks don't work well in science.
Scientists like to use big words to sound more impressive, like deoxyribosenucleic acid, for example. Sounds impressive, right? Ever seen what happens when you put something in acid? It dissolves. If we had that throughout our bodies, we'd all dissolve. So much for the theory of evolution.
I respond to this thusly: ever eaten an orange, or a lemon? Those have citric acid in them. And not just a kittle. How come your teeth and stomach didn't dissolve? Remembering from my Chen days (a couple years back) I think an acid is defined as having a readily bonding hydrogen atom on it. Like HCl, or hydrochloric acid. The acidity is determined by the number of free H+ ions in a solution, I think. I'll check my facts and comment the results on this post.
So that is it for the arguments I've seen/heard. If you know of any that you want me to answer, or want to challenge my answers on these, just comment, and I'll get right on it.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
New blog
Hey there, my loyal followers. I'm sorry I haven't posted recently... I'm a shit of a person. I have now got a new blog, Written Utopia. It's about my writing skills; differing styles, practicing for my novel, reviews of literature. Things of that nature. Grammar Nazis are more than welcome, how else will I learn?
Keep a lookout for my next post, it'll be good, as a sorry for my lack of content for the last few weeks/months.
Keep a lookout for my next post, it'll be good, as a sorry for my lack of content for the last few weeks/months.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
A soul saved is a mind lost
I am between reliable Internet sources currently, and as such haven't been able to post ad often as I'd like. This month there will be no insane imagery, but if you have an idea for one, don't hesitate to email me. The address is prophetoflogic@hotmail.com. And now to my post.
There are many reasons one could come up with to suggest that religious people can be amoral, or at least highly immoral. But that isn't such a big problem. It's treatable, just like many mental disorders. A bigger problem is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, most people fail to accept their insanity. And it's transferrable, like paranoia within conspiracy theorist circles. The difference is that conspiracies aren't accepted and respected like religion. Every soul saved is a mind lost. Every person who accepts supernatural claims without, or in spite of, evidence is at least delusional, at worst schizophrenic. But it's even worse.
Some of those counted amongst the saved don't feel anything different to an atheist; don't attribute coincidence to some omnipotent being. In almost every way these people could be considered sane, except that they desire, usually very strongly, a supernatural feeling. They want to be delusional, though they wouldn't call it that, or even know it. It actually saddens me to see otherwise rational people say they long for the day they are touched by god.
when they get this 'touch' ignorance seems to infect their whole mind, moving from simply god to other areas like science and law. I've known people to over the course of a year (after being born again) change their opinion from being strongly against the death penalty, to being strongly for it, as well as other horrible acts, like corporal punishment. It imitates an infection, without a biological or chemical agent. The are no anti-ideology medications. The only thing we, the strongly atheist, can do is to explain their delusion, usually in nicer terms, and try to return them to sanity. It doesn't work often, but when it does, I suspect the sensation is similar to when a psychologist hears a schizophrenic patient say the voices aren't real.
Unfortuantely every soul lost is not a mind saved. Many times when someones soul is lost (not because of death) it is a conversion story. It is easier to believe that the voice in your head was someone different to who you thought, then it is to accept that it wasn't real to start with. No-one wants to be insane. Those who recover, though, seem to retaliate against religion harder than others who, like myself, were never converted to begin with.
Every soul saved is a mind lost. The impression of needing to be saved is hurtful to people, usually causing massive amounts of guilt, and manifesting in other unexpected ways *cough**catholic church**cough*. The idea that atheists need rescuing isn't completely untrue. Most times, however, they need to be rescued from their supposed Sabines. Beatings, life threats and constant harassment seem more characteristic of a stalker, or violent sociopath, than is does of a morally upstanding citizen, but therein lies the paradox. In order to save someone, you should isolated and punish them until they believe. That belief seems about as reliable as a confession given under torture. This has led good-hearted atheists to start groups dedicated to helping the unfortunate victims of the savior paradox. And I am thankful for them everyday.
You probably noticed I said "every soul saved is a mind lost" a number of times. This was no accident. This phrase associates being saved with being insane. It is my hope that it help to alleviate the savior paradox problem. I hope to see it floating around the web eventually, and perhaps even in real life. I know I'll be doing my part, by donating to he groups I vaguely pointed out and by trying to bring people back to the light of reason and sanity.
frites evidentia logica
There are many reasons one could come up with to suggest that religious people can be amoral, or at least highly immoral. But that isn't such a big problem. It's treatable, just like many mental disorders. A bigger problem is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, most people fail to accept their insanity. And it's transferrable, like paranoia within conspiracy theorist circles. The difference is that conspiracies aren't accepted and respected like religion. Every soul saved is a mind lost. Every person who accepts supernatural claims without, or in spite of, evidence is at least delusional, at worst schizophrenic. But it's even worse.
Some of those counted amongst the saved don't feel anything different to an atheist; don't attribute coincidence to some omnipotent being. In almost every way these people could be considered sane, except that they desire, usually very strongly, a supernatural feeling. They want to be delusional, though they wouldn't call it that, or even know it. It actually saddens me to see otherwise rational people say they long for the day they are touched by god.
when they get this 'touch' ignorance seems to infect their whole mind, moving from simply god to other areas like science and law. I've known people to over the course of a year (after being born again) change their opinion from being strongly against the death penalty, to being strongly for it, as well as other horrible acts, like corporal punishment. It imitates an infection, without a biological or chemical agent. The are no anti-ideology medications. The only thing we, the strongly atheist, can do is to explain their delusion, usually in nicer terms, and try to return them to sanity. It doesn't work often, but when it does, I suspect the sensation is similar to when a psychologist hears a schizophrenic patient say the voices aren't real.
Unfortuantely every soul lost is not a mind saved. Many times when someones soul is lost (not because of death) it is a conversion story. It is easier to believe that the voice in your head was someone different to who you thought, then it is to accept that it wasn't real to start with. No-one wants to be insane. Those who recover, though, seem to retaliate against religion harder than others who, like myself, were never converted to begin with.
Every soul saved is a mind lost. The impression of needing to be saved is hurtful to people, usually causing massive amounts of guilt, and manifesting in other unexpected ways *cough**catholic church**cough*. The idea that atheists need rescuing isn't completely untrue. Most times, however, they need to be rescued from their supposed Sabines. Beatings, life threats and constant harassment seem more characteristic of a stalker, or violent sociopath, than is does of a morally upstanding citizen, but therein lies the paradox. In order to save someone, you should isolated and punish them until they believe. That belief seems about as reliable as a confession given under torture. This has led good-hearted atheists to start groups dedicated to helping the unfortunate victims of the savior paradox. And I am thankful for them everyday.
You probably noticed I said "every soul saved is a mind lost" a number of times. This was no accident. This phrase associates being saved with being insane. It is my hope that it help to alleviate the savior paradox problem. I hope to see it floating around the web eventually, and perhaps even in real life. I know I'll be doing my part, by donating to he groups I vaguely pointed out and by trying to bring people back to the light of reason and sanity.
frites evidentia logica
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)