Warriors for christ, or allah, or whomever . . .

Over and over in religious texts appears an idea of battling for your diety. The Hebrew god instructed that the walls of Jericho be torn to the ground and all the inhabitants killed and Mohammad spoke of war against ‘infidels’ – in modernity, evengelicals speak of being a ‘warrior for christ’ or some such nonsense. So, what is the deal with all the violence? For religions of ‘peace and brotherly love’, they sure do talk an awful lot about war and conflict.

-I should make a brief aside at this point and state that not all religious people in every church feel this way. If you take offense, lighten up and then read through your holy book and tell me that I’m off track here.-

Followers of a religion need to conflict with other groups to attain a sense of legitimacy and favor in the eyes of their chosen diety. Without a ‘battle against evil’ they would not find the comfort and solace in such beliefs. Because all religious groups think that they are right, they must exclude any and all other groups to varying degrees. Some groups of course, are more militant about this than others. The evangelicals for example, use the terminology of being a ‘warrior’ as more of a metaphor for the individual’s struggle against the powers of the devil in an effort to deliver ‘good news’ to everyone. Other religions take this idea of warring out of the symbolic and into the world of blood and killing.

Without this idea of ‘fighting the good fight’, many religions would sink in to relative obscurity (think Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, etc.). The lesser known ideologies tend to stay quiet and don’t cause much trouble because they lack the need to ‘kill’ every other belief in order to gain a sense of right-doing. However christianity for example, is instructed through the bible the ways in which its followers are to go out and fight in the name of god. It seems a little silly to cling to these ideas and at the same time preach ‘love thy neighbor’ – what if your neighbor is an atheist? Apparently there are exceptions not listed in the ‘good book’.

Waging the ideological war from both sides . . .

Modern atheist ‘leaders’ tend to feed the flames of religious ideological wars, but I’m not so sure that is always intentional. The problem I think, lies in the fundamental difference between religious and logical viewpoints. As long as each side is passionate about its particular view there will always be a certain amount of conflict, but by understanding in part the causes of this conflict I believe that we can have a more productive discussion.

Let us for a moment assume that we have as an example two people. One is religious and the other atheist, and neither is fanatical. The religious subject has full faith and confidence in his or her chosen holy book, but is not combative about the issue. The athiest has full faith and confidence in reason and science, but allows that many people seem to need some sort or religious belief. Let us further refine our example by imagining that these two people are in the process of discussing say, the beginning of our universe.

The atheist will no doubt see the beginning of the universe as a causal chain stemming from what many scientists see as a first event. While the atheist places trust in the knowledge and ability of scientists to find answers, room is left for error. If current theories prove to be wrong, the atheist is ready to follow a new path of knowledge. There is no need for un-verifiable notions of an afterlife with complicated rules and regulations, nor is a supernatural component of the world required. The universe is its own wonder. Even though the general thought processes of our fictitious atheist tend toward rationality, many atheists fall prey to human emotional nature. Our atheist is no exception, and becomes incensed at the religious viewpoint and begins to feel angry and maybe even a little resentful that a religious person cannot follow such a plain trail of logic. The atheist attacks religion out of frustration and confusion, but attacks nonetheless.

Our religious follower will no doubt have some form of ‘pity’ for the atheist and may even think our non-believer stupid for not being able to follow the simple instructions presented in the holy book. The believer will not listen to the atheist’s arguements, especially after the attacks begin and will tend to use these attacks as further evidence that atheists are evil people and cannot be trusted. Many passages will be cited as evidence of the book’s truth and inerrance, and any examples of wrong done by religion will be dismissed wholly with different types of excuses.

So, what to do?

Both parties engage in their petty arguments and each fails to yield, as both believe (or trust) that they are right. In the end, we are left with a fruitless conversation. How, then do we have a diologue about science versus religion in a productive context? We don’t. If that sounds a little extreme, try to think of an instance in which good came of two passionate people on opposing sides of the conversation debated this issue.

I think the answer begins with understanding that a person’s ideas about the world do not make them evil. Every person has the capacity for wrongdoing, regardless of beliefs. Our value as human beings lies not in what we believe, but rather the quality of being human itself. Do not assume that others should believe as you, and do not expect them to remain quiet if you offend or disrespect them. Go to church if you like, but know that your reign as a member of the moral ‘right’ is coming to an end. Instead of judging others based upon faith or lack thereof, judge the intentions of others based upon their actions and decide of you desire to have that influence in your life.

When dealing with matters of politics and public policy, leave your religion at home. Injecting religion into public matters will invariably cause you to denegrade and trod upon those whose rights are just as important as yours. Do not strive to ‘tolerate’ others’ beliefs – this is dishonest. Instead, base your interactions with others upon their actions. If you feel that you are justified in telling me that I am wrong for not believing in your god, then understand that I am justified in telling you that you are wrong for believing in god at all.

It is my sincere belief that society will only evolve as a whole when religion is pushed to the fringe of public thought. Just as we no longer place our faith in soothseers and astrologers (ok, well some of us do), I look forward to a time when religion is looked upon with the same raised eyebrow as palm-reading and carnival hucksters. Only then can we as a society begin to honestly look at our world and make decisions that will have real and lasting positive influences on humankind as a whole.

Religion is a strange topic. If there were only one ‘world’ religion I could find greater validity in the idea of an all-powerful deity. However, religious beliefs are far from universal. Each reigion has its own set of chosen religious texts, some of the same texts are interpreted with different meanings, and each set of followers seems to think that their particular view is the ‘only’ and correct view. As a rule of thumb, any religious belief exhalts itself to the exclusion of all others. “But my church doesn’t do that! We are tolerant of other beliefs!”, right? What is tolerance? You are ‘tolerant’ in that you still believe that others are wrong, but you just don’t say anything for fear of starting a fight. Perhaps you just keep quiet in the knowledge that ‘your’ god will punish the non-believers; maybe you are even one of the few that really don’t mind what beliefs others keep. Either way, tolerance is crap. What you should have is respect enough for others to understand that you are not ‘right’ and other beliefs are not ‘wrong’. However, even if you do truly respect other individuals, there is still a big problem with belief.

What the hell is wrong with belief?

On the surface religious beliefs can seem like a positive quality, giving one a sense of hope and purpose. Many often cite their personal beliefs as the premise for living a meaningful life, so can it really be that bad? Once again, the conversation (or monologue in this case) would be much different if there were only one religion in the world. With a plethora of prevailing religious thought though, we need to speak of belief in a broader sense. With few exceptions, religious belief stems from written works purported to be of divine origin. These texts specify the laws by which a society should be governed, impose moral and cultural directives, outline punishments for disobedience, list rewards for good behavior, et al. Most important of all though, is that they were all written by men – and by men, I mean people with penises.

These penis-laden individuals not only had the ability to write, but they also had ajendas. The motives and goals of the original writers of religious texts can never be understood regardless of what you have been told. So, we have a large portion of the world’s population basing their lives upon the writings of some ancient men (many of whom were claimed to be illiterate) to the extent that they derive from them ultimate certainty about life, death, and the entire universe. These same people would not believe that the earth is flat (just as was thought only a few hundred years ago). We have discarded the ‘wisdom’ of the past in lieu of new discoveries. We no longer cleave to beliefs in sea monsters, fairies, dragons, or many other ideas shown to be highly improbable.

Relligion is different in that it claims god to be outside our direct perception, ethereal and unreachable. Therefore by the very nature of god, he (she, it, etc.) can only be discovered and experienced within oneself – how convenient. That makes the whole issue untouchable from a practical standpoint, which allows religious believers to change and amend the rules whenever it suits the situation. This creates major problems with accountability and justification.

But, GOD told me to! It’s his will. . .

Religious adherance allows one to deny personal responsibility for a whole range of issues. From social and cultural constructs to personal morality and introspection, religious belief allows one to justify just about any action, word, or thought in the name of doctrine. Further, one can easily refer to any given interpretation of a religious text in order to fit a given circumstance. “But I don’t do that! I stick to scripture!” – sure you do. No one is immune to ‘changing the rules’, even when it means changing the rules to make it seem as thought you didn’t change the rules.

Believing that there is a god with a ‘will’ that you are powerless to defy strikes a death blow at self-responsibility. If you have a way to mentally massage yourself out of an unfortunate situation (for which you are at least partly responsible), what better than to chalk everything up to god’s will? If things go well, you can feel good about being in god’s favor and if they go badly, you just didn’t believe enough or pray enough. Either way, god had the situation planned out already so there was no way for you to affect any outcomes. Wow. I wonder if the “god’s will” argument will do the trick the next time I’m late for work.

I’m just following orders. . .

Religious justification comes in many flavors and most are relatively tame in comparison to the Spanish Inquisition, but some are insidiously subtle and
work their corrosive magic slowly. In order to make a point, I will begin with a rather nasty and silly example: I hear one day that a fellow of mine has dressed himself in a linen shirt and is wearing a wool sport coat – naturally, if I am a literal believer in the bible my inclination will be to stone him. Later in the day, I see a woman who has braided her hair in order to try a new style and to feel and look more attractive – again, because I am a literal believer in the bible, I will inform her that according to Peter she will hang by her braids over a lake of fire in hell. Oh, and any man she happens to attract will also hang by his hair over a lake of fire in hell, but he will hang by the short and curlies.

Sound silly? Sure it does! That however, is the point. These two examples are most likely not going to be realistic in a modern society (but I’m sure there are exceptions), so here is a better example. Taking the bible as an example: the attitudes toward women in religious texts are rarely favorable. Women are excluded from ceremony, not allowed to hold office, and are generally looked down upon by those penis-laden writers and their followers. There are many instances in the bible of instructions for men regarding the treatment and management of their women, various punishments prescribed specifically for the whore cooking your dinner, and stories about the abuse and mistreatment of women to regail and amuse the fervent male follower. Even in a post-suffrage culture, liberation for women seems to have skipped religion. Why are religions immune? God must be a bigoted sexist. After all, he ‘inspired’ all these writings, right? But, since god ‘said’ it, that must be the way things are intended to be – the next tme your wife gets out of line, just whip out the bible and lay some canonical smack-down on her disobedient ass!

So, brace yourself – you have to make your own decisions!

I don’t like the idea of there being a god; it actually would make life pretty pointless. Ok, so we are created to satisfy the narcissistic tendencies of a deity, are given a set of impossible rules that defy our natural qualities (given by the creator), live under the umbrella of being a piece of crap (but god loves you anyway), and told that if we screw up even once we will burn forever in torment. If that’s the case, staying un-created sounds damn nice to me.
Instead, I prefer to look at life as an adventure. I am here for an infinitesimally short period of time to make the most of what I can muster. I’m alive to explore, learn, love, mess up, laugh, and experience what I choose. The key to life is that there is no ultimate purpose – the meaning of ife is whatever we make of it in every moment. Be awed, stay humble, take responsibility for your choices, treat others with respect and kindness (most of the time, anyway), learn all you can, love someone, and generally be amazed at how cool it is to be human.

After my short time here, my biological processes will stop and my body will reach equilibrium with the environment. The constituents of what was once my physical body will be broken down and converted into compunds that will sustain other life. My atoms, once born in the hearts of stars halfway across the universe, atoms that allowed me to live and be amazed by life for a time will eventually become the nutrients that allow a rose to bloom. No unfinished business, no afterlife, no heaven and no hell – just part of a wonderful cycle.

-this message brought to you by the Church of Latter Day Stains

Bachmann: Turn 9-9-9 upside down… http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/11/bachmann_the_devil_is_in_the_details_of_cains_9-9-9_plan.html

Wow. . .

What an intelligent response. Yes, let’s further propagate superstitious bullcrap to an already overly religious public. Now, some preacher in backwoods wherever will take this connection and run with it. Cain will become the antichrist – after all, why wasn’t it a 9-9-8 plan? Oooh, that tricky satan, always up to no good.

Instead, Bachmann should have kept her comments on a pragmatic level. As usual though, some idiot always has to bring a religious connotation to EVERY discussion. What happened to issues? Where is common sense? Most importantly – who the HELL elected this moron?

I’m sick and tired of conservatives using religion and liberals using class warfare. KNOCK IT OFF, ALREADY!

From what I’ve read about Cain, his ideas are worth hearing. Even if he turns out to be wrong, at least he is making some sort of sense at this point and seems to be genuinely passionate about the future of our country.

-and if he is satan, that’s ok by me…

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100108992/michelle-obama�s-taxpayer-funded-spending-is-an-embarrassment-for-the-white-house/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

So, we’re definitely not all in this together. It would be different, I suppose if these things were happening in a time of growth or at least stability for the country. However, we are in a tough boat right now and the administration does not seem interested in being a part of the team. While we are told to sacrifice and make the hard decisions for our families, the Os continue to gallop around the globe on our dime.

I wish we were still just hearing about Bush’s golfing trips. . . but this is total crap. In a related article posted this morning, it was estimated that Mrs. O has racked up some 10 million in vacation expenses. That’s fine for Bill Gates or Warren Buffet (after all, they spend their own money), but it divides the country when those of us who are still struggling without work hear about lavish vacations taken with our tax dollars.

Oh, and listing your daughters as ‘senior staff’? Wow. . . that’s either a violation of child-labor laws or just good ol’ deception. Why does being a politician (or spouse thereof) automatically mean that you have to lie? It seems as though this country has its values upside down. . .

Come on, WTF, Obama!
-posted via WordPress for Android from the almighty Asus Eee Pad

http://android.wordpress.org/

Just when you thought things couldn’t get more connected. . . now You can share links and post to a wordpress blog (self-hosted or otherwise) directly from your android phone or tablet.

Like it or not, the world keeps getting smaller and faster.

-Posted from my Asus Eee Pad Transformer-

Christians ponder the secretive use of pornography – KansasCity.com

>> click above to read the full article: please read before continuing…

Now, this is funny stuff. . . I could nearly write a book in response to this single article, but I won’t subject you to that. There are really two main points that we can pull out to see how silly and childish this issue is.

First, the point is made early on that “it was never addressed at church, so I didn’t know it was wrong”. Wow. So, if a specific issue isn’t covered at church, then you don’t know it’s wrong? That’s exactly what religion does: it diminishes and / or destroys critical thinking faculties. This causes a person to run only by a set of specific rules. They do not have the mental tools to assess a situation and formulate an ‘appropriate’ action based upon personal morals and beliefs. (Either that, or their real morals are quite different from their professed morals) This state of ‘sheepdom’ leaves one in a position of relative defenselessness in the world, unable to react in constructive ways and remain adaptive in a changing world. Plus, it has the added downside of creating a bunch of automatons bowing to every whim of the church.

Second, this story makes pornography the problem. <BUZZ> Wrong answer. Just because crack exists, doesn’t mean that I have to use it. Pornography is likened to the ’800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to discuss’. Really? I can’t imagine that porn is spontaneously appearing on computers at one in the morning with everyone in bed. No- someone is intentionally going to these sites. Pornography is not the problem, these ‘christians’ that partake of it are the problem. If there wasn’t a demand for videos of gay midgets riding each other while covered in feces, then those videos would most likely not exist.

It’s time to stop putting blame on faceless ideas and start accepting responsibility for our actions. You’re not addicted to porn, you are just a pervert: accept it. Only then can you do something about it.

The CSA reads genesis as a literal account of the origin of the universe, and berates anyone that does not as foolish and ignorant. A perusal of the CSA ‘faq’ and ‘articles’ sections yields many selections written by one Tom Willis. Judging from his writing, I can only conclude that Mr. Willis has suffered at the hands of an abusive relative or other trauma as a child. Perhaps he lost the big spelling bee and blew his big chance . . .

This organization is based in Cleveland, MO and holds regular ‘creation safaris’ throughout Kansas and Missouri. They teach the attendants how modern science is wrong about the age of the earth, evolution, and anything else related to the origins of the universe that do not follow the bible. They claim as most creationists, that the earth is around 6000 years old and that dinosaurs coexisted with humans. These views are all relatively typical of a creationist group, but the CSA seems to be a bit more militant than many.

I don’t take issue with the CSAs views (there will always be crackpots in the world), but here’s the problem: this organization is a classic example of cherry-picking and massaging ideas into truths by the suspension of logical faculties. Having a particular viewpoint is one thing, but making that view into ultimate truth without supporting evidence is another. Then, to take it one step further and call everyone else an idiot for not agreeing is a shining example of religious bigotry.

Why is it that religion is held up as an example of moral piety, but religious people are constantly going against their own standards? The type of fundamentalist religious idiocy offered by the CSA is a blight upon modern society and emblematic of a dark-age culture.

So there…

Internet Explorer users ‘have below-average IQ’ – Telegraph

-click above to read the full article

HA! In your face, windows users! Ok, well this is just funny.

For many years, Microsoft had the market cornered on home computing. They were the first to provide an operating system which did not require a 4-year degree to use, and they packaged it in such a way that it became the de-facto standard on which the bulk of consumer computing devices were built. As with many areas of industry though, times change. We as users have other options, and many of us are excited about exercising our newfound choices.

Many moons ago (when the Pentium 133MHz with MMX was a hot item), I worked as a technician in a computer store. An elderly lady had a computer built by our store and I was assigned to deliver it and complete the setup. I installed the computer at her house and fired it up. As I began to extol the features of her new machine, it came to light that she was not familiar with the use of a mouse… I taught her how to use this strange little device and  within about half an hour, she was cruising through applications and surfing the internet.

The one great innovation that Microsoft has brought to the computing world is accessibility for the computer illiterate. Microsoft products have allowed those who would not otherwise explore the usefulness of the computer to accomplish more than they had ever dreamed possible. Tasks previously handled only by the highly-trained were brought within reach of the average Joe. As they developed more and more of a monopoly though, the consumers demanded more options.

In recent years, Apple has become a major player in the market, but is just as proprietary as Microsoft. That’s the rub – the big names in computing have become more and more closed for developers and dabblers. They have become the subject of the majority of viruses, trojans, and spyware, and all must release security updates and fixes on a very short cycle.

At our house we abandoned both Microsoft and Apple a couple of years ago for Ubuntu Linux and haven’t looked back since. Open source is the way to go, and returns us to the age of options. We get to choose our computing experience without the need for an outlay of cash – and even better than free, Ubuntu just plain works.

In a highly technical age it is natural to associate IQ with technical ability, but there will always be IE users in the world. Many people either do not care to develop technical ability (or think that they cannot) or are not informed of the available options. While these are not necessarily valid excuses, that’s just the way it will be. As we continue to develop more fully as an informational society, computing ability will only become more important. Our dependence upon information processing devices will grow, but to what end? Will we end up like the societies in science fiction movies, or will we aspire to something more? Only time will tell, I suppose.

So, do IE users in fact have a lower IQ? Perhaps it is true – if so, where does that put you?

-this page best viewed with Firefox or Opera -