11/06/09
There's always this little twinge of disappointment I get when I
meet someone new, or reacquaint with someone from the past, and
I find out they're
religious. I'd like to be able to just let it go, to just
sigh and think, "the poor things, they can't help it." But the
truth is I believe they can help it and they're just too scared
or dumb to do it. No doubt there's so much more to it,
psychologically, emotionally, etc. (I'd say intellectually, but
dumb is dumb, right?)I've heard the accusation before:
You just
think you're smarter than I am.
I remember the first time I heard it. I tried to rebuff the
idea; I tried to be kind; I tried to make it sound like I didn't
think I was smarter than the person who said it. But the truth
remains: I am, and was,
smarter than she is.
I can't help it if I'm smarter than some people. I can't help
it if I'm smarter than most. I suppose I could help that I like
it. But really, in my world, intelligence is a good thing--a
thing to work for, and a thing to be proud of.
And because I
think that at least some of the ignorant people I know could, if
they worked at it, increase their intelligence, even as it
regards religious nonsense, I don't feel bad when I have to
treat them with a bit of condescension. They COULD help
themselves. But they don't. They deserve to be teased a bit,
needled, and even laughed at on occasion.
On the bright side:
I put my new "Atheism is myth-understood"
bumper sticker on
my car. Wow! It's big. You can read it from a great distance.
It's perfect.
I revel in the reactions of the stupid people when this
little blonde lady with a big smile gets out of the car, because
I know they were expecting a scrawny, stringy-haired,
hippy-type, grumpy guy.
10/18/09
Freethought Day at Disney was a success! I had a great time,
though I only managed to make it to the lunch meetup. I met some
new atheists, saw some familiar faces, and had a wonderful,
tiring day.
We started off on Friday at the
Epcot International Food & Wine Festival. My husband and I
love to walk through the
countries and sample their foods. Well, my husband is
something of a tag-along, but he helps me eat (most of) the
stuff. Neither he nor our 13 yo son would eat the escargot at
the Paris, France booth, so I was left to them myself. Oh, my,
gawd, were they good. In years past, the
little snails were
drenched in garlic and butter and put on a piece of hard toast.
This year, they were each snug inside a little round biscuit
with a lid. Very cute, very buttery, very delicious! Three of
them. And I ate them all.
I was
so full by late afternoon that
I couldn't eat all the things I wanted. George made me sit on a
bench and prioritize my food list. Still didn't help. On our
second pass through we did a few desserts. Ireland was serving a
chocolate lava cake with
Bailey's ganache.
OH MY GAWD! Nothing compared. I really only
missed out on some scallops and salmon I wanted to try. But if I
wouldn't get full, and if I could stay the entire day, maybe I
could try everything. Oh, well. Maybe next time.
On Saturday,
we got some questions about our
FDatD shirts.
You can tell when people don't know what to say. The
receptionist at our hotel seemed curious and asked how many
people showed up. I'd told her we were a group based in Brevard,
but I was thinking maybe she thought there were thousands of us.
I told her there were usually about a dozen. (I counted 17 at
lunch.) Thinking back on it, I imagine she was surprised there
would be that many. People don't realize how many people around
them are atheist.
Then a man in line at one of the rides told
my husband he couldn't read all of the
first word on his shirt
so hubby pulled away his jacket. The man read it, said "oh," and
that was that.
Disney employees were also curious. Nobody spit
on us. Nobody
shrieked Bible verses. Don 't listen to George.
There was no ill will visible.
So, that was the kickoff for
the
holidays! My determination to lose 10 pounds before we start
the food fest was not realized. So, we'll hold steady through
the next few months and shed a few pounds in January. That's the
best way to do it, anyway.
We left our hotel on Saturday
morning prepared for a Florida October day and ended up having
to stop off at
Walmart
for jackets!!! (hence our missing the first meetup of the day.)
I LOVE cold weather. I wasn't meant to be a Floridian. But, as
I've said before, I'm clearly not getting out of it.
Cold weather
makes me think of
Thanksgiving
and
Christmas and all that holiday cheer (you know--chocolate
covered cherries, hot chocolate, Magic Cookie Bars, chocolate
truffles, that sort of thing).
So, it's on to the
War
on Christmas 2009. I'll report if I can stop laughing.
09/22/09
Well, it appears that the
rapture occurs
today, or yesterday, or something like that. It's all so
confusing. While I'm getting these flashes of yellow and red and
blue, so far everything appears normal. There are fewer real
Christians around than I thought. But, I haven't exactly left
the house yet.
On Sunday, I learned that
George Ricker
died in August. I was very disappointed that no one bothered to
let me know. But I guess that's what you get when you're aloof
and unsociable. But I've received various emails from the
Freethought
Association about freethought music and a
dinner-and-a-lecture, etc. Interesting priorities. Or maybe I
should take it all as a message of some sort, ie: trivial
matters, we tell you. Serious stuff, you're on your own, biatch.
Anyway, George Ricker and I did not always see eye-to-eye. He
thought I was a diva, and I thought he was a blow-hard. But he
was a good man, a wonderful father and husband, a moral and
decent person. He will be missed in the atheist community.
You've got to watch the new video I linked to:
Ultimate Praying Championships. It's hilarious! I know that
the religious get worked up when they're made fun of; I just
wish they could step back for a moment and see their actions
objectively...just long enough to understand the humor we get
from them. Then they can go back to being highly insulted.
I
attended
The Great Debate on September 17, at the UCF Arena in
Orlando. It was fabulous. But while I really connected with
Christopher Hitchens,
enjoyed his demeanor, intelligence, forthrightness and biting
wit, it was clear that he spoke well over the heads of the
Christians in the audience. And whenever
D'Souza spoke his
nonsense, and I'm thinking, huh?, the Christians applauded like
mad.
Emotion works for them. Soundbites that appear on the surface
to make some sense work for them. They either can not think
deeply enough to understand the problems inherent in their
logic, or the willfully do not.
It's time to get ready for
Freethought Day at Disney!!! I missed last year, and can't
wait! I love the
Magic Kingdom, and it's even more fun when there are several
green shirts
to meet up with.
4th
Annual Freethought Day at Disney
October 17, 2009
Magic Kingdom, Orlando
All Day!
I'll see you there!
08/24/09
The personal essay,
I'm an atheist, so what?, has stuck with me. Two things
really bothered me about it. First, of course, was the
condescending way the author was treated by his co-worker and
second was that the author did absolutely nothing about it.
The idea that because this woman was older than the author, she
had more insight into religion, on the one hand may seem a
possibility. Many of us study quite a bit and therefore, the
older we are, the more time we've had to pursue such studies and
possibly the more knowledge and insight we have. And if the
woman had said, "well, I'm older, and I've studied quite a bit
about my religion and maybe one day you can learn what I've
learned," maybe I'd give her a pass. But I'd expect the author
to let her know how much he's studied (quite a bit coming from
Catholic school upbringing). But he didn't.
And unfortunately
the woman didn't say that. She said, basically, "I'm older.
Someday you'll get it."
That's insulting. What the woman is
saying is that the author is just young and naive. She's saying
he will simply toss his reason and his rationalism out the
window when he's older. Atheism is for the young and stupid.
Older, wiser people believe in gods. Bullshit.
The author
should have called her on it. He should have said, what compels
you to accuse me of having so little understanding of myself and
my reasoning that I would turn against that knowledge in the
future? Truthfully, we're talking about reason, evidence, and
knowledge-based thinking here. We're not talking about beliefs
after all.
You can't unlearn what you know to be true based on factual
evidence without some real brainwashing trauma. A rational,
non-believing skeptic doesn't turn to magical supernaturalism.
It doesn't happen. (So, yeah, any nut who tells you he used to
be an atheist but is now a devout Bible-thumping Christian.
Nope. Didn't happen that way. And it's easy enough to
discover--just talk to them a while. They were NEVER completely
rational.)
I have read statistics about how people turn to
religion when they get old. But to assume everyone will do so is
insulting because the reality is that older people turn toward
religion because they're closer to death, not because they get
smarter.
What the woman was actually doing however, is standard. She
can not imagine that other people (except those she doesn't know
or doesn't like or admire) could be different from her. And the
only way she can rationalize that in her dull brain is to assume
that if that person was exactly like her (read older, a woman,
smarter, whatever) they would believe just what she does.
Because let's face it, it's a big scary world out there and it
feels oh so much better when everyone you know and like has the
same delusions you do.
08/12/09
I have a strong bias toward individual and family rights. I don't
believe it takes a village to raise a child. It's none of the villagers
business what I do with my kids--how I raise them, what I teach them,
what I feed them, what they watch on t.v.
But just as I agree that animals do not have a voice and therefore
must be protected from abuse, children also must be protected from their
parents in certain situations. Those situations, however, must be
extreme, in my opinion, to warrant government interference in the
family.
I agree that children should not be physically abused. But I do not
agree that spanking is physical abuse. Where do you draw the line
between discipline and abuse? That's a very difficult question and could
be, and probably is, decided in a clinical way. Same with emotional or
psychological abuse. We must err on the side of the family, in my
opinion, before removing children from their homes. Parents should be
free to yell at, denigrate, or humiliate their children, up to a point.
What is that point? I don't know. But my feelings on the matter should
not outweigh a panel of psychologists, that's for sure.
Life can suck. I think we all should just get over the idea that we
have the right to tell other people they have to parent our way. Lots of
kids grow up with lousy parents; it can be, unfortunately, a rite of
life. It makes some kids stronger people, better people. We can't take
over the family because it makes some other kids' lives a struggle.
So, when I heard about the father charged with 2nd degree reckless
homicide in the death of his daughter because he expected God to heal
her, I was conflicted. On the one hand, this man has the right to
practice his religion and teach it to his children. And if he is going
to truly teach them to practice his faith, he should have the right to
withhold medical treatment for his child.
I pondered how I would feel if I was against medical care, for
whatever reason. How awful would it be to have a government
representative literally force medical care on me? That would definitely
be too intrusive. And because I am so strongly in favor of parental
rights, I felt it would be too intrusive into the family for the
government to force such treatments on my children as well.
I do not consider human life to be sacred. I do not believe we must
save every life at all cost.
But I do consider human life to be uniquely valuable and worthy of
protection. However, an adult person who wishes to die should be allowed
to die. An adult person who wishes to not receive medical care should
have that right.
But what of children?
So, as horrible as it may sound to you, my first reaction to this
story and others like it was, okay, this is that family's way and the
child died. Children die every day. People die. It's part of life. And I
felt that actively causing your child's death was vastly different than
simply letting nature take its course. And I felt that the man did not
deserve any punishment.
But after giving it more thought, I realized a few things. First, I
realized that we are living in a time in which we can all be aware of
the value of medicine and anyone who wants to be healed ought to be
given the opportunity to try. And I realized that children are a lot
like animals in that, until they are of a certain age, they don't really
understand the concept of forever dead. And, I noted that in this
particular instance anyway, the child did not have a serious, probably
fatal disease, but a common, easily handled condition.
And so, I have decided that any person who does not seek medical help
for their children when they are clearly very sick, knowing all that we
know about health and medicine, should be liable in some way if that
child dies.
07/13/09
I went to the high school reunion and yes, they prayed again. The
emcee gave some kind of little pre-pray speech mentioning other
religions, I think. I wasn't paying that much attention. My guest said
something about it and I said, "Oh, are we at the praying part now?" And
then emcee guy went ahead and prayed to our heavenly father (blech) and
I'm pretty sure he finished up in what's his name, amen. I said,
"right." Then there was a bit of discussion at the table about being
left out. Hindus and Buddhists were mentioned. And I raised my hand for
the atheists. Go atheists!
I was glad to see I was not the only one with little appreciation for
Christian rudeness. Let me make it perfectly clear: not all Christians
are rude. Many Christians understand that they don't hold the monopoly
on religion. We are a free society that includes all kinds of faiths and
many with no faith at all. To stand up in front of a group of people and
demand they all bow their heads and be quiet (did emcee guy say that? I
think he did) while they beseech their deity is nothing short of
rudeness...with a bit of arrogance thrown in to boot.
I really dislike rude people. But most of the time, in most every
other respect, these same people can be quite friendly and polite. I
suppose that the same cognitive dissonance that allows them to be rather
intelligent and yet believe imaginary things at the same time, allows
them to be rude and yet turn around and smile and be very nice. Religion
is strange, isn't it? And it certainly does strange things to people.
It's difficult to describe the feeling being free of it gives a
person. Refreshing. Joyful. Embracing of the universe and all within it.
Yeah, it's that powerful. It's such a shame pity has to be a part of it.
But, hey, look around!
All in all, I had a good time at the reunion, notwithstanding a bit
of unnecessary, and very public, praying. (I have to wonder what
happened to the Bible and its prohibition of such displays.) I know
there are some people who love reunions. And there are some who shun
them. And then there are those who go out of a sense of
obligation...it's what you're supposed to do. (Unfortunately some people
get married and have children for the same reason.)
I'm not sure why I go. I think it's a rite of a sort. These are
people who shared part of my life, like it or not. They're like parents,
you're stuck with them. So, go. Check them out. They tend to look much
the same. They act much the same and talk much the same. And you may
think you've changed a great deal, but no doubt they're looking at you
and thinking you haven't changed much at all.
You don't know what they've been through. You don't know the pain,
the shame, or the fears they've lived. And you may not know the joys and
wonders, either. Sure, the ones you were close to, you catch up on all
that. But the rest? You just look at them and chat with them and think,
nothing really changes. Not all that much, anyway. We're all still here.
The ones who left us, whose pictures are on the memorial board, probably
didn't change much either. But they thought they did. I bet they thought
so.
So here's my little non-prayer for the alumni of Titusville High
School Class of 1979:
Let us thank the hard working people of Royal Oak Country Club for
preparing all this food, serving us drinks, and cleaning up after us.
Let's thank the organizers of this grand event. And let's thank the cool
DJ for the music from back in the day.
Let's take a moment to remember those who are no longer with us. And
let's look around and give a smile to those we don't really remember.
Let's be glad for the day, and glad for the night. And let's promise to
do this again in ten years.
Now, let's eat!
05/14/09
See "The Other L Word: Why I am a Libertarian" in the news. This is
an article by Michael Shermer; he felt compelled to write it after the
comments on a previous blog lambasted him.
Reading the comments left for Mr. Shermer, especially relating to his
original post, took me back to a time I tried to communicate my ideas of
freedom to other atheists. You'd have thought I was slapping them across
the face. The bitchiness my ideas invoked was puzzling to me and
eventually led to extreme disappointment with atheists.
I'm learning, clearly, to live with feelings of extreme
disappointment in the human race.
But it was refreshing to see Michael Shermer express the same kinds
of ideas that I tried to, without his eloquence. I should note that I'm
not a card-carrying Libertarian. I don't mind being labeled as one, but
I can't say I agree with everything they, as a political party, espouse.
It's not that I have anything against labels, mind you. If the label
fits, slap it on. I recall, during my heated 'discussions' with fellow
atheists labeling someone's ideas as fascist. Well, now, the guy said,
if you're going to start name-calling, I'm out of here. After which he
proceeded to email me and call me a name.
I can laugh about it now, because, well, it was funny. And that
reminds me of how people don't listen. They hear only certain parts of
what you're saying and make assumptions based on that. I have little
doubt I'm as guilty as the rest.
Case in point: I tried to discuss such ideas as Shermer's recently
with family (bad idea, right?) and was, again, disappointed. Maybe it's
me. Maybe I can't articulate properly. Anyway, the looks from one member
of the family told me, during the conversation, that she was saddened by
what I was saying (which was, basically, that it was not right for the
government to take money from everyone to pay for her healthcare). I
said that if the government stopped taxing us to death, we'd all have
more money to GIVE to charities and causes we want to give to. To which
the other family member offered the tired liberal response, "But people
won't give."
I realized only after this discussion that what they were hearing was
that I was selfish and didn't believe in charity. They believe that
Libertarian ideas would result in a selfish, uncaring populace that
watches its elderly and poor die in the streets.
I know I didn't say that. But I can see it now in their faces after
the fact. They think I'm a cold-hearted, selfish bitch.
It's the same with Objectivism. All people can hear in the ideas of
Ayn Rand is the word 'selfish'. They can't get past it. But I wrote a
blog a long time ago pointing out that it wasn't the Libertarians or the
Objectivists who were selfish and greedy. I don't think I want to go
into that now. I have no doubt something will occur to launch me into it
another time. But to give you a hint: economic liberals are selfish and
greedy.
In a way, though, I guess that my family is right. Now, anyway. I
mean, when I was younger, I wanted to do so much for my fellow man.
Now...now I think I'd give it all to cats.
05/09/09
Check out the article under religion titled, "Defectors to faith mark
a growing trend." My husband and I will have to have a talk with the
boys today about which religion they will join.
Our oldest seems unlikely to embrace any type of religion, so he'll
have to be a Buddhist. He's inherited his fathers cold, calculating, and
pessimistic view of the world, and his mother's rabid pitbull debating
techniques. So young to be in the fray. I've given him my history with
debate and the disappointments it brings. We'll see how he does with it.
The middle child is tall, lean, and dreamy. He'd make a great Wiccan,
except that he might think of it as a girls' religion. His distaste for
people, following in his parents' footsteps, means he might be better
off as a quaker. He might embrace Jedi, except I think it's a social
religion, too.
And the youngest has already created his own religion. It has a god,
Fes, but there are times when I'm certain that J is his own god.
I wish them all well in their faiths. And I will take up the arms of
debate again if I must, if they should try to convert me. Except for J,
as worshiping Fes entails eating chocolate. J may have a convert
already.
04/21/09
My apologies for the previous post. I don't know what got into me. He
he. Look, there is a lot to make fun of in religion. I can appreciate
that for many people, their religious fervor is devout and genuine; and
I can understand why it would hurt them to see it laughed at. But this
is why I prefer to stick to science. It's hard to laugh at science.
People do it, of course. Religious people do it. They think it's
funny. They're usually laughing at some type of straw man they've
created out of their small understanding of something scientific. It's
unfortunate that that only gives the intelligent more things to laugh at
regarding them.
But think about it. They think we're stupid for laughing at their
nonsense. And we think they're stupid for trying to laugh at something
they don't understand.
Who is right?
I took a long drive with my brother the other day and he posed just
this sort of dilemma. Many of his friends are very conservative people.
Conservative, not in the idea of fiscal conservatism or original
Republicanism; but conservative in the idea of religious whackos. He
thinks they're being stupid when it comes to Bush, Obama, gay marriage,
etc. But they think he's stupid. So, how does he know, he wondered, if
they're right and not him?
Simple, I said.
Just look at the basis of a person's beliefs and attitudes. His
friends ideas are fear-based. Most of them are based on the fear that
their world is under grave threat by some outside force, namely Middle
Eastern terrorists (but sometimes also Mexicans and gay people).
My brother's ideas are based on reason, evidence, and compassion.
So, which ideas are more trustworthy?
Naturally, his friends won't agree. But fear-based thinking never
allows for dissent. And there's another clue to who's thinking clearly
and who isn't.
And so it is with the religious--who is right? The person who
believes in a book written by several men at several points in ancient
history and who looks inward at their 'feelings'? Or the person who
looks outward at the world and uses the scientific method to determine
reality and truth?
Anyone who trusts the former and laughs at the latter has serious
issues to deal with. And I can understand that. But that doesn't mean I
have to stop getting a laugh out of them now and then.
04/10/09
It is officially Easter for me! There's a large Reese's Peanut Butter
Bunny with my name on it in the closet and I'm starting in on it today.
The boys are so much older now. They don't want an egg hunt on
Sunday. But they want turkey and stuffing and a basket full of chocolate
(and jelly beans for the older kid). When I told them I always buy too
much candy for them, they said to leave out that fake grass. All it does
is take up room that could be used for more candy.
My dh thinks it's ridiculous to fill a basket full of candy for 19
and 17 yos. He may even think it's ridiculous to do it for the 12 yo.
But since when have I ever cared what dh thinks? Well, okay, I'm being
defiant. But it's Easter! It's when we celebrate the rebirth of the
earth! Weave baskets out of grass (or buy them at Walmart), worship
bunnies, and gather colorful eggs (forgot...they don't even want to dye
eggs this year).
Okay, maybe, I suppose, you could say...that if they're too old to
dye eggs and hunt them, they shouldn't get the basket. I have little
doubt that if I told them as much, we'd be in the kitchen this afternoon
dying eggs and I'd have to go to Walmart for those plastic ones to hide.
Well, this Easter bunny has no problem filling a few baskets and
forgetting those other things. I mean, one day, they'll be gone, off on
their own. And then who will I have to fill a basket for? Just me? Hmm.
Yes, I suppose I will have to fill a basket for myself.
There's good in almost all things.
04/07/09
Well, I still haven't received an answer about prayer at my high
school reunion. The organizer of the event said she is not ignoring me;
she just doesn't know what to say yet. And she also said that she is
"just against intolerance of any kind."
What that says to me is that she thinks that, maybe, I'm being
intolerant by asking that we refrain from having a Christian prayer
spoken during the proceedings, as a blessing before we eat.
This is the problem we have with Christians in this country. You
can't really talk about religious freedom with them because, to them,
what we call freedom is intolerance.
Too many Christians in this country feel that inclusion means they
are left out. If they have to include everyone, and accept that not
everyone is Christian and doesn't want their religion in every facet of
our lives, they feel that they are being imposed upon.
It is not, in any way, intolerant of Christianity to ask them to pray
on their own and not expect the whole room to join them. But they feel
otherwise.
They just don't get it. And I'm, personally, tired of trying to
educate them.
04/02/09
Why do people feel the need to lead other people in prayer?
It's been ten years since my last high school reunion. I think I was
more sociable in high school than I am now. I think maybe that's because
I was crazy in high school. I had no clue...about so many things, most
notably, who I was. But this blog isn't about all that.
This blog is all about the praying. I don't remember much praying in
high school. I went to a public school, after all. I think there was
praying at football games back then, but I bet they put a stop to that.
I definitely remember going to the baccalaureate ceremony, thinking it
was part of graduation, you know, with speeches and awards and stuff. It
turned out to be a religious ceremony. I was so bored...and even back
then, some fifteen years before I would realize atheism, I was annoyed.
So, I'm not sure if my reaction to the scene at my last reunion was
warranted or not. You see, at my twenty-year high school reunion, we
were all gathered in a room where we had a sit-down meal. And before we
got up to fill our plates at the buffet, someone had us all bow our
heads for the blessing.
I can't believe it's been ten years since I wrote about that, right
here at Atheist View. Sorry the archives aren't around anymore; but the
gist of it all was that I was so shocked and befuddled, I pushed myself
out of my seat and walked over to the bar and ordered a glass of wine.
(Okay, I admit it, I drank too much at my twenty-year high school
reunion. I had such a headache...)
I was so put off by the ordeal that the first thing I blurted out of
my mouth later, upon meeting up with an old acquaintance was, "I'm an
atheist." Granted, I was new at it; but it was highly inappropriate even
so. I said it because I felt put upon. I felt as if I'd been coerced
into a religious ritual I wanted no part of and I needed to shout out
that I'd been duped. I needed to cleanse it from my skin and my psyche.
I didn't feel that my rights had been violated; that I leave to
government-sponsored prayer. No, I felt I'd been taken advantage of by
arrogant, self-serving Christians who took it upon themselves to assume
not only that we were all Christians, but that any that weren't could
just sit quiet and deal with it, because by god they were the righteous!
They were the holier than thou! They were going to beseech their deity
whether anyone else liked it or not.
It was akin to being spit on.
Why do people think there is nothing wrong with inviting a
religiously diverse group of people to PAY for dinner and then insist
they wait while they lead them in prayer? What purpose does it serve?
Why can't they get their food, sit down, and pray quietly to themselves?
Why the show?
That's really the crux of the matter, isn't it? Why do they need
everyone to hear them? Why do they need everyone to pretend to join
them? Is it that they're insecure in their beliefs? Or is it, that
they're just rude, arrogant people who don't give a damn about anybody
who isn't like them?
So, there's talk of a thirty-year reunion to which I may or may not
go. I emailed the organizer and asked about the prayer issue.
You might say, why do you want to make a big deal out of it? I guess
my answer is that things that are important to me, are big deals to me.
And to me, rude people, arrogant people, should not be given carte
blanche to snoot their noses at this religiously diverse population just
so everyone can see how pious (dumb?) they are. If I don't say anything,
if I just go, and sit there, and let them pray without letting them know
how I feel, I'm just going along to get along. Not only does that
threaten my self-esteem and my intellectual honesty, but it allows the
dominant religion in this country to continue in their thwarting of the
rights of the minority.
No, suffering through prayer at your high school reunion isn't a
trampling of your rights. But your silence about it only leads the rude
and arrogant religionists to continue their assault on your rights.
The response from the organizer has thus far been silence. Better to
ignore the 16% (and growing) of the population who do not subscribe to
your archaic beliefs than to accept that maybe you ought to pray on your
own time.
03/29/09
I created a fan page on facebook after I learned that one of my
"friends" did it.
This guy, John Shore, invited me to be his friend and I wondered why.
In investigating his website to see what we might have in common (no
friends), I found that he was a Christian. Hmph. I read some of his
writings and was further disturbed. One thing he said was that atheists
have a belief too and should just admit it.
What is wrong with people? Why can't they understand a simple little
thing like non-belief?
No. I do not have any beliefs. I shun belief. I do NOT believe that
the Christian god does not exist. I just don't believe it does.
I guess that's too subtle. Believers must need black and white, all
or nothing kinds of input. They can't fathom the more difficult stuff.
Anyway, so I accepted the guy as my friend, thinking that if he
starts in with the proselytizing, he's getting the boot. Turns out he's
not a bad guy. He calls himself a heretic because he doesn't believe in
evangelism and instead believes that he should love everyone.
It seems to me that judging atheists, in general, as people who hold
a belief about his god, is just a tad unloving. But he's still okay in
my book. So far. Hehehehe.
03/20/09
It's 'coming out' day for atheists on Facebook! Sponsored by Richard
Dawkins' Outcampaign.org. Change your profile photo to the scarlet
letter!
03/16/09
Thinking about the awful state of atheists in filmdom ended with me
trolling the Internet for good atheist films. I wasn't looking for films
in which religion is simply absent, but in which the focus of the film
is on an atheist character who is good and moral and remains staunchly
atheist in the end.
Atheist Empire has a list of atheistic movies, including Contact,
Saved, and Dogma. I'm thinking, nah, not so much. Didn't the Jodi Foster
character waffle in the end of Contact? And Saved is not atheistic at
all. Sure, it makes fun of an extreme form of Christianity, and
thankfully, if I recall, the atheists don't become saved; but I'm pretty
sure it's just a movie against nut cases, not against religion or for
atheism. A milder, kinder form of Christianity is promoted. In fact, one
might say that the two extremes are the nut cases and the atheists. Not
good.
Same with Dogma--promoting liberal Christianity, not atheism.
I agree with Chocolat, however. So...there's one.
Somebody over at the Rational Response Squad recommends a film called
Bad Boy Bubby. I've never heard of it, but I'll check Netflix. It sounds
very disturbing, though. Rape, incest? And atheism? Not boding well.
Also recommended are The Life of Brian and The Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy. I've never seen The Life of Brian, so I'll give that a try.
The newer Hitchhiker film wasn't good. What a disappointment. The old
version, from the BBC miniseries, was truer to the books.
There was a little discussion of The Golden Compass in my search, but
I wouldn't call that one atheistic either. I mean, doesn't the guy kill
god in the end?
So that's it. Chocolat, Bad Boy Bubby (maybe), The Hitchhiker's Guide
to the Galaxy, and Life of Brian (maybe).
That's just sad.
03/15/09
Most of the news I get is of the stupid variety, so that box will be
updated more often. I have to admit, sometimes I don't know where to put
some items. Look at the 'Atheists call for debaptism,' for instance. I
almost put that one in the stupid box. But I figured it relates more to
atheism than it does to atheists being stupid. And then there's the one
about witchdoctors mutilating the remains of albinos in Tanzania. I
almost put that one in the religion box. But is witchdoctorism religion?
I think it's just stupidity, so it's stupid on both counts. (Not to say
murder is stupid. Murder is awful. But that's one of the things that is
stupid about humanity, so, okay, I guess I'm saying murder is stupid.)
update:
I watched Brideshead Revisited last night. I had no idea it was
another one of those 'atheist has to deal with religious nut and loses
love because of it' movies. The other one was The End of the Affair.
Anyway, it was a really long movie, but I didn't realize how long until
it was over, so I'll say it was a good movie, if not a tad melodramatic.
In the end, Charles goes into the chapel at Brideshead and dips his
fingers into the holy water, and I'm like, great, he's going to make the
sign of the cross and become religious. But instead, he almost puts out
the candle with his wet fingers. Almost. I don't know what it means. But
I'm going to say it means he loved and respected Sebastian and Julia, so
he left them their light. But, let's go online and see what the experts
say.
Oh, well. The experts say the book is a bit different from the movie
and dear Charles the atheist becomes a Catholic in the end. Figures. The
atheist always either converts, or wallows in some form of insanity by
the end of most books and movies. (That's probably not true, but it
feels like it right now.)
I added my mailbox and guestbook links in the left column today.
03/14/09
I completely redesigned the website!