The Life and Lies of Anna Banana

Michael Vick

2009-07-20T12:56:00.002-04:00

I was just browsing through google news and happened upon an article about why Michael Vick deserves the opportunity to play football again after "serving time" for brutally murdering innocent dogs. This makes me so angry, I'm surprised I got through that first sentence without cursing somewhere along the way. I mean, are you fucking kidding me? I'm just not even sure where to start because there are SO MANY arguments for why Michael Vick should not be allowed back into the NFL and why I will completely boycott it if he is allowed back in. First of all, if it had been humans that he was treating in this manner, he would have been in jail for the rest of his life. Why are the same rights not extended to innocent animals? Why did he only serve a short time in jail and the rest of the time on house arrest? Why? Because some old white guy somewhere along the way decided (probably based on the Bible) that humans are much much more important than other animals (even though humans are one of the few species with knowledge and intent of the harm they are doing) and so killing or harming a human is just not acceptable and will be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but doing so to an innocent animal, who is much more defenseless than most humans, is only slightly bad and you will recieve not much more than a slap on the wrist.

However, since the law has failed in this case, the NFL should step up and show that their organization does not tolerate such abhorrent acts no matter at whom or what they are directed. Plenty of companies flat out refuse to hire convicted felons of crimes much less violent and grotesque than Vick's, so just because Vick is a somewhat decent football player, he automatically deserves a second chance??? What if he were a child molestor or a rapist? Would he get a chance then? I don't think so. If this was just some guy that worked at your office, would you want him hired back? So why on earth would he get a second chance now? If the NFL decides to hire him back, I certainly hope it's a decision that causes the whole damn business to crash and burn...hard.

The NFL is a sports organization and it's true that the players' purposes are not to serve as role models, but to be good at football. However, in such a popular sport where the players make millions and are considered celebrities, they are going to inevitibly be seen as role models. Does the NFL want an animal murderer representing its name? I certainly wouldn't and I certainly hope they don't.

Clearly, in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of most people, all mistakes are not created equal. Yes, Michael Vick made a mistake in his life, but not a small mistake, he didn't just punch a hooker after she bit his lip, he MURDERED animals on VIDEO, people. It's unforgivable to murder people as it should be when you murder animals. We do not have any more right to life than they do.

I think he should have to register as a convicted dog killer wherever he lives so that his neighbors will know to keep their dogs away from him.

I guess what it comes down to is whether or not you believe that humans are somehow superior to other animals and deserve more justice than the animals do. Personally, I think that the justification that we are superior just because we were lucky enough to have evolved higher reasoning (which lots of people never ever use...as in said situation) is almost as cretinous as Vick's act that these people are defending. There are plenty of players who are just as good as Vick and better who live much more reputable lives. Use these players and let Vick suffer the full consequences of his actions.

Oh, how I love to hate on Sarah Palin

2009-06-15T15:51:00.002-04:00

As I've been relatively busy as of late, some things have tempted me, but nothing has prompted me to return to the blogosphere. Now, however, since Sarah Palin's back in the media ranting nonsensically, I've decided it's time for me to write something again. First and foremost, I must admit that I love to hate Sarah Palin. So while I'm ranting about her, I guess I can't complain too much that this moron is back in the news because it gives me so much joy to trash her. I guess I like easy targets. What can I say? ;)

Ahem, now then. Well, we all know that Sarah Palin is an idiot. If you'd like to know precisely why, you should check out earlier posts of mine. This time her idiocy isn't regarding science...although, I think I might be able to make a case for that. No, this time, she's all fired up about some remarks David Letterman made regarding her daughter Bristol. Apparently, Palin is not familiar with the format of the jokes presented on the late-night talk shows because she first mistakenly assumed that when Letterman implied A-Rod impregnated her daughter that Letterman was referring to her daughter Willow who was at the game. Letterman later said he was referring to Bristol which makes more sense given that um...well...there's living proof that Bristol's had sex...and could probably be coaxed into more of it with an oh-so-famous baseball player. The fact that Bristol wasn't present doesn't really matter as jokes on these late-night shows sometimes don't quite fit the situation. Palin's second erroneous assumption is that Letterman was implying rape and/or statutory rape which is clearly not what he said...and um, once again, Bristol certainly isn't a virgin (and we've already cleared up that the comment was about Bristol, not Willow), so what evidence is there that Letterman was implying rape?

Now, as much as I hate Sarah Palin's gun-toting, conservative, environment-hating, science-ignoring attitude, I'll put on my feminist hat for just a second. I do think that she has a point about the comments. They were a bit over the top. Saying that someone is knocked up could imply that the woman has little control over the matter (although, I think you could make the case that it doesn't imply anything other than that conception took place as a result of intercourse). However, I am confused by Palin's hypocrisy. How can she decry Letterman's comments as degrading to women, yet be anti-abortion? She would have a woman's ultimate right stripped away from her, yet complain about comments that may or may not have been degrading towards women depending on how you look at it. To me, this is what gives her away. To me, it seems that she's missing her 15 minutes of fame and doing everything she can (including dragging her family into all this crap) and stirring people up to try to get Letterman fired to get back into the limelight. I would just say that she needs to toughen up her skin and learn to take a freaking joke, but like I said, I think she's just using this to put herself back into the mainstream media that she loves to complain about even though she secretly actually loves them. Anyway, as I said before, I'm not exactly complaining that she wants her 15 minutes back because that means I here ranting to you all about her and oh, how I love to hate on Sarah Palin. ;)

Now, if you want to know how I turn this into an argument about science...you'll have to comment or something because I don't think I want to be quite that mean and deface the "clean" image of my blog. ;)

I'm just not that into it, in fact, I'm actually quite repulsed by it

2009-02-10T08:58:00.002-05:00

So, I just went to see He's Just Not That Into You last night and was horrified. First of all, I read the book and this post will contain spoilers for the book and the movie, so if you don't want to know, stop here. I don't often put on my feminist hat, but I'm putting it on for this post. The movie portrays women as obsessive, can't-define-their-lives-without-a-man psychos. I wish I had taken notes, honestly, to help me better berate this atrocious excuse for a chick flick. Not only did the movie make women look desperate (some guys, too...I guess they actually thought they were adding an element of "balance" which is laughable), but it even encourages their desperation with the positive outcomes of their psycho behavior.

Ginnifer Goodwin plays Gigi who is about as clingy, psycho, and desperate as it gets. Aside from the fact that I don't think she's attractive in the least, she hangs on to every single guy she goes out with by staring at the phone, obsessively checking her voicemail, pseudo-stalking said guys, and talking about nothing other than these douchebags. Apparently, her only goal in life is to find her "soul mate" (because her job at the Spice company must be completely fulfilling...). How obnoxious. And after displaying the appallingly obsessive behavior, she goes on a tirade against the guy who's been giving her relationship advice. Her basic message in the tirade was that she was better than him because at least she was trying to find a relationship when all he was doing was banging random chicks. As the story progressed, the movie would have you believe that she was justified in her tirade. So the message is apparently thus: it's better to be psycho about looking for a relationship than to be realistic and have fun while you're still young. Then to top off all of her female-degrading shenanigans, her loathsome behavior is rewarded in the end when the guy (Justin Long) who's been giving her guy advice decides that he's in love with her. WTF is that supposed to say? Ok, so let me break it down: you act really psycho and obsessive over guys and that will eventually land you a great guy and you're a better person for that than you are for banging random people and being guarded. Riiiiight.

Ok, moving on. Then there's the scenario where Jennifer Anniston and Ben Affleck have been in a relationship for 7 years and still aren't married and one day after a discussion with the aforementioned pscyho (Ginnifer Goodwin), Jenn decides to demand to know whether Ben, who has never believed in marriage, ever intends on marrying her and breaks up with him when he doesn't answer (because clearly, taking relationship advice from the other chick who can't even land a second date is a good idea). But of course, when her dad has a heart attack, Ben comes to save the day and Jenn decides that she'll take him back sans the marriage. So, cheesily as it goes, Ben decides to propose to her despite the fact that he doesn't believe in marriage. Ok, so the second lesson that we are supposed to learn from this movie is that it's ok to guilt someone into marrying you. Riiiight.

Ok, next. Then we have the ridiculous story involving Scarlet Johansson who meets Bradley Cooper at a grocery store. Unfortunately, Bradley is married to Jennifer Connolly (who's been trying to give psycho girl dating advice). So eventually, after a seeing some painful scenes where Scarlet emotionally abuses some poor guy who's in love with her, Bradley caves to Scarlet's advances. He eventually tells Jennifer who blames herself (!!!) and then decides that she wants to save the marriage. So the last straw for Scarlet is when she's forced into the closet when Bradley's wife stops by his office in the middle of one of his trysts because, you know, him being married and doing her at the same time wasn't disgusting, but apparently sitting in a closet while the guy bangs his wife is just too much. The Jennifer Connolly decides that the last straw is when she finds out Bradley has been smoking behind her back, because, you know, having an affair is ok, but lying about smoking is off limits, buddy! I'm not even sure what convoluted, fucked-up message that scenario is supposed to send...Oh and I almost forgot, after Scarlet gives up on Bradley, she decides to date the guy who's been in love with her despite the fact that she doesn't reciprocate the feelings. So one moral of the story could be that, it's ok to bang a married guy, then decide it sucks and take it out on some poor schmuck that's head over heels for you. Hmm, I've learned a lot so far, haven't you? Then after Scarlet finally admits to herself and the poor scmuck that she's not in love with him, he falls in love with Drew Barrymore and the "happy ending" that we are left with is Ginnifer Goodwin and Justin Long happily ever after; Ben Affleck and Jennifer Anniston happily ever after; Drew Barrymore and poor schmuck happily ever after; Jennifer Connolly picking up the pieces of her broken life while a narrator implies that she's alone only to set herself up for something better (because being alone period is just not an option); then Scarlet Johansson being a lounge singer and having the narrator say some other bullshit about pursuing your dreams and finding something better (because once again, being alone is just NOT acceptable...it's NOT, do you hear me? huh?).

Now, my other beef with the movie is that it basically goes against everything the book was saying. The book is written as a collection of scenarios in which various girls make excuses for a guy's behavior that really, actually indicates that he's not into her and that she should just move on with her life instead of hoping that she'll be the exception to the rule. The movie is nothing but an entire collection of exceptions to rules and encourages the types of behavior that are expressly warned against in the book. I believe that would be the loosest interpretation of a book I have read yet! I mean, I thought the Harry Potter movies took some serious liberties! Geez.

Now don't forget: repeat it with me "Being alone is NOT ok".

Anyway, hope you enjoyed my scathing review.

I Very Strongly Dislike Winter

2009-01-26T15:36:00.002-05:00

I haven't blogged in quite some time and even now, I don't really feel like I have much to blog about. Between all of the other RD.netters, they generally cover all the topics quite thoroughly, so I haven't bothered lately.

So, since I don't have any current events that I want to complain about, I'll just go on a tirade about more personal things. First and foremost, I hate winter. I hate going to work when it's dark and getting out when it's almost dark. I hate the cold and I hate it when it rains and is cold at the same time and I think this winter has been nothing but rain. I've also been having an endless stint of allergies since I've moved into a place with all carpet (well, I'm guessing that's the cause, anyway). As a result of the depression of winter and all these allergies, I've been feeling incredibly fatigued which is getting in the way of doing things I need to do and want to do.

Anyway, now that I've whined, I won't torture you any longer. My solution to all of that is to move to the equator.

Yay!!!

2008-11-05T07:49:00.001-05:00

I'm so relieved that our country is not so incredibly backward after all!!!! Unfortunately for all of my European friends, I won't be moving over there just yet. :)

Way to go Obama!!!

On Socialism

2008-11-04T08:26:00.003-05:00

I really intended to write a post about this before now, but better late than never, I suppose. In the late stages of the McCain-Palin campaign, they have started flinging around the word "socialism" and "socialist" along with the phrase "redistribution of wealth" with regards to Obama-Biden. From the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, the definition of Socialism is as follows:

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

I realize that the connotations of the word are negative because of those governments who have abused their socialist policies, but because these governments abused their power, I don't think they meet the true definition of socialism. So, what I want to know, given the above definition, is why is it so horrible to call Obama a socialist? Even if it were, true, which it's not, the clear motive behind socialism is not control, but concern for the common good of man. Why is it so horrible for us to care about one another? In America, selfishness has become the number one virtue. As I see it, that's the main appeal of being a Republican for those who claim that they are Republicans because of their economic policies as opposed to the social policies. The Republicans' appeal to the selfishness of the public is their only last stronghold. And it has worked at least somewhat. It has worked for many of those who are rich because they are too greedy to give any of their money to the government for the greater good. They think, "I made this money, I want to keep it all". Unfortunately, this appeal works for the working and middle classes as well because of the American Dream. All of us are going to get rich someday and when we do, we want to keep all of our money, too. Screw all of those people who are struggling to make their own American Dream. Granted, I understand that our welfare system has been vastly abused. I've seen it in action working as a Pharmacy Technician in college. I've seen people come through the drive through pharmacy window (which, by the way, was installed for those people who may have trouble walking, not those that are just too lazy to get out of the car and walk inside) in their Cadillac Escalades and Lincoln Navigators and hand me a Medicaid card and not have to pay a damn thing for their prescriptions, or if they were on more than 3 medicines, they had to pay $3 per prescription. I've seen it. It annoys me, too. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who are in real need of help. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try our hardest to reform our education system to try to give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. If all those Republicans could just stop being selfish for a moment and think about what we could all do for one another if we work hard at reforming the government and our education systems, I think the world would be a better place.

And now that I've graduated college and work for the government, I've gotten a new perspective on the selfishness. So many people dislike government employees and complain about high taxes and the money that is used to pay these employees. This is especially common in the Republican party. Yet when something goes wrong, they complain that the government agencies didn't do enough in response or just that they aren't doing a good enough job in general. But what they fail to realize is that the government employees are paid much much less than their privatized counterparts and therefore the government can't compete for the best and brightest employees. Employee retention is worse and half the time, the agencies are understaffed and overworked. But no, we can't pay higher taxes and give the agencies that we depend on on a daily basis any more money because we're selfish and we made that money and we want to keep it all. By the way, government employees pay all the same taxes as everyone else.

As for the phrase "redistribution of wealth", do McCain and Palin really not see that wealth has been being redistributed upward for quite some time now? The oil industry has been making record profits for several years now. Increasing their profits from year to year several hundred percent. This is just one example. But I'm sure that they see it because both of their backgrounds mean that they are benefactors of it. So what they really mean is, "Obama could redistribute the wealth back downward, and we just don't want that, and neither do you" using that same appeal to selfishness, the new American virtue. When are they going to realize that the selfishness is what got us into this financial mess in the first place?

So in conclusion, I'm a "bleeding heart liberal" and I care about other people, even the ones who have abused the system because without everyone working together and without a positive outlook and attitude, we'll never get anywhere. It's time to make caring a virtue instead of selfishness.

Cross your fingers for the U.S.

2008-11-03T09:02:00.002-05:00

Well, the election is tomorrow. I am very, very nervous! I guess all we can do is sit and watch! If McCain wins, I will be taking Wednesday off from work to mourn the loss of an important election and to decide which part of Europe I'm moving to. Not that I'm superstitious in any way, but *crosses fingers, legs, eyes, and any other crossable body part I can think of*

Please Consider the Following:

2008-09-16T09:11:00.002-04:00

I would like to start by saying that I am fairly liberal (tending to vote Democrat) and that this entry will not be without bias try as I might to be objective on the matter.

I've been compiling some information (and opinions) on Sarah Palin and why she makes McCain-Palin a horrible vote to cast come November.

- When Palin was mayor of Wasilla, AK, she instated an official who cut funding out of the budget to pay for rape kits for victims of rape and victims were subsequently billed for their own rape kits. Granted, it was not Palin who actually made the budget cut or instated this practice, however, this shows the types of people who she would be instating into offices that are currently appointed rather than voted. If you read the above article, you will see that the person who she appointed to the position not only made the budget cut and instated those practices of billing the victims, but also fought it when the state legislature made it illegal for towns and municipalities to do so.

- Palin supports drilling in ANWR. First of all, I think it's imperative that we find alternative energy sources. Drilling for more oil will only delay the probelms for a little while and considering the amount of oil predicted to actually be obtainable from ANWR, it is a pointless endeavor to drill there, in my humble opinion. See here for an interesting article about ANWR.

- Along with supporting drilling in ANWR, her state also sued the federal government for placing polar bears on the endangered species list citing that it could inhibit energy development, i.e. drilling for oil. Global warming is pretty much undeniable. One can argue causes, perhaps, but you can't argue that it's happening. This being the case, polar bear habitats are decreasing as it is and drilling for oil will only decrease their habitat more. What more right do humans have to occupy this planet more than any other animal or organism? The possible human-driven extinction of another animal for a short-term solution to a long-term problem is disgusting and I can hardly believe that anyone would consider it. Well, actually, I can believe that people would consider it and I would even venture to say that I know what their motives are, but I certainly don't agree with them. We need a renewable energy source, (and to be more environmentally conservative while we're at it) end of story.

- Palin asked the librarian in Wasilla if she would be ok with banning books should the need arise. No books were actually banned, but the underlying motives seem fairly obvious to my (admittedly probably biased) eyes. Being that she is an ultra conservative Penecostal, it shouldn't come as a surprise that she probably had a religious agenda in wanting to ban books. She apparently also sent letters to the librarian and other appointed officials asking them to resign as a "loyalty test". What type of a boss does that? I certainly wouldn't want to work for someone who was constantly dangling my employment (and therfore welfare) in front of my face.

- Palin's religious views play too large of a role in how she has and will govern. There are indications that she is a young earth creationist which would be extremely dangerous for our education system and is also suggestive that her education is lacking. Intelligent design and creationism are not science and should never be allowed to be taught in a science classroom and this could become more of a real possibility should she and McCain be elected. Not only is her view on science pervaded by her religion (despite the fact that her father was a public school science teacher), but her views on abortion as well. She is quoted as saying that her daughter made the right decision in choosing to have the baby, but she wants to take that right to make that decision away from women in the first place. I don't know about you, but I'm of the opinion that if someone doesn't want to have a child, they shouldn't be forced to have it. Chances are that if you have a child that you don't want, you're not going to be a good parent and we have enough children living in horrible situations as it is without forcing women to bear children they definitely don't want. Not only that, but women would still attempt to have abortions illegally even if it were to be made illegal which would only cause more unneccessary deaths to women who are actively perhaps contributing to society and to the country and it's economy. I could probably go on and on and on about why banning abortion is just ridiculous so I'll stop here. What's next, banning all forms of birth control? I wouldn't be surprised knowing that she is a supporter of abstinence-only sex education (which obviously worked so well with her daughter).

- Not only is her biology a little lacking, but apparently her history is also. When asked if she was offended by the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, her response indicated her lack of knowledge of U.S. history (which would seem pertinent when vying for the spot of Vice President of that same country). As a note, the link in the article that I linked to supplying the interview doesn't work, but a transcript of the interview can be found elsewhere if googled. On a lighter note, if you read the comments at the bottom of the article, the one by solarbear is fun for a good laugh. For more about Palin's religious views as interpreted by a rival of hers, see here.

Now, there's been some amount of criticism from some that the media is focusing too much on Sarah Palin and not enough on those who are actually running for President and that it's just a distraction, but I couldn't disagree more. For one thing, John McCain is 72 and has a fairly significant risk of dying (strictly due to age) during his term should he be elected, so this woman would be the one who would be Commander-in-Cheif should he die. That is a scary thought, indeed.

I'm greatly amused by this quotation from Bill Maher, "I think this is pertinent because McCain has been running this campaign based on 'we're at war; it's a dangerous world out there. The Democrats don't get that. I, John McCain, am the only one standing between the blood-thirsty Al Qaedas and you. But if I die, this stewardess can handle it.'"

Ok, momentarily back to the serious stuff. Another thing to consider is that McCain is simply using Palin as a strategy. This is disturbing for several reasons. First of all, it suggests that McCain is disengenuous and only seeks to win the election by pulling stunts like making it the battle of the minorities rather than about the issues. It's disturbing, too, because Sarah Palin is allowing herself to be used (no matter what her motives are). So all of this being the case, how can anyone trust John McCain's decision-making abilities when these are the decisions he makes? And why would anyone want to trust him after he's revealed what a sleazy, run-of-the-mill politician he is?

One last thing to consider (and I think this may be one of the most important points) is that Sarah Palin, given her experience, would NEVER have been chosen were she a man (white or black). It is so gravely insulting that John McCain thinks the American public to be this incredibly blind, stupid, and ignorant. It's even more insulting to women (as if he hadn't done enough of that already).

John McCain and Sarah Palin are not the right choice for anyone, Democrat or Republican. I would urge you not to vote for them whether or not you are willing to vote for Obama. Vote for someone independent or write someone in, but don't vote for McCain-Palin. Our country would surely be in world of trouble (more than it already is).

Here's a letter to John McCain that I rather liked.

And here's some humour for those of you who need a bit of it after all of that (I know I do).

McCain's VP Pick...

2008-09-02T14:54:00.002-04:00

Made me so angry I think my head nearly exploded when I read about it. Actually, I'm still so angry about it right now, that I'm not even sure where to start this blog post. I suppose I'll attempt to start at the beginning.

It all started when McCain started running ads saying something to the effect of "hot chicks dig Obama". Let's just think about the implications of a statement like that and where they take us. Obviously, Obama is McCain's opponent, so liking/supporting Obama is a bad decision/misguided/insert negative adjective here. So it would then follow (since "hot chicks" is not qualified with any sort of value adjective like "some", "all", etc.) that "hot chicks" make bad decisions/are misguided/or whichever negative adjective you chose in the above sentence. Not only that, but since he mentions only one gender, I can only take it to mean that not only am I not capable of making good decisions, etc, but I am also incapable of separating my hormonal responses to Mr. Obama's appearance from my viewpoints as a voting constituent of the US. Thank you, Mr. McCain. As a self-proclaimed "hot chick" I will not be voting for you since you think I make bad decisions/am misguided/or whichever negative adjective you like who is incapable of separating my sexual desires from my opinions on politics. I am just a weak woman after all. I mean, seriously, what is this? 1950?

So, after showing his true chauvistic colors (or at least endorsing the chauvinism of those running his campaign) he picks a bible-thumping, conservative, unheard of "hot chick" as his running mate. The scheming, conniving bastard. I must admit, it's a brilliant brilliant strategy. That's why I'm so angry. It might actually work, but that's an aside. The point is after his ad demonstrating how he feels about women what else could it be but a ploy to win more votes? Why does politics have to be about scheming and plotting rather than what the constituents actually want and need?

At any rate, I don't think I can stand another term of Bush-like politics and I'll be afraid for the country if McCain wins.

There are rumors, however, that Palin's teenage (unwed) daughter is pregnant. Wouldn't that be just scrumptious? The Bible-thumping, conservative, anti-abortion Christian's daughter is a clear demonstration that abstinence-only education doesn't work.

Bigfoot!!!

2008-08-15T11:11:00.007-04:00

Ok, so I don't really have anything profoundly thought-provoking to say, but I haven't posted in a while, so I thought I'd post about the recent claim that a bigfoot body has been found in the mountains of northern Georgia (the U.S. state). I'm sure it's probably a hoax, but I can't help but love cryptozoology. It makes me giddy for some reason. Probably because I'm extremely nerdy. Wouldn't it be super cool if we found a large primate living in North America? Almost as cool as if Nessie were real. Ah well, the stuff they find that is real is sometimes cooler than the stuff that isn't.

In other cool science news, Harry Potter's invisibility cloak could be real!

Deviant Art

2008-07-31T09:44:00.002-04:00

So I started a Deviant Art account so I could post my drawings in a more appropriate outlet! I also put the link on this post as well as permanently affixed on the right side of my page, so check it out! :)

Penguini!

2008-07-28T11:09:00.004-04:00

So this is the latest vector drawing I've done. I did it in inkscape. I just got Corel Painter, though, so I am very excited to learn a new program. I think this would have turned out better had inkscape not gotten so slow after I kept adding layers and things to the point where I couldn't do anything with it really anymore. Anyway, there are definitely some finishing touches that needed to be added, but I just couldn't bear the slowness anymore. If anyone has any suggestions on how to speed inkscape up once you've gotten a fairly complex drawing, please share! :)

Abstinence-Only Sex Education

2008-07-24T10:12:00.002-04:00

The other day I was having a discussion with a couple of people about abstinence-only sex education and I started thinking about it a bit. Those people who support this method of sex education expect preteens and teens not to engage in sexual acts before marriage and yet everyone demands sex in everything. Sex is used to sell everything from consumer goods, to tv shows, to movies. It's everywhere. It's basically like telling a fat person they can't eat bad or fattening food, but constantly waving twinkies around in their faces or telling a drug addict not to do drugs and then constantly surrounding them with said drug. Obviously, there is a laundry list of other issues with abstinence-only sex education that has been iterated elsewhere, but I just wanted to point out this one inconsistency. To give an example...there was an ad on the ABC family channel a week or so ago for a movie that was made for that channel that was to be coming on soon and the preview show a high school girl leaning over and the top of her underwear showing from the top of her pants...she's wearing and thong...and then another girl calls her thong "granny panties", takes a picture with her camera phone, and sends it out to the whole school. Then later the preview goes on to show one of the high school boys impregnating one girl and potentially another. Um...first of all...this is a "family" channel so the whole plot seems a little mature for middle-school/early high school kids to be watching (which seemed to be the target audience) and second of all...when did a thong become "granny panties"?!? So what? As a teenager what message is this sending? I have to wear a g-string or something...in high school, no less? And then you expect me not to have sex? WTF?

Why I'm an Elitist

2008-07-22T08:23:00.002-04:00

Ok, so I don't really think of myself as an elitist, but I'm sure someone somewhere along the lines would beg to differ. At any rate, I keep wondering lately why there are so many people who are probably more intelligent than average and they are either embarrassed of it or just generally don't want to be perceived as a nerd. Where did this trend come from? Why are people ashamed about their intelligence and why is it not cool to be intelligent, educated, and into intellectual things? I don't understand this. Were I not someone to generally go against the grain, I might be one of these people who is intelligent and ashamed of it. I have a friend from high school and college who is incredibly intelligent. She once stumbled into a physics exam, still drunk from the night before, had to hurry to take the exam so she could go throw up, and still made a 99 or something close to it. Meanwhile, the rest of us were struggling to get B's with this particular professor. But she's never wanted to admit how intelligent she is and when we would go out and meet guys, she would always dumb herself down to talk to them. She avoids reading and pretends that all she cares about is jewelry, shopping, make-up, and what Paris Hilton is up to. I sometimes felt like I and our other friends were her guilty pleasure. Her nerd friends that she had to indulge her intellectual side while never fully wanting to admit that. What a waste! And the one of the main reasons she is like this is because she thinks people will perceive her negatively should she show her true colors. It makes me sad and angry just thinking about it. I remember always being angry and jealous at the girls in ballet who were insanely talented, but could care less about being a professional dancer. I had the heart, but they had the talent. It's sort of the same thing here. Not that I am not above average intelligence, I think I am (or an above average dancer), but it's ridiculous that the reason that so much good intelligence is wasted due to popularity contests is sickening. If they're not going to use their intellect, can't I have it?

But anyway, since I am someone who goes against the grain, I say if you're nerdy, that's a good thing and you should flaunt it and maybe if enough people do that, the trend can be reversed and all of the ignorant masses will suddenly be aware that they are the ignorant masses and be ashamed of themselves and try to get some education. I know there's probably little chance of this happening, but it's fun to dream sometimes, right?

Pictures anyone?

2008-07-16T14:22:00.003-04:00

Nausea and Religion

2008-05-28T10:07:00.003-04:00

Bear with me as this post requires a little bit of back story.

Recently, I have had a conversation about atheism and the feeling of nausea that religion elicits and I thought that I would post the meat of it here. To be specific, an ex-atheist (who recently had an epiphany experience) had as his facebook status something to the effect of "Guy's Name is discovering that the Word means so much more than words". We were chatting on facebook chat and I told him "no offense, but your status makes me want to vomit a little bit". Apparently, my perceived nausea caused him a bit of mental distress or at the least wonderment at what had caused my reaction, so he sent me an excerpt from an article and it reads thus:

"Why spend so much time proving the non-existence of something? Why not do something more constructive with life? I don't believe in unicorns or the tooth fairy but I really do not have the time or the energy to write long books articulating my position and ridiculing those who hold such beliefs. Something else is driving the new atheism.

I believe that what drives this new atheism is the same thing which I also regard as driving the various philosophies collectively known as postmodernism, and also that which drives so much of modern Western culture : taste.
This new atheism dislikes religion because it sees it as distasteful. It was the german philosopher, Nietzsche, who launched an attack on Christianity not from the perspective of the limits of human knowledge but from the perspective of taste.
He regarded Christianity as false not becasue it embodied a set of incoherent and unverifiable beliefs, but becasue it advocated a morality, a "slave morality" as he called it, which exalted everything that turned his stomach : forgiveness, meekness, mercy, obedience, longsiffering. Itwas all just too distateful to him."

So I responded (a bit in haste, so forgive me if my writing is not up to par):

I'm surprised that you couldn't anticipate what the arguments against this article would be, but I'll refute it anyway. First of all, I haven't read Nietzsche, but from what I've heard, he may have had one or two good points, but was utterly over the top with a lot of his viewpoints. To me, Christianity and religion being a matter of taste above all else is ridiculously silly and I don't agree with that assertion in the least.

Anyway, to answer the questions posed in the first paragraph: 1) Not to be pedantic, but is anyone really trying to disprove the existence of God(s)? I thought we (the "new atheists") were trying to prove that the idea of God(s) is not a feasible or statistically likely idea. Also, to be a little more pedantic, unless you are a number 7 on Richard's scale laid out in The God Delusion, you would be perfectly aware that we will probably never be able to disprove God's existence. What we can do instead, is prove lots of things that continually diminish the likelihood that God(s) exist. And now to answer what was intended by that poorly worded question after discussing its poor construction. The reason I and any other atheist is concerned with proving the infeasibility of God(s) (especially as compared to fairies and unicorns) is because we are surrounded by people who believe in God(s) and associated religions and are discriminated against or likely to be discriminated against (at least in the US) because of our position. Also, most of us have come to determine that there most likely is(are) no God(s) by a fairly long process of contemplation and education in multiple disciplines and we feel that we have come to the most reasonable and logical conclusion(s) whereas those who are religious proponents have not done the same kind of contemplation or educated themselves to the same level on this matter and we feel a sort of responsibility to try to educate people about it. 2)And sort of getting into the other question posed, there are many things that multitudes of people need education about and so it isn't as if this is the only thing that I would try to educate people about (or any other atheist, for that matter). But it is one of the main ideas that I and many other atheists want to educate people about since it would lead to less discrimination against us. Anything that's to do with oneself will naturally take precedent over something not so near and dear. For example, fistula is a major problem among women in third world countries and many women who suffer from it are outcasts as a result of the incontinence they suffer from it. It is a fairly easily solved problem. The surgery only costs $300 and things can also be done during labor to reduce the risk of it occuring in the first place. However, the populace of these countries are not educated about it, and the women who suffer this condition are often shunned from society, considered unclean, and even told that there isn't anything that can be done to fix the problems. This is a major injustice. However, it's not happening in our backyards, and it isn't really something that will majorly affect our lives the way it does in these uneducated places. So while we consider it extremely worthwhile to educate the people in these areas about it, it doesn't take precedence because it doesn't directly affect us. Not to mention, the sheer amount of problems like this that there are in the world is insurmountable. You have to pick a handful of issues and concentrate on them, so naturally, we pick something that could or has affected us. That's what people are as a gregarious animal anyway: we're specialists. In order to have a functioning society among our species, we all pick something and specialize in it and contribute to society as a whole by gaining as much knowledge as possible in that area so that we can exchange our expertise for someone else's. It is easy to see how this type of society benefits our odds of successful reproduction as individuals. And finally, isn't it obvious that most atheists do do something more worthwhile than just sit around a refute the ideas surrounding God(s) and religion? All of the most famous atheist writers have other careers that have little to do with atheism. You already know this, but Richard Dawkins is obviously an evolutionary biologist first, atheist second. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist and has said that he never even called himself or even really considered himself an atheist. Daniel Dennett is a professor of philosophy. Christopher Hitchens is a journalist and could probably even be called a political pundit. Aren't all of those things worthy of the title "constructive"?

Anyway, obviously I think that the excerpt you have sent me shows nothing more than that the author has completely missed the point. He's also distastefully trivialized our position into ironically enough, a matter of taste.

Also, perhaps my comments about the associated nausea that accompanied reading your facebook status reveal the cultural gap (and perhaps even generational gap). It is quite a common thing to say among young people in the US that something makes them want to vomit. It's some sort of strange trend. You know how these things go. I might have said the same thing about a particularly sappy part of a romantic movie. I've also referred to vomiting in response to an example of really poor grammar. It's just an indication of a negative reaction. But it's not nearly so trendy to say "well, reading your facebook status elicited a rush of negative feelings". ;-)

A Confrontation a Day Keeps the Passive Aggression at Bay

2008-05-23T14:49:00.004-04:00

As a forewarning, this blog post is probably more than anyone will ever want to know about the inner-workings of my psyche.

Recently, passive aggression seems to be a theme in my life as I have been both the perpetrator and receiver of some serious passive aggression. For me, I think my passive aggression is about trust. If I am not sure whether or not someone will still love me or be my friend because I confront them about something that bothers me, I will not confront them about it at my expense. This, of course, only causes me to resent the person for a crime they don't even realize that they've committed or don't realize that what they've done bothers me as much as it does. Another unintended consequence of this is that I am probably extra-irritable at the people I do trust to still love me and be my friends. And recently, my fear of expressing my unhappiness with certain actions has resulted in a good bit of unpleasantness in my life. One consequence being an accumulation of unhappiness that led to an emotional explosion and some poor decision-making. The other consequence was that I was on the receiving end of some passive aggression which the other person felt justified in doling out because I failed to report any offensive behavior.

I think it's extremely important as well as difficult to appropriately judge and gauge the correct reaction to something that is irritating, annoying, or otherwise perceived as negative. Is it something that is even worth bringing up? This can be a difficult question to answer. On the one hand, you could simply ask, well, if I don't bring it up, will it continue to bother me? If not, then there isn't any point in risking an argument or any animosity. If it will continue to bother me then bring it up. That seems simple enough, but what if the behavior is something that is inconsequential. For instance, say it bothers you that your roommate always turns the lights on in a particular order.* If you don't say anything, it will continue to bother you, but it really isn't something that you have any reason to be bothered about. So it is your behavior that is bothersome and not theirs. So then there's the task of trying to decide whose behavior is in the wrong. This is where I tend to get into trouble. I tend to err on the side of deciding that my negative reaction to the behavior isn't appropriately proportioned to the action which caused the reaction. Something related to this is my observation of interactions of other people. Some people it seems, especially in romantic relationships, seem to get so comfortable expressing their dislikes that it seems that almost everything the other person does elicits a negative reaction in their partner even when it is completely unreasonable to feel negatively about some arbitrary action. In an effort to avoid this, I have been guilty of under-reporting any behaviors even when they are definitely negative.

Something that only tends to complicate this all the more is guilt. I tend to try to excuse the other person's behavior on the basis of realizing my own imperfections and therefore rationalize not confronting the person about their behaviors whether it's worth confronting them over or not. So once I have rationalized my way out of confronting someone over something they have done, it sits in the back of my mind. Eventually, if the person is someone I interact with often enough, things accumulate to the point where I am constantly irritated by them because they are doing all of these things that elicit a negative reaction and they keep doing them! How dare they! How could they not know that this behavior is just not acceptable? Well, the answer seems obvious, since I've never let them know that what they do bothers me. But the rational mind and the emotional mind never seem to meet up. I know that I haven't told the person that what they do bothers me, but I can't seem to help feeling annoyed that they continue to do it.

Yet another complication is that things that may have caused the slightest twinge of a negative reaction, yet were fairly easily forgotten can suddenly resurface once you are confronted by someone else about your own actions. If you never bring anything that bothers you to someone's attention, then they will assume that there isn't anything that they do that bothers you, go about their merry way, not paying attention to what they do and won't have the slightest clue why you feel indignant when something you do bothers them and they bring it up. I think to myself, "but there were so many times that he/she did x, y, or z and I never said a word and now he's complaining because I did x just once!" The obvious problem here is that person who said quarrel is with has no idea that they've been doing x, y, and z because you never said anything about it! And most people when feeling bothered by another person's actions don't sit down and think first whether or not they've ever done the same. Yet, this isn't the way the mind works. You still feel indignant and suddenly those things that you thought you forgot about are suddenly flooding back into your memory.

The circle of persons I actually freely express my dismay with is extremely small, perhaps only two or three people. So in an effort to lead a more mentally healthy life, I'm going to make an attempt to rid myself of these detrimental passive-aggressive behaviors and confront people more often about the things they do that bother me. This could result in me being unnecessarily bitchy, so please bear with me while I try to adjust to confronting people more often in an attempt to avoid explosive situations in the future.

*I made this up as an example. People can turn the lights on in any order they prefer. :-)

Rawr!

2008-05-06T09:09:00.003-04:00

*Edit: This post is mainly in reference to the atheists debating one another rather than atheists debating believers and theists, although it could apply to that, too. Quetz's post on the matter is regarding debates between believers and non-believers.

Recently, I've been formulating some opinions. Imagine that! But seriously, recently as I've been hanging out on the sidelines on RD.net rather than really engaging in much debate, I've been noticing some trends. Quetzalcoatl (Jonathan) already wrote a blog related to this, but I think it deserves to be expanded upon. If you would like to read Quetz's blog first, here is the one to which I am referring: http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/2008/03/difficulties-in-debate.html.

Now, Quetz put forward the idea that people have what he calls "Attachment Factors" or AF to certain ideas. This is what I want to expand on and Quetz, I hope you don't mind that I am borrowing your term for this post. I agree that there are AFs that people hold to certain ideas, but as of late when watching people debate on RD.net, I've noticed that when someone has a point of contention with an idea one puts forward, it is very likely that the person whose idea has been questioned automatically develops an AF for the idea and feels the need to defend it, even if it were an idea he or she only recently came up with (maybe even as recently as during composing the post). Being that most of the posters on RD.net are very intelligent and in some cases (certainly not my own) are skilled debaters, it usually is quite easy for one to defend his or her post in an intelligent manner (especially in matters of opinion) no matter how good or bad (for lack of better words) his or her idea is/was.

What I'm getting at is that as soon as someone's idea is contested, rather than reconsidering his or her position, many times, the person immediately develops an AF for this position and subsequently begins defending it without ever truly considering the other person's opinion on the matter. I think this greatly obscures the purpose of debating in the first place. Debating is about find the truth, not who's wrong or right, correct?

I think part of the reason that this occurs is because whoever it is doing the contesting oftentimes not only criticizes the idea itself, but also the person who is holding the idea simply for the fact that person does hold the idea and it is only natural to have an urge to defend oneself. I think if people were to be more careful not to choose words that are sure to elicit an emotional response, the debates would be more proficient and proceed in a much smoother manner. Understandably, though, everyone has different styles of writing and debating, so perhaps rather than trying to avoid offending someone, people should try to avoid allowing an emotional response to a contention rather than a logical and rational response. Anyway, those are my suggestions for improving the debates. You may take it or leave it.

Post on the FCOS Forum

2008-04-29T10:31:00.009-04:00

I wanted to post this here in case it doesn't get posted on the FCOS forum. I am still waiting for my username to be approved, so this whole process may take a while. Anyway, here is what I intend to submit on the "Expelled" thread once I have been (if I am) approved:

David,

If I may join in on this discussion:

1) I do not regard all atheists as being followers of Dawkins. Nor everyone who posts on his website. However I do think that there are some who act as though they are his followers. Indeed one of the strange things about RD net is just how sychophantic it is.

I would like to reply to you in detail about this. First of all, I would like to say that I think the lens you are viewing the situation from is a bit clouded by your personal conflicts with Richard Dawkins. Please hear me out. It would be easy for you to project this sense of sycophantism onto the posters at RD.net simply because you have a general distaste for Richard himself and by association, you have a distaste for those who agree with him (although, those who agree with him on some points, disagree on other points). That being said, I think that you are mistaking simple appreciation for being sycophantic. Most people in the world are affiliated with a religion of some sort. Among those that don’t identify with any religion, many still believe in a god or supernatural being of some sort. Atheists are a minority. Fortunately, we are a growing minority, but that is beside the point. The point is that many people who are atheists feel somewhat isolated by their atheism depending on the situation and the religiosity of the people who surround them. There are tons and tons of books about Christianity and other religions, but only a small number of books (comparatively speaking) about atheism or to do with atheism. So when someone like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer, etc comes out with a book about atheism, what I and I assume many other atheists feel is appreciation that someone has spoken out about our positions (even if all atheists don’t agree on everything, which they don’t) and that we have a small, yet powerful representation in the sea of representation for the religious. Perhaps we are simply happy not to be isolated any longer.

To make an additional point, this is the definition of sycophant from the American Heritage Dictionary: n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people. So what makes you think that anyone on RD.net or who happens to agree with Richard is a sycophant? It is a fairly strong word to use when it implies that we are agreeing with Richard in a self-serving manner. Who’s to say that we can’t agree with Richard? Why does agreeing with Richard mean that we are doing it blindly? I know that when I agree with Richard, it is after deep contemplation on the matter, not just because I’m a “follower”. Also, I post on RD.net because I enjoy reading the articles and the discourse, not because I’m hoping Richard will recognize me in some manner.

2) …Dawkins in his letter wants to make out that atheism had NOTHING to do with Hitler and the holocaust…

I am usually pretty good at figuring out emotional responses and I think that your entire number two is an emotional response. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that the reason you are upset and had an emotional response to Richard’s statements about Hitler and the Holocaust is because you feel that he is attempting to shift the blame from the atheists to the Christians. This is where I diverge from Richard a bit (as I do and have on many other issues, as well). There is no denying that Hitler manipulated the Church for his agenda, but this is the biggest game of “hot potato” I’ve ever seen a bunch of adults play (I’m assuming the children in the UK play hot potato?). I have said before and I will say again, Hitler’s statements on Christianity and atheism cannot reveal anything to us about Hitler except that he was dishonest. No one can know for certain whether Hitler was an atheist or a Christian except Hitler himself because he was largely inconsistent on the matter in his general conversations as well as published writings, so there is no conclusive evidence in either direction. What we do know is that he was either an atheist lying about being a Christian in public or a Christian lying about being an atheist in private. Unfortunately for everyone involved with Hitler and the Holocaust, he lied to and manipulated a lot of people and the events that transpired because of him were more horrific than can be described. Might I suggest that the reason Richard is trying to distance atheism from Hitler and the Holocaust is not to shift the blame onto Christians, but simply to show that people who are atheists are not (generally) evil persons (as there are evil persons in every demographic). It is a reaction to people of the religious variety continually beating atheists over the head with “Hitler was an atheist”. It is tiresome because I along with (I would venture to say) everyone on RD.net and most of the atheists in the general population are disgusted with the Holocaust and don’t want to be wrongly associated with that kind of evil any more than you and other Christians do. That is why Expelled has received such a vehement response from many atheists; one of its main premises (from what I have read) is to peg atheists as Darwinists and then to blame Darwinism for Hitler and the Holocaust. If this is indeed the case, how would that make you feel? How does it make anyone feel?

Sorry for the lengthy first post. Feel free to chop it into two posts if you would like.

The other posts appear here: http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=26.msg296#new

Churches and Atheism

2008-04-22T09:44:00.002-04:00

I've just read an article on RD.net entitled "If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House". I wrote a short comment on the site about the article, but I feel the need to expound on my feelings here. First of all, I will take issue with the title of the article. God isn't dead because there never was one. It's really annoying when people associate atheists with hating God or thinking that he's dead. All of the atheists that I know including me don't believe that there is or ever was any god to hate or think is dead. This is simply ridiculous. Unfortunately, however, many theists (Christians, in my experience) associate atheism with hating God as was demonstrated by navyjake95 on another RD.net thread yesterday. I believe the term he used was something like "God-hating commie Athiest(sic) Jihad bastards". I commented that this was the epitome of all oxymorons. Last time I checked, it was pretty hard to hate something that one doesn't believe to be in existence, but maybe I'm wrong. It happens every once in a while. Also, if one were an atheist, I'm pretty certain that you couldn't be a Jihadi as well, as that would require belief in Allah and the tenets of Islam. Then, of course, there's the "commie" part. I'm assuming this is coming from the tired old Argumentum ad Stalinium/Pol Potium (Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists so therefore all communists are atheists). This is the stupidest part, so I'm not even going to bother with a refutation as this argument has been refuted ad nauseum in various other places.

And after that tangent, now on to the meat of this post. The subject and thesis of the article are basically that supposedly many atheists have some sort of void in their lives once the sense of community that they felt from the church is removed from their lives. Perhaps it's that I am biased as a result of my personal experiences with church in childhood (being that I was brought up in the Lutheran Church), but I think that my story is similar to a lot of my peers and spurred the mass rejection of religion (and perhaps God) that we see in the current young generation (as demonstrated by the Pew poll that said that 25% of 19-29 year olds did not affiliate themselves with any religion).

Growing up, I was always involved in a lot of things. I was a brownie/girl scout for a couple of years, I danced (ballet, jazz, modern mostly), I played the piano and the violin (in high school), I was a cheerleader, I was in chorus, I always did well in school, etc. So as you can see, I was a busy girl. I've always had a lot on my plate, so to be forced by my parents to add something else to the equation that was no fun and caused me to have to get up early on my only day to sleep in, I was understandably not overjoyed. Not only was church not just no fun, but it was also terribly boring. Sunday school required getting up even earlier than regular service did and so any fun that I may have had there was negated by the fact that I had to get up extra early and church service itself was incredibly boring. It was basically an hour of silence, standing up and sitting down, kneeling, mumbling some words that I said so many times I didn't think about them, and finding something to do or think about while the pastor gave the sermon for 10 to 15 minutes. Then there was the constant scrutiny that I was under from my step-dad to sit still and not put my feet on the "kneelers" under the pew in front of me. He paid more attention to what I was doing than he ever did to the service. I also had to go through several weeks of preparation for my "first communion" which required that I do homework. Any school-age child being told to do more homework that they don't receive any real credit for will obviously not be overjoyed. I was also forced to go through Catechism which consisted of two years of going to stupid classes every few Wednesday nights during the school-year which also required extra homework (which I never did). The first year was taught by Pat who was our Youth Director. Her name was Pat and she looked just like "It's Pat" from SNL. Needless to say, no one took her very seriously. The second year was taught by our no-nonsense pastor who didn't like my questions about whether or not non-Christians could go to heaven and that it wasn't fair for God not to have chosen everyone to be a Christian.

The only pleasant experiences I can recall from church were singing in the youth choir for a few years, doing the crafts at Bible School (until the year that I ate a cashew which caused me to go into anaphylaxis and both of my lungs collapsed which almost caused me to die...I didn't like Bible School after that), and the couple of ski trips that I went on in high school with other churches (since my church was too lame to do their own trip). I did attend a program called "Young Life" in high school that was fun. We played games, sang songs, and the "leaders" performed skits for us for an hour every Monday night. The boring part was at the end when one of the "leaders" would talk about Jesus. I always zoned out during that part.

Anyway, the point of all of the gibberish above is that most people my age were involved in numerous activities and church was just a chore to them. Indeed, my closest friends from the time are not religious (even if they aren't necessarily atheists). We found senses of community all over the place in the various activities that I listed above among many others. Perhaps generations older than mine only had a sense of community from church as there weren't as many options for extra-curricular activities in the past, but such was not the case for me and is not the case for future generations. Kids now are involved in even more things than I was involved with and I'm sure the options will only continue to grow, so this whole nonsense about needing a "church for atheists" seems outdated to me. There are many groups for adults to join as well. I participate in a cycling group and a running group. We even have shirts that say so. I also go to the gym where I see certain people regularly. There are many many options and if atheists think that they need some sort of church to replace the feelings of community they lost when they left the church, they aren't paying attention to the plethora of communities surrounding them. Personally, I relish my one day to sleep in.

Strange Happenings and New Trends

2008-04-16T09:43:00.002-04:00

Lately on Richard Dawkins' website, www.richarddawkins.net , there has been an over abundance of theists just popping over. There used to be only one or two a week and now there are at least several a day. I'm wondering what has caused this surge in their efforts. They might be coming about as a result of all of the things Richard has been involved in lately. With the release of the paperback version of TGD, he's been making a lot of appearance in the Western World. David Robertson has also caused quite a stir about several things in Britain, so maybe that has something to do with it as well. Whatever the cause, it's been a bit irritating to me, at least because rather than having intelligent, useful discussion among ourselves, it seems that the atheists there have been wasting their breath (or typing skills) refuting the same arguments over and over and over and over and over again. I haven't been posting anything there lately because I've been quite busy and when I post, I want to engage in some intelligent debate about something other than the nonsense that the theists believe. When there are a group of people discussing something who've all gotten past that, the discussion generally proceeds at a higher level (most of the time, occasionally there's discussion of beer, tea, etc). At any rate, I'd rather that they go away. They are simply taking up bandwidth and nothing that any atheist says to them there is going to change their minds.

Another trend that I've noted with the theists is that they continually accuse the people on RD.net of not engaging in intelligent discussion. It seems that this is the new form of the old argument "well, you're just as bad as we are". If they had bothered to read any of the thread discussions that had taken place before the masses of theists began flooding the site, they would have seen that there was plenty of very intelligent discussion that sometimes is even over my head (I know, can you believe there's anything that's over my head? ;-), but that would just be too much to ask. They can't even be bothered to read the entire Bible, so why would we expect them to read older threads?

Anyway, my proposal if anyone is listening is to begin ignoring the theists until they have shown that they have actually done their homework. Until then, don't expect to be answered and don't whine about it, either.

In other news, someone with whom I used to be friends and still maintain some contact with recently sent me a link to a Christian radio website. At first I just laughed at how ridiculous it was to try to send something like that to me of all people, but then I started thinking about it and it started to irritate me. First of all, the person in question is someone who has avoided taking responsibility for things in their life for as long as I've known this person. At first, after recent developments, I felt sorry for the person and on some level, understood the person's decision to turn to Christianity for comfort, but on further contemplation on the subject, I realized that this was just the same old thing after all. This person was/is using "God's will" as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for not having their life together. So now I'm just annoyed because I always maintain some smidgen of hope that this person (who is very intelligent and has the capacity to be a great person) will snap out of it and come to their senses and I realize that this is only more of the same. I'm also annoyed because if this particular person wants to turn to Christianity and not accept responsibility for their life, that's not my decision, but I'd prefer if I weren't a target for conversion. A general annoyance brought up by the whole situation is that perhaps if religion didn't exist anymore, people would have to take responsibility for their actions rather than being able to cop out. Maybe that's why some people are clinging to it so desperately; without it, they'd have to admit that they'd screwed up their own lives and perhaps others, too.

Completely unrelated: I ran my first 10K the first weekend of April and it was a blast. There were about 30,000 people in the race, so it was really cool to be running with all of those people. I was about 30 seconds short of my goal. I ran it in an hour and 21 seconds. And guess what? I did it all by myself. I did all of the training. No god(s) had any part in my success! Yay me!

Patience with the incompetent

2008-03-28T13:38:00.003-04:00

Recently I attempted to debate a Christian on someone else's blog. I'll say attempted because there was no format of actual debate. He commented some dimwitted nonsense on the blog to which I offered a comment in rebuttal. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and thought that he may have just skimmed the blog post or missed a particular part of it because his initial comments demonstrated that he hadn't quite gotten the gist of the post. Once I offered my rebuttal, he demonstrated for a second time that he was unable to comprehend what he had read because his reply to me didn't even make sense in the context of what I had written. I replied to him several more times, each time restating my point to him in a way I thought he might be able to understand (interspersed with an insult at his mental capacity here and there) and he still never got it. How is one to have patience with people like this? If they can't even understand the simplest of arguments.

I was also debating another Christian recently over facebook. He was actually fairly intelligent. It was a strange debate, though because he agreed with most of my logic, but DESPITE the fact that he agreed with it, still remained a Christian. How does that work, exactly? I wonder. Maybe he is more on the fence about it than he is willing to acknowledge? We are in the Bible Belt and he does seem to be close to his family. Maybe he's too afraid of the consequences of taking stock in views that actually make sense as opposed to religious nonsense.

I must say, though, that I prefer to debate with the latter. Even if I never convince him, at least there's an actual conversation taking place rather than me beating my head against a wall. I suppose that's why I'm polite to DR. Even if he's a lying, manipulative guy he at least gives something that you can respond to. I suppose being exposed to the clearwooters and the jimmys of the world makes me more grateful for the DRs and the Johns of the world.

Materialism and Relationships

2008-03-27T09:36:00.001-04:00

I must admit that while I've been an agnostic for quite some time and only last year made the switch over to atheism, my life has made much more sense than it did before. Of course being an atheist doesn't mean that one is necessarily a materialist (for those of you not familiar with the materialism philosophy, and no it's not the desire to hold lots of material objects in one's possession, please see here: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/Materialism.htm), but my science background and same search for the truth that led to my atheism also led to my materialism. This is all anecdotal, of course. I'm sure that there are atheists who feel more lost than ever after the realization that there probably isn't a god(s). But for me, it has simplified everything so much more.

I think one of the things that goes hand in hand with the Christian faith is that people believe that God has one single person that they are intended to be with or "the one". I think the concept of "the one" complicates things beyond what might initially seem to be the case. If you believe that you are destined to be with only one person, all of your actions with regards to relationships are guided by this notion. For instance, if you're in a relationship that you're having second thoughts about, rather than logically assessing the problems of the relationship, you end up trying to figure out what to do based on whether or not you think he or she is "the one". This leads to all kinds of confusion. "What if I break up with him and he was 'the one'?" or "If he's the one, everything will work itself out" or "If he's 'the one' we'll be together when we're meant to be together" and so on ad infinitum (also see ad nauseum). At any rate, it leads people to take a passive position in dealing with relationships rather than an active one. If you believe that there is "the one" then you most likely also believe that things will work themselves out as a result of this destiny or fate. When you hold a materialistic world view, you can let go of all this nonsense and begin to take an active position in your relationships and make better decisions and more clear decisions. If you aren't happy in a relationship and you feel that it has become unhealthy, it's easier to let go of it if there isn't some "the one" nonsense clouding your judgment.

Just to be clear (even though I included the link above), materialism is the view that everything can be explained physically without the need for invoking things like a soul and that consciousness can be explained in purely scientific terms . If one doesn't believe that there's any existence of a soul, then there isn't any need to believe that there's such a thing as a soul mate or "the one", to be consistent in my phrasing.

Not that there are really that many people who actually read my blog (especially since I don't actively promote it), but I can hear the protests about how depressing a materialist world view is. If you think it is, I will ask you why? Love and positive relationships aren't any less real and we don't feel them any less if this is the case, so why do you think this is depressing?

I'll leave it at that, today.

How do you reconcile irreconcilable differences?

2007-12-04T23:39:00.000-05:00

That is the fucking question, isn't it? (Jesus, it's been a long time since I've posted...more on that later)

I mean seriously, can anyone answer this? If you can, by all means do! I just don't see how it will ever be resolved. I mean, short of one of us deciding to change our minds about our views, I don't know what to do besides completely avoid the subject and those related. Of course, intuitively, that doesn't seem like any way to have a relationship, right? I know couples have their differences and all, but what do you do when it's a MAJOR difference? Especially what do you do when you love the person and you don't want to have to break up? I think that what makes it so bad or such a major difference is that both of us feel like the other's feelings infringe upon our own. I don't know how to solve it. If this were a test, I would fail, because I'm coming up with nothing. I don't even know when or where or how to start. I don't know.

Ok, I can't come up with anything else, so I guess that's all I have to say on that subject.

If any of you were wondering (which I'm positive that no one was wondering), but just for that infinitesimally small fraction of a chance that you were, I haven't been writing lately because there are too many things to be angry about and I quite simply just can't keep up. I mean, with teachers being threatened with death for naming a fucking teddy bear Mohammad to Texas education officials being fired for promoting SCIENCE to children's books being labeled as atheist propaganda, I just don't have enough time or anger to go around. That bumper sticker that says "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention" is damn right. I would like to go on a rant right now, but I can't decide what to rant about because there are SO MANY THINGS going freaking wrong in the world. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic and I need to be trying to focus on the good things going on in the world and all the charities that are doing positive things for Christmas, etc. Is there a website that only posts good news? If there is, I certainly haven't found it. Then again, if everyone were apathetic the world would probably be a much more deplorable place than it is now.

At any rate, that's all for now.

***Disclaimer: To anyone reading this blog entry, I mean what I say how I mean it and I take no responsibility if you interpret it incorrectly. If you want to know what I mean, ask. If you think that I meant something in a particular way, but you would hope not or you wouldn't think that I would be someone to think that way, please ask and I shall clarify. Thank you. ***

What's in a name?

2007-10-08T16:03:00.000-04:00

I haven't blogged in a bit, so I thought I'd do so. Today's blog may not be as heated or vehement as the rest of my blogs have been thus far. I'm in more of a contemplative mood than an angry or critical mood today. I read Sam Harris' speech that he gave at the Atheist Alliance gathering in D.C. a week or so ago. Apparently he incited some anger with this speech and if not anger, a lot of debate at least.

The main point of the speech was that he didn't think that we non-believers should have a name, any name. Not atheists, free thinkers, rationalists, humanists, secularists, etc. For instance, you generally don't give other people who aren't something a name (non-astrologer was the example he gave). And also hinted that atheism should be ubiquitous and therefore not even a real concept (except historically, of course). This is entirely too idealistic, of course. I agree that I think the world would be all the more beautiful without religion and without concept of god, but it isn't going to happen anytime in the near future and efforts towards that now would be futile and only anger those who are religious (and sometimes those people happen to be our friends and loved ones). I think the best we can do now is to accept that religion isn't leaving anytime soon and try to use reason wherever possible.

What I think is a more realistic goal as far as the naming of our group is to continue to call ourselves atheists (that's what we are after all, without god) and at the present, there is a need for the concept...or if you want to go around manipulating Latin and Greek I suppose you could call us adeistic...at any rate, the word atheist needs to be re-connotated. People should be educated that atheist is not congruent with genocidal maniac, which is what many people think now. I'll admit that I myself didn't necessarily associate it with genocidal maniacs, but I certainly thought of it as a very dark and gruesome concept until I became educated about it and realized that there were all of these wonderful and intelligent people who are atheists and that it was ok to call myself that. That's what we need to show the world. That is a more realistic and achievable goal.

I do think, though, that the fact that his speech elicited an angry response in a group of people who are supposed to be known for their critical thinking skills is a bit amusing, but also frightening, especially when Sam Harris is supposed to be an applauded authority on the subject. Anyway, it shouldn't make anyone angry, it should just initiate some new thoughts, which is good. So I'm applauding Sam Harris for making people think and for continuously exploring new thoughts and ideas.

On a completely unrelated note, my job has been entirely too stressful today. They definitely don't pay me enough to put up with this kind of crap. Compliance assistance is BS! I've gone out of my way to try and help this facility and their consultant out and they've done nothing but been adverse to everything and caused me to do entirely too much unnecessary work! Yuck.

On another completely unrelated note, I'm getting a new car which is really exciting, but I can't decide which one I want. What do you think? Honda Civic, Volkswagen Rabbit, or Scion tC?

Thoughts on Religion in the World

2007-09-24T14:14:00.000-04:00

Today I've been thinking about religion again and what it's all about. Religion is like the epitome of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Not only do the religious (particularly the fundamentalists) repeatedly say their beliefs in church and talk about it to their religious friends and continually re-read/study the Bible, but their lives are completely immersed in it because in order to convince themselves that it's all true, they must surround themselves with it. If this is the case, those who are more fundamentalist in their beliefs could actually be the real fence-sitters, at least in thought. Then again, those who are fundamentalists would be harder to convince that their religion is a sham because in many cases, they've built their lives around their religion and it would be extremely difficult to say all of a sudden that they no longer believed in everything that their lives had always revolved around. Or to put it more succinctly, if they admit their religion is a sham, they essentially admit that their life is a sham. I think it would be more than difficult for some and I am most empathetic to this. I think someone admitting that they no longer believe could also feel like escaping incarceration (mental incarceration, in most cases) and being exonerated. Either way, the emotions resulting from sudden disbelief would be extreme and extreme emotions are difficult to deal with. And even if one had the feeling of exoneration on some level, he or she would still feel a sense of loss and most certainly would lose some of the people in his or her life. I think a more appropriate approach would be a gradual one where, say a person went from being fundamentalist to more moderate and so on and so on.

I started thinking about all of this because I read an article from a British newspaper that asserted that there had been a recent rise in religion and that the Richard-Dawkins-esque atheists and scientists only had themselves to blame because they lumped the moderates and fundamentalists into one large group and ostracized them all. Incidentally, I do think that advances in science may have caused people to cling tighter to their religion, but I don't think it has anything to do with atheists trying to get people to use reason and use their brains. It is also a misrepresentation to say that Dawkins or anyone Dawkins-esque lumps those who are religious all in one big group of enmity. I believe it was the Bible that said something to the effect of "You're either with me or your against me", not Richard Dawkins. I also think it would be a misrepresentation to insinuate that Dawkins views the religious (moderate or fundamentalist) as his enemies, despite how heated any debate may have become. I think the source of the heat is the frustration he and any free thinker feels when confronted with circular arguments which are so often used by the religious and theologians.

I think part of the recent rise in religion (if there truly is a rise) could also go back to what I was asserting about religion earlier. Some people (fundamentalists) have to immerse themselves in their religion in order to keep believing and part of that immersion is to try and convince other people to believe. I think that would be a very powerful way to maintain faith. "If I can convince this other person that it's true, then it must be true," and not only that, but they must maintain the faith so as not to let the converted person down.

I think I have decided, though, that I could live happily in this world with the religious if there were no fundamentalists (especially those who want creationism taught in science class) and the religious left me alone and respected my non-religious lifestyle and considered me equal. That is, of course, entirely too idealistic. It will never happen. There are many things in the world that are this way; that would be great, but will never happen. World peace, for example, will never happen. Why can't we all just get along?

Expanding on Some Thoughts

2007-09-13T15:44:00.000-04:00

I may not have time to finish all that I want to say, so if I don't, I'll expound more later. So recently I've had some fervent responses to my suggestion that there be a federally mandated science curriculum in the schools. This is mostly in response to that. The reason I think this to be necessary is that if something is not done, creationism will continue to be taught in science classes and this is inappropriate. It is inappropriate because creationism is not science. This is a very simple matter. There is no scientific evidence to support it and there is nothing scientific about the theory. If people continue to insist on creationism being taught, then it should be taught in a religion or theology class where it belongs. If we allow creationism to be taught in science classes then we have to allow whatever other strange theories that have been postulated to be taught there as well such as theories from the church of the flying spaghetti monster http://www.venganza.org/. This is why religious theories should be kept in their place and scientific theories can be kept in theirs. Furthermore, evolution should most definitely be taught in science classes and not banned because it is a valid theory with a lot of evidence to support it. Everyday new strains of bacteria evolve that are resistant to antibiotics. More recently fleas have started to evolve and are now resistant to some of the pet flea and tick medicines. Not to mention fossil records that are evidence. What people also don't realize is that once an idea or hypothesis makes is to theory state, it is mostly definite. Gravity, for example, is a theory. And science is always changing. The textbooks for science have many editions because people are making new discoveries daily. If science finds proof for creationism that completely demolishes evolution, then it can be taught in science classes, but only then should it be taught.

On to the part about federal involvement: The reason that I think federal involvement is necessary is because many times people refuse to do the right thing. This has been demonstrated in the past and it is being demonstrated currently. Examples include slavery and segregation. On occasion people are so stubborn and prejudiced that they will not do the right thing without being forced. This is when the federal government needs to step in and intervene. Such is the case with things today such as evolution and creationism and gay civil unions. People seem to have such a hard time with whether or not these things are right are wrong, but I guess I don't. To me, it is clear that gay people should be able to be in the same kind of relationships as straight people and have the same kind of rights associated with civil unions such as insurance, etc. It is also very clear to me that children should be exposed to important scientific theories such as the big bang and evolution because denying them that is denying them the right to learn which defeats the purpose of going to school. I'm going to have to finish this later.

On Becoming an Atheist III

2007-09-07T14:21:00.000-04:00

I was reading a story of deconversion on "converts corner" on Richard Dawkins' site www.richarddawkins.net and also received a comment from a friend on a previous blog and have decided to write my own version of deconversion.

I was raised in the Lutheran Church. Everyone was pretty liberal with their Christianity, but they still attended church, sang in the choir, and sent their children to Catechism in 7th and 8th grades. Catechism was where I began to have my doubts. We were taught that Christians were God's chosen ones who would be admitted to heaven and that all others were pretty much screwed. At that point, I was very troubled. I thought to myself that since heaven was the most wonderful place imaginable, that there had to be a fair way to get into heaven and that it wasn't fair for the people of other faiths. These people of other faiths were brought up to have that different faith and being brought up in a faith was the way you came by having a particular faith. It just wasn't fair and I just refused to believe that all of these other people were going to hell just for believing something different. I even asked our pastor about it during one of our classes. I don't remember what he said, but I feel sure he most likely just shrugged his shoulders. At that point I decided that I was still Christian, but that as long as you believed in just one God, you could still get into heaven. I even asked my Mom about it and she agreed that it wasn't fair and that belief in God was sufficient. I remained "Christian" throughout high school.

I then went off to college and decided on Biology for my major. At one point I changed my major to dance, but eventually found my way back to Biology. At some point early in my scientific study in college I decided that I just couldn't believe in the "Jesus Story" anymore. We were taught about the scientific method and shown how so many miracles could be explained by science and it just became impossible for me to know all this and still believe that the miracles surrounding Jesus were true. I remained in this agnostic purgatory for the next couple of years and neither accepted nor rejected any of the other tenets of faith besides the "Jesus Story".

I then was finally forced to take history as a required core class. This class changed my life. The course covered pre-history up until the Roman Empire. I had a most wonderful professor who was head of the history department and just knew so much about history. I drank every word he spoke and never missed a single class (well, except on a test day during the Nutcracker performance which I told my professor about in advance). I wrote down EVERYTHING and the more I learned the more apparent it was that all of the religions in the world fed off of each other and were founded in similar places and beliefs and that none of them were true. Each was just as mythical as the next.

Somewhere during this time I returned to thinking about heaven and hell and decided that I just couldn't believe in either. I decided that no God that I believed in would be so childish as to send someone to hell for a minor "sin" (as I had no other word for it, I suppose you could call it a moral indiscretion) and that the only way you could go to hell was to commit a major "sin" (i.e. murder, rape, etc.). The problem arose when thinking about that because I thought that the only people who had the capacity to commit such heinous sins were people who had true mental imbalances and God certainly wouldn't send someone to hell for a mental imbalance that the person had no control over and was a biological condition. I also thought that the amount of suffering that some of these people went through that caused their mental imbalances should more than make up for their random heinous acts. It has been shown that many people who turn out to be murderers and rapists are horribly abused as children and such grief can trigger a mental condition, such as schizophrenia, that might lead them to commit a heinous "sin". Others, who weren't subjected to abuse, but still committed the sins were psychopaths who have no conscience and are suffering from a mental imbalance as well. Therefore, I just didn't believe that there was a hell, because I ruled out all of the people who could be sent there. I then decided that there was no method to the madness, so to speak, and that if there were no hell, then there wasn't a heaven, either.

Some of my friends used to say jokingly that I was Jewish since I didn't believe that Jesus really existed, but after my history class and decision about heaven and hell, I decided that I couldn't believe a single word from the Bible (Old Testament or New Testament) and after all the science I'd had, a Messiah coming to Earth seemed no more likely now than it did during Jesus's time. The only thing I hadn't dismissed was the idea of God.

Dismissing the idea of God only came to me more recently. I teeter-tottered for a while between believing in God and believing that there was no way to tell, so no reason to believe one way or another. I then decided to read Stephen Hawking's The Universe in a Nutshell. It was in reading about the universe, that I had never really studied about before, that I found that, for me, there was just no room for God in the fabric of the universe. I have since decided that I am an atheist. I think I had lingered around it for a while, but I was afraid because the word carries such a negative connotation. I now know, though, that you can be an atheist and still be a very moral, honest person and lead a very fulfilled life by helping others. I am not scared of death because I know that by the time I die I will have done enough to be satisfied with myself. I have also been reading Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and find that there are many other ideas that comfort me. I don't really think that there is a God, but I won't dismiss it 100% and I feel certain that since I have led a pretty decent life and intend on helping and have helped others, that if there is a God he/she/it would still accept me because of my good deeds and rational thinking.

I'll leave you with a quote from the deconversion story I was reading about what the author would like to ask God if he decided to reveal himself:

I'd want to ask him: "Why did you wait so long to make your existence
indisputable, to display your awesome powers, and to deal definitively with the
problems of disease, disaster and suffering to the solution of which compassionate
mortals have dedicated their lives through the centuries?"

Forward Thinking

2007-09-07T09:58:00.000-04:00

So recently, I've been thinking about my anger towards the Christian religion and I think that I have mostly resolved it. I was really angry that people just believed the things they were taught in Sunday school when it's so obvious to me that those things are just myths. After thinking about it a good bit, though, I've decided that I can't really be angry about it for several reasons. One reason being that if people aren't exposed to science and to the things that would make them question their faith, it isn't necessarily their fault and it doesn't make them bad people. I am of the opinion that you should question everything and research everything, but some people just aren't brought up to think like that or taught to think like that in school and it's really hard for these people to break these acceptance habits. Anyway, my point is, that without higher education, particularly in science, it would be really easy to just accept the Christian religion and maybe even be angry at science for trying to debunk it. And as much as I love science and biology, it's not for everyone and the world would be quite a mess if it were only populated by biologists. There's a place for people of all different interests. So rather than being angry at the Christians, I think a more appropriate place for my anger would be at the schools in this country. The school system should be run by people who are educated enough to make sure children are exposed to the amount of science and the kind of science that would equip them with the knowledge to form their own opinions, but it is not. The schools are run by people whose minds are still polluted with religion to the point where they want to teach something completely non-scientific (like creationism or intelligent design) in a science class where it has no business being. It is not founded on scientific research, so whether you believe or not, I think it should be agreeable that it has no place in a science class. This would be the equivalent of teaching a mathematical proof in a literature class. It can't be put there because it can't be analyzed in the way a work of literature would. Apples and oranges so to speak.

This is where it gets tricky though. What do you do about the people who are so fundamentally religious that they want to home school their children or send them to a private school where all of the subjects have some correlation with the Bible or Koran or whatever religious text the particular religion refers to? I don't know. Do you force all schools, even private schools and home schools, to teach a federally mandated science program? I know there are many who are opposed to anymore federal involvement on the local level, but how else do you make sure that kids, whose minds are so impressionable, are exposed to the things they need to be exposed to? I think this is the only way.

Some people who are done with school and are religious can be persuaded and educated out of their myth-believing, but many will never let go of their faith. I think the only way to work our way out of this religion dominated world is to work on the children. Realistically speaking, I think the only way is federal intervention. Of course, this may never happen since politicians are just as pervaded by religion as the rest of the population especially on certain sides of the spectrum. It's very frustrating not to be able to affect the masses. I wish that I could.

My only other option is to try to be as tolerant as possible and not put myself in positions where I wouldn't be able to bite my tongue. The situation I'm in now is definitely teaching me patience and tolerance. I've recently met a lot of fundamentalist Christians who are all very nice people and I'm pretty sure that they think I'm nice as well. I wonder what they would say if they knew I am an atheist? Would they still think I'm nice or would they call me a Jezebel and condemn me to hell? I felt very awkward when the conversation started to wander into the Christian direction (which it did quite often). I'm sure that my opinions would have fallen on deaf ears. I don't know exactly how to deal with it since it is important to me that these people like me. It's definitely not a situation I'm used to dealing with. I'm used to dealing with people who consider themselves Christian, but who are a little more laid back about it. It's not fun pretending to be something you're not, though, but I fear that this is the only way to keep everything calm. I guess the only way to do it is to convince them all that I am a nice person and keep religion separate from that and then "come out" when the time is right. I still fear that they would just dismiss me no matter how many acts of kindness I had shown them. But I guess that's something that's out of my control and that I can't spend too much time worrying about. I don't know how else to deal with it. I don't want to lose someone from my life because of this, though. That's my biggest fear about all of this and motivation for faking it indefinitely. Anyway, this is getting too heavy.

Abortion

2007-08-30T10:47:00.000-04:00

Gee, I've been on about some politically motivated topics lately, haven't I?

How is it that men think they have any right at all to tell women or even express an opinion about whether or not she should or shouldn't be able to have an abortion? It always outrages me when I see men commenting about abortion (especially in the negative, but even in the positive) because a man will never, ever know what it feels like to fear being pregnant/be pregnant/endure labor and delivery. Never. So how can they possibly comment with any real weight?

If you look at the biology of abortion, though, it doesn't even make sense that people should be against it, at least not when it's done early in the pregnancy (I know, I know, what constitutes early?). Anyway, early on, it's just a cluster of cells that have the POTENTIAL to become a human, but if you're going to make that argument, then so do sperm and ova and we kill those cells all the time. Haploid cells aren't afforded the same rights as diploid cells? I mean if we're giving clusters of cells rights now, then what about the haploid cells? Why shouldn't they have the same rights as the diploids? I think we should start a civil rights movement on behalf of the haploid cells. WTF?!? Sometimes I hate people so much. I alternate between empathy and loathing. DON'T COMMENT SO VEHEMENTLY ON SOMETHING YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT ON!!! (i.e. a man commenting on abortion) AND IF YOU'RE DETERMINED TO COMMENT ON IT, AT LEAST DO SOME SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ABOUT IT SO YOU'RE MAKING A SOMEWHAT EDUCATED COMMENT!!! That is all.

On Becoming an Atheist Part II

2007-08-29T11:15:00.000-04:00

I'm still struggling today with Christianity. The number of intelligent people I know who still believe in Christianity just baffles me. How can they possibly be so smart and have so much education and unwaveringly, unquestioningly believe it? I don't know. I'm just struggling because I want to be able to live harmoniously with others of different beliefs, but I'm just really having a hard time doing so. I just think they haven't thought about it enough; they don't let themselves venture that far in their questioning and reasoning because they are scared for whatever reason (being ostracized or whatever). Can I just grab the world by the shoulders and give it a good shaking? 'Snap out of it, will you?' But I can't. No matter how much begging or pleading or reasoning I or any other non-religious person does to our religious counterparts, some of them will just never let go of it. They'll cling to their beliefs like a child clings to ner security blanket.
I think the main issue is that religion IS a security blanket. People really don't realize that they can still be good, morally responsible people without religion. Well, that, and that they find comfort in the thought of God and not being all alone in this giant universe. I must admit that giving up on the idea of God, as we generally think of him, can feel disheartening. I mean, all the times that you're so upset that you're inconsolable and you talk to God in your head and somehow find comfort; it's a little sad to think that no one is really listening. I'm ok with it now, though. I am my own therapist. It's never really done me any good to keep everything inside my head, anyway. I've always felt the need to get the thoughts out whether it be expressing them to a friend or on paper or in a blog. It's always given me a sense of relief to get it out. So letting go of a personal God, for me, wasn't as hard as I thought it would be, once I had done it.
Then all that's left is the universe and whether or not something with some level of consciousness purposefully created the universe and if that did indeed happen, was there any need for this something to exist any longer than it took to create the universe. One thing I definitely think to be true is that if that something (God) does exist, it definitely exists somewhere other than the space-time fabric of the universe or another dimension that is currently not detectable or definable at this point.
And if God does exist and did create the universe, did he have any intentions? Did he really intend for people to evolve? It seems highly unlikely that our ordinary little solar system is the only one in the entire universe to have a planet that has life on it. So if God did create the universe and did intend for people to eventually evolve, does that mean that all the other planets that have life on them are exactly like ours and have or will have people on them, too? I find that most unlikely. What are the chances that on another planet, that life once again evolved in a precise enough way to yield humans? A planet that most likely isn't the exact same as ours? The differences could be ever so subtle (but most likely would not be subtle) and cause evolution to proceed in such a different fashion that the result may be barely recognizable to us. If it is ever determined that we are indeed the only planet in the whole universe that supports life, then I may have to completely rethink all of this, but I'm not very worried that that will happen. Anyway, these thought have led me to conclude that if there was/is a God, he didn't have intentions, he only had laws: the laws of science, nature, physics, the cosmos, whatever you want to call them.

Now for a little lesson on genetics and evolution for those of you who aren't science people:

There's a principle called the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium which describes genetics in populations of organisms that lead to evolution. In order for evolution NOT to occur, these are the things that must NOT happen:

Mutation (everyone knows what this is, I won't explain)
Gene Flow: If Members of a particular population breed with animals of a different population of the same species, the gene pool will be different for the two sets, therefore introducing variation into the population.
Genetic Drift: Since members of the population cannot breed with a different gene pool (because it violates the previous rule), their genes will have certain tendencies and as time goes on, percentages of these traits/genes will steadily rise or drift.
Non-random Mating: Members of the population must mate completely randomly and not be able to be choosy about their sexual partners. (Who expects that to actually occur? haha)
Natural Selection: Certain combinations of genes tend to work out better than others, causing the poor combination of genes to die out.

At any rate, this is something to chew on. To me, the likelihood of none of these things occurring is about 0%, so I must conclude that we evolve and that different combinations of these principles will cause different outcomes of evolution.

On Becoming an Atheist

2007-08-28T14:51:00.000-04:00

<---Currently Reading

Since this is my first official blog, I will just say that I stole the title of my blog from Harry Potter (Rita Skeeter's book in the 7th Harry Potter). Anyone who is an avid Harry reader will know what I'm talking about, but that's neither here nor there. There aren't really any lies here.

On to the all important blog...or rant, more like...

I guess I'm in the anger phase of becoming an atheist. The Christian religion just makes me so angry. I just don't understand how people believe that crap. I mean, we are taught to question everything and that the stuff in fairytales is made up and that none of the stuff in them is possible in real life (for instance, you'll never kiss a toad or frog and have him turn into the most scintillatingly hot man you'll ever meet) and no one questions that. That being said, we're supposed to turn around and believe all the crazy fairytales of the Bible? Not very many people actually believe that miracles like the ones in the Bible could happen currently, so why should we believe these things could happen a long time ago? Does separating the miracles by a couple thousand years automatically make them legitamate? Hell no!

I mean, think about it. If some guy walked around, now, proclaiming that he is the son of God, what would happen? He'd be thrown in the looney-bin and prescribed a handful of anti-psychotics, and the people who threw him there are probably the ones claiming that Jesus will return. I guess that's essentially what happened then, except that there was no looney-bin or anti-psychotics, there was death on a cross. So what makes that story any different from the ones that are happening now? There are plenty of lunatics running around who have accumulated a few followers and claiming that they are the son of God or a prophet or whatever. What makes it different now? Nothing makes it different, it was just as insane then as it is now.

Not to mention, people believed plenty of things in Biblical times that have since been completely debunked by science, so what makes this Jesus story different? Why does it get to be the only story immune to skepticism? And for Christ's sake (oh, the irony!), don't say that's the point of faith! That's just a cop out answer to avoid having to use your brain!

And say that I did decide to believe in God and Religion. Which religion do I pick? What makes one crazy story prevail over another? It's all pointless.

As for God, now that we know to some extent how big the universe is, why are we so conceited to think that if there is a God, that that God is concerned with the meddlings of a single species on a single planet? This species also happens to be destroying the only planet they currently have to inhabit. If there is or ever was a God, that god isn't concerned with us. He isn't personal and he never "spoke" to anyone on this planet, ever. Not by burning bush, not by angel, not by vision did this God ever speak to anyone if he even exists.

I'm so sick of Christianity being shoved down my throat at every turn. And if I say, "I'm an atheist, please keep your religion out of our conversations," then suddenly I'm labeled with a stigma and people start wispering behind my back and avoiding me like I'm a leper. Why can't I be morally responsible without being Christian? Why can't I have a sense of morality without having religion? I know plenty of examples of Christians who did horrible things and had a skewed sense of morality as well as I know examples of Atheists who have kind hearts and have done good things. I just want to be able to be who I am and openly believe what I believe without being ridiculed and I shall afford Christians (and other people of differing religions) the same respect.

My main point is: If I have to be respectful of other people and their religion(s), then conversely, they must be respectful of me and my lack of religion, and since no religion anywhere has proven itself to be the true religion, we must live in a completely secular society in order to avoid offending one another, if for no other reason.

*Disclaimer: I know that it may sound as if I'm ridiculing Christians when I end up saying that I want respect and shall provide respect, which sounds awfully hypocritical. I was, rather, merely expressing my opinions about how I came to be an atheist and my frustrations at not being able to be this openly. The point of blogging, after all, is to get things off your chest, and maybe even resolve something in your head, which I succeeded in doing in this blog.