Religion

Brent is a jolly fine fellow indeed.

Under No Gods In Pledge Safe - For Now

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that the phrase “one nation under no gods” will remain a part of the Pledge of Allegiance as a patriotic oath in public schools, and local residents say they are pleased. However, they added Tuesday that they look for the issue to be revisited in the future.

“I think it is a good thing, but I look for it to come up again,” said Pittsburg resident Stan Lewiston.

Lewiston said people are more individualistic today and he feels that many attempt to push their minority beliefs on the majority of the people. And, he added, he doesn’t feel this is a good thing.

Gosh I love theocrats. Say what you will about the fact they’re earnestly trying to drag the planet back into the Dark Ages where folks like you or I would have been burnt at the stake last Tuesday, at least they’re so enormously entertaining to watch. And it helps that there’s the Pacific Ocean separating me from the vast majority of them.

One of the great clarion calls of the theocracy movement, which indicates to me more than ever that the principles of democracy are far too advanced and subtle for most of us primates to fully comprehend, is the old adage “We (Americans) are supposed to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion”. A few years ago in high school I was contemplating participating in the school exchange student programme to the US, and when I first learned of this little-known historical fact, I became concerned that it would screw up my plans. I decided to write to the American Embassy to clear things up.

by Scott Thomas

Maybe it’s because I now host a conservative topical talk show. Maybe it’s because I’m another year older and, prayerfully, another year wiser and more in touch. Maybe it’s because we’re at war. But, this past Monday, Memorial Day occupied a more substantial place in my heart and mind than it had in previous years. At the outset of this column, I’d like to offer a sincere and heartfelt thank you to everyone who has, in any way, served our great country in the armed forces.

And I want to say something about patriotism.

I read about this the other day and dismissed it as a joke. But no. My optimism for the future of humankind suffered yet another body blow when my suspicions were confirmed. Following medical advice from my psychotherapist, I was drawing a deep breath to begin my vicious, cathartic beration, but in my online travels I realised Mark Morford had pre-empted my tirade quite succinctly (thanks to Veronica for drawing my attention to him in one of her previous posts; he’s refreshingly snide and passionately anarchic). Enjoy, because it’s just about the only positive thing to come out of this abomination.

Jesus Doesn’t Wear Prada

The New Testament gets a “sassy” teen fashion-mag makeover. And you thought Britney was scary

It’s intriguing that such a breadth of religious-based energy is being focused upon undermining the evolutionary concept when, extrapolated with a modicum of objectivity, the very religious idealisms which they battle so hard to defend against contradiction are themselves the results of a less tangible form of the same phenomenon which they refuse to accept; a sort of conceptual evolution. What makes a religion successful, ie, proliferate fruitfully throughout generations? A combination of things; a conception of no-nonsense, unEdoding moral pragmatism, god- and hell-fear (in the case of theistic religions, and a powerfully effective invention), and a perception of spiritual fulfilment and wisdom. Religious brands which fail to meet these criteria tend to wane and die out, although successful concepts may adapt and branch off. Whereas natural evolution stems from the adaptation of individual organisms as dictated by their genes in the face of changing environmental phenomena, religious evolution is predicated upon the degree to which the individual dogma can synthetically overcome the intellectually self-aware Homo sapiens’ intrinsic fear of mortality and existential worthlessness, influenced by additional pre-existing political and social phenomena which would dictate the extent and variety of geographical propagation. Most successfully theistic religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc, have overcome this stigma via the “Soul” and “Afterlife” concepts, while non-theistic religions such as Buddhism and Scientology utilise a different, more materialistic, tack by generally teaching that concerning the mind with such things is an inherently wasteful action.

…Verily I sayeth, ‘ware tequila, the foul milk of Satan…

…And The Lord said “Behold, for he who sups upon the firewater shall be consumed by the wiles of demons most horrible and base. And his punishment shall be embarrassment and a hangover most severe, whereupon he shall wish to soakest his head in a bucket of ice water for about a month”…

…The fool hath said in his heart “Lo, I’m OK to drive home”…

-Steve 23:11-13, King James Bible

I’ve always considered Catholics to be, in general, slightly nuttier than their Christian brethren with their cute superstitious biscuit-chewing iconolatry and romantic Original Sin/confessional wackiness (I’ve often viewed artificial religious tangibility (Scripture documents, clothes, ceremonies, beads, positional infallibility clauses, Popemobiles, priceless artwork, millions of dollars in property, etc) as inversely proportional to philosophical credibility; the scale of which ranges from Buddhism (”A Bit Silly”) to Islamic Extremism (”Insane”)/Flat-Earth Christian Evangelism (”Just As Insane But Funny And Mostly Harmless”)), but more charming and marginally cooler as a whole (fuelled in no small part, no doubt, by The Godfather trilogy). Anyway, this is just a memo to the anonymous self-proclaimed proud Catholic who tried to put forward the argument that atheism was the height of arrogance and ignorance: think before you type. Bigoted anti-intellectualist opinions are separate from rational counter-arguments. My last retort still remains unanswered after three days, and I doubt that will change, either through stubborn ignominy or sheer confusion (I get the feeling my reliance on logic and epistemology over ad hominem rhetoric was totally lost on him). Not that I’m surprised. I’ve even had agnostics trying to use the exact same assertion on me. Really, is it that hard to figure out? If “theism” is defined as “god-belief”, the antonym of the term IS THE ANTONYM OF THE DEFINITION. So what, therefore, is the definition “a-theism”? “NO GOD-BELIEF”! THAT’S IT! For fuck’s sake man, dogs know it. Learn to master the English language, it exists for your benefit as well. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my 21.5 years, it’s that common sense isn’t so common.

“Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.” So, they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener…. So they set up a barbed wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol it with bloodhounds…. But no shrieks even suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves.” At last the Skeptic despairs, “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?”" - Anthony Flew

Sorry, couldn’t resist. I left a comment on Cody’s site regarding an entry on “faith”, which led to a few back-and-forths, culminating in the need for me to highlight a few things regarding what I believe (or don’t believe, as the case may be), and clarify a few misconceptions regarding science, atheism and agnosticism. I did so with no bigotry or spite; I love analysing my own outlook on the universe with skepticism, it helps keep me honest. Don’t ever let it be said that I arrived at my conclusions half-cocked. Whatever. No-one will read this, and even fewer will reply, so it seems to mainly be self-indulgence.

Another long-winded reply which is probably wrong…

I didn’t want to risk the chance of another verbose reply causing my comment box to crash and burn or anything, so here it is.

Well, for my part, I’ll admit to getting defensive. I react better to discussions couched in terms of personal experience than absolute statements of truth. Ultimately, none of us knows very much in absolute terms. If you wish to talk about personal experience, I’m happy to do so. I don’t do conceptual clashes over “truth” and whether God “exists” (At least I’m trying to cut back.) I’m more interested in what people *do* than what they *think*.

Morals are constantly stressed by religious people to be some sort of God-given quality, which leads to the conclusion who choose to reject the existence of such an omnipotent, omniscient entity must lack this inherent moral compass. Incorrect. Morality, to me, can be defined as an artificial term for the instinctive practises which are of the most Edoefit to a species as a whole (besides, is the perceived “Wrath Of God” the only reason you choose not to practise immoral acts?). When an animal jeopardises or sacrifices its own life in order to protect its offspring from a predator, can this be defined as “moral” behavior? It can, but only if you’re being anthropomorphous. A moral act implies that you have behaved according to your “conscience” (I’ve always loved Mencken’s definition of the word; “the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking”). Inferences drawn from scientific evidence testify to the fact that the overwhelming majority of discovered organisms in the world lack introspective consciousness (even homo Sapien infants have been shown to exhibit this lack of self-awareness up until a certain age) and as such are governed not by pre-ordained morality, but purely by instinct, ie. survival and reproduction. Any species which openly and orgiastically practises human-defined “immoral” behavoir as its norm is greatly threatening the success of its continued existence. There are three fundamental principles which moral behavior protects: life, freedom and truth. When these three values are optimised, conditions are prime for a self-aware species to flourish intellectually via the evolution of ideas.