Monday, June 28, 2010
truly civilized people find the idea of faith repugnant and ridiculous. don't sanction faith over scientific proof, and don't make up irrational arguments in favor of god and faith that can be refuted by the merest among us thinkers. faith allowed pedophiles to be alone with children, and faith kept those children silent about their abuse for a very long time. what will faith be responsible for next?
Saturday, June 26, 2010
1. "atheist" is an anti-theist term. i am not anti-theist; i do not honor the question. also, i do not reject only the traditional judeo-christian god; i reject ALL gods: past, present, and future. they are not nice, and they bring out the inherent evil in believers.
2. "atheist" is what people of one set of beliefs call people of a different set of beliefs, although both sets profess a belief in god/s. i do not wish to be part of that melange.
3. "atheist" seems to refer mainly to the "great" judeo-christian god (who is not), while i do not limit myself to only one. the prefix "a-" is a negative; the prefix "non-" is a more comprehensive and at the same time less negative term. it is a rejection without a fight.
4. atheists are considered godless, while i look upon that word as an inherent negative. i prefer to look upon myself as god-free, which is a load off my back and a happier thought. i am not less because i have no gods in my life; i am free of dogma of any kind. it is exhilarating to be positive about it rather than working from a negative terminology.
i agree with Sam Harris that we should not have to call ourselves anything at all, but until that day comes (and i do not see it coming in my lifetime), i will be god-free, not god-less; nontheist rather than atheist.
i consider religions anathema -- they bring out the worst in people. they spread moralities that are at the very least suspect; at the most, destructive. obligatory altruism is not a good; faith is not a good; belief without evidence (faith) is actually bad for homo sapiens. even animals are smarter than that -- they have to be, in all practicality, or they will be eaten.
in our culture, it is those who are god-free who are eaten, but that will inevitably change, as Man matures. religion is for children who need father-figures and who are afraid of death. i am an orphan in the maelstrom, and not unhappy with that thought. i had one father; i need no more. even the "founding fathers" i prefer to call the "Framers," for that is what they did.
religion was invented by men who craved answers to questions. i prefer questions; they are more interesting, and even the interesting answers only lead to more questions, ad infinitum.
finally, i want to thank you for your eloquent and fervent arguments in favor of nonbelief. i am a fan, of course, and i loved "god is not great," "the missionary position," and "the values of the worst family." (hillary the enabler is my least favorite, but bill the perjurer and sexual harasser comes close behind).
keep up the good work. i wish we could have lunch together; we would have a great conversation; of that i am sure. i would like to break bread with, e.g., socrates, voltaire, and ben franklin -- compare those companions to oprah winfrey's obsequious choice: jesus. what a bore! i would be inclined to include thomas jefferson, tom paine, and mark twain, but i self-limited to three.
thank goodness for you.
Monday, June 21, 2010
as a nontheist, i am of course interested in the right to freedom from religion. i believe that the Ninth Amendment implicitly gives me the right to be free of religion. the unenumerated rights are i think the most important phrase in the entire Bill of Rights. if we paid more attention to the Ninth Amendment, we wouldn’t need several of the later amendments — slaves would be free, all men and women would have the right to vote, prohibition would never have happened, e.g.
the Bill protects individual citizens from the tyranny of the federal government. it is a list of “they shalt nots” — not “thou shalt nots.” as such, the Ninth Amendment is probably the most important of them all. and notice that it is placed — deliberately, i believe — ahead of the Tenth Amendment’s guarantee of states’ rights vs. federal rights. placement matters. the rights of the individual trump the rights of the state or of the federal government.
and, in the light of the Ninth Amendment, i plead with you to keep god out of government, including out of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. i do not have a favorable opinion of any gods, including the judeo-christian one so often quoted. we are not a nation “under god” as long as i — and the 12-14% of my fellow americans share that opinion. how can we be indivisible if there are those of us who are not “under god”? the Ninth Amendment gives us the right to be free of god and religion. i am not godless — i am god-free. and i have that right, thanks to the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
i have faith -- nay, actual proof -- that gods are vindictive manmade apparatuses designed to explain that which is not currently understood. you are seeking answers because you're unsure of things. i am seeking questions, because they are more interesting than answers and, besides, answers only lead to more questions.
as to it being too late for me -- it's too late when i take my final breath. if my soul joins a superstring, then so be it. if not, then oh well. i won't be judged by a nonentity nor will i go to a nonhell. but, if by some miniscule chance heaven as currently "known" exists, i prefer hell. there are too many people out there -- the godfearing ones, i mean -- with whom i would not want to share an afterlife. nor would i want to be stuck worshipping such mean gods -- i cannot say enough bad things about the believed gods, for they are bad. intrinsically. they were made to keep the sheeple in line and, as such, they are really, really baaaaaaad. your heaven is my hell.
all rational arguments to the contrary are welcomed -- nay, urged. those who wish to reply via emotion will not be acknowledged.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
if sexual harassment in the workplace isn't a crime, it darned well should be. remember the michael crichton book "disclosure" that became a movie with michael douglas and demi moore? any kind of sexual harassment in the workplace is criminal. favoring one employee above all others makes for an uncomfortable and resentful atmosphere in the office, wouldn't you think?
so i don't care whether he sinned against his wife, his family, his god, or his dog. he sinned against his employees in an office environment. he played the favoritism card. how dare he pontificate. he should be publicly stoned (and i don't mean that in a good sense). if he did it once, he probably has done it before, and will probably do it again. he still hasn't admitted to the full sin of workplace sexual harassment, and i bet he never will.
and what does this farce say about his abstinence preaching? if he can't say no, how does he expect others to follow his false example? what hypocrisy!