Blog

Prepare to believe
August 17, 2007

I've found the nervous Creationists odd, speaking of evolution as the "Darwinist Belief System". As a young boy I was fortunate to grow up in central Pennsylvania near a gold mind of Carboniferous period fossils. It never crossed my mind that thinking these life imprints were an amazing 300 million years old were beliefs. My carbon black radio worked well enough so I assumed the dates were correct. What's even more amazing is discovering 20 years later that 120 Million US citizens believe the earth is less than 10 thousand years old.

My Catholic grade school science teacher, Mr. Dumm (cursed from birth), took us on fossil hunts and taught us the heresy of evolution. Thank god we didn't have to read that damn bible or my head would have exploded with the contradictions. In mass what I heard from the bible was few and far between; for good reason it seems. I was given some choice by 7th grade and was able to go to public school. That was when I was forced to go to Sunday school, which lacked all the only things I liked about church: incense, music and wine. My frontal lobe did not accord with the non-sense of the bible translator, as anyone who rejects double speak knows.

My families sect doesn't believe the sun revolves around us, but they do believe we evolved over millions of years guided by the hand of god. There are around 100 million Americans who fit this dualistic form of Christian compatible science. I'm sure the most common answer is that man wrote the bible and the Catholics loaded the canon, therefore it's a "kind of" Gospel, an almost unquestionable truth. I can't imagine why they believe the inspired dictator of god had a problem writing 15 billion instead of 6 thousand. I'm sure that number existed then as it does now. That is the signal of gospel, a metaphysical truth. There's no questioning it and a person who would say, you have to believe in 15 billion is a sign of mental illness.

We are never going to find every fossil from every generation of every animal and plant. That's the proof Creationists demand for what they claim is a holy theory. The fact that mutations occur and selective pressures exist in the wild which promotes adaptation, a metaphysical proof supported by facts, are not enough. I have respect for thinkers of the past who had to create imaginative hypothesis and put them to the pressure of examination and have the false ones drop like flies. That's what makes a belief, it hasn't been put the pressure of test and/or critical reasoning.

The argument presented against the Creationist belief is that we don't have to prove the negative. It's not necessary to prove the negative because their positive crumbles under logic. God is disproven by it's most simple definition, it can do anything. Not being able to do something is something. I wonder what their explanation for gods mass genocide during their "great flood" was and why he didn't kill off the species we caused to go extent. I'm sure they'll be creative for they came up with this gem: god tricked us by placing light mid flight so would could believe ancient solar systems existed in the distant universe.

The reason for them insisting that evolution is a belief system is quite obvious, they want to legitimize their fantasy by placing it on level ground with cold hard science. What I find truly sad is that the reason for them rejecting evolution is so obvious and it goes beyond the god image argument. They are insulted considering that we came from a lesser life form. It's far more majestic knowing that we came from an extremely improbable spark and a damn near countless number of births, trials and adaptations. Even imagining how many yeast cells that have been born and died in my life is boggling. Intelligence save us from people who, believe therefore they are.

This I believe
August 17, 2007

Bug Eyed
August 18, 2007

Shaking grains. Out of the expanse. Fleeing head.

the cAmpaingn
August 19, 2007

At NOSHA's August meeting we received the OUT handout. It's an attempt to make atheism supersexy memelicious. The OUT campaign is being organized by Richard Dawkins, author of the "The God Delusion". I enjoyed the book but found the humor a little dry for an English man. My opinion is that the Brits do best with The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog. The religious make fools of themselves when they do their possessed spirit dances or the pope and his funny wardrobe, but mostly when they try to defend their nonsense with pseudo intellectualism. No one with half a brain buys the holy word argument.

I have no shame in being an atheist but find it an odd thing to be proud of. I actually lived for 16 years without even knowing I was an atheist. I suppose most monotheists might find that difficult to believe until they realize they are an Athorists. For 16 years I lived a pure secular life enjoying food, art, recreation, companionship and the fruits of intellectual pursuit. I didn't give a thought to the flocks of believers that constitute the fast majority of this nation. I enjoyed conversation with philosophic people which usually revolved around deist and spirit ideas. Non of the arguments I was involved with convinced me of their legitimacy but the mind is a terrible thing to taste.

In Dawkins manifesto he says, "Break OUT of religious conformity and, in celebration of your new found freedom". I've been out since I was able to recognize the bullshit being feed to me as a young adult by my family, priests and nuns. I don't see the logic in having the adjective in front of conformity though. I think that any conformity outside of team work and civil ethics are good for an individual. There's plenty of negative conformity in the secular world, it's just easier to see it in the religious "non-iPod" world, well that's unless were talking holy underwear. Uh oh, I'm going the way of the antirabbit. Freedom is as strange a word as atheism. I hope that Humankind will someday wonder what both mean, because both depend on bullshit and oppression to be relevant. Freedom should be a modifier, not a noun.

That is why I stopped addressing myself as an atheist, though I do make sure when I'm speaking with someone about issues involving the "big bearded man in the sky", I point out that he has the legitimacy of The Omnipotent Sourdough Loaf. (Why does The Flying Spaghetti Monster get all the attention?). I've embraced the term Naturalist. It's a positive Identity but even it gets befuddled amongst intellectuals. People tend to think anything from nature lovers to nude enthusiasts. And the Theistic argument inevitably arises that if god exists, he fits perfectly well in the definition of natural. Well, it doesn't! A Naturalist believes that only matter and energy exist and the metaphysical are dependent on both. Although the acts of murder or organ donation can fit into the modifying form of natural, as in, they happen in the natural world, that is not what Naturalism means. Naturalism is a specific enermaterialistic philosophy. And although I have read very little on the philo, I know the power of a non-holy WORD.

Dawkins furthers his OUTing with, "Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins." I definitely have a different interpretation of cosmic origin from the average jouliet. I don't even think I would call it an interpretation. It's more of a clashing of scientific fact and metaphysical poetry, a strange place indeed. I don't even believe that "cosmic origins" is a coherent word grouping. Most atheist have to deal with the difficult question: Why is there something instead of nothing. I think the evidence from the First law of thermodynamics does a great job of proving that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. How much more evidence does one need to believe that the stuff that makes the cosmos is eternal, thus has no origin? I love the wild and wear cloths, but as a Naturalist I believe that only matter and energy exist, thus in a positive way reject a third supernatural substance.

I obviously don't reject the metaphysical, though the title of my blog, Metaphysic Storm, is a different reference. Meta adj. beyond : Physic n. a medicine that purges; cathartic; laxative. Our brains are a storm of ideas, emotions, concepts, dreams and imaginations. We are dependent on the atoms that make our brain and the current that waves us to mind our consciousness, but we are not any one single thread in our head. The naturalist knows well, that we can not exist without our body and that no consciousness does, but we don't reject that the pattern in the sand is not the sand in itself. The campaign should have a big N not a big A. What are 4/5 of the world going to think of us when we wear T-Shirts that say we reject what you hold dear. They were the T around their neck to create unity, not a slashed out A.

Dawkings stated that, "Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people." I hate to put a damper on our glorious prison statistics but atheists are not necessarily ordinary or nice people. In fact, I think most of us are who are involved in trying to kill the poison of religion are exceptional people but an atheist can just as easy be a mass murdering ass munch. Harry said that he thought we at NOSHA were generally morally superior to the mass of Faithheads swarming NOLA's streets. It's true that Humanist do typically share a respect for human dignity and legitimate reason, but let's not grow those horns we're accused of. The Theists are sick. They are suffering from dogma that teaches they are superior to non believers and they have a protoplasmic body waiting to be filled in paradise. I believe the

will harm our cause. If only the Nah were as sexy as the A, we could market a positive campaign.

Evil Gaytheist consperisy
August 21, 2007

The more I think about the OUT campaign the more it bothers me. It's obviously supposed to be parallel with homosexuals coming out of the closet. However, unlike homosexuals, atheists really don't have anything to come out to. It's not as if many of us want to walk down the street holding ZERO's hand. Unlike the homosexuals who just wanted to be able to be who they are in public, the atheists who want a voice are more antisupernaturalists than simply godless. Homosexuals were not implying that the heterosexual lifestyle, as if there is such a thing, was not wrong. Naturalists are claiming that the religious are wrong and that we're tired of the supernatural shit that saturates public policy and opinion.

The parallels between the two hated groups is easy to confuse. This is mostly due to the Christians and Muslims because their holy word throughly condemns the "unnatural" acts. Fundamental Christians or the far right see homosexuals as a threat to heterosexuality. Almost understandably, they don't want anal sex education in the public school, though fellatio is just as odd a subject to teach. Perhaps they have a point and we should incorporate homosexual education into Life science. Sex ed should really be in life science but for some reason many people don't like to know we're animals. The gay zietguist is that a person is born a homosexual and thus strait Christian folk have nothing to fear. But the truth is that a person can choose to be gay or have life experiences which fosters the desire to switch teams. Even though that's the case it doesn't make homosexuality wrong or threaten the existence of heterosexuality or their majority.
But the simple minded people who think that razing a child in a homosexual house will turn the child into a homosexual is obviously untrue. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a child raised in a Christian house is more likely to become all things not Christian, if they start the painful process of thinking for themselves. Children raised in a true minority household, will most likely be some of the most excepting and empathetic adults.

Any group of people that share a trait which is hated or feared and thus become oppressed, naturally develop the fight or flight thinking pattern. The homosexuals obviously took the flight path for centuries which brought a bubbling fight to the forefront of modern debate. It's now created irrational behavior from many of them. Gay Pride is one of the oddest secular things I've heard of. Why would some one find their sexual orientation something to be proud of? I don't mind the fag flags but many times walking through Provence town, Key West and the French Quarter, I've felt almost threatened by my straitness. Can you imagine how a young homosexual would feel during a Strait Pride Parade? Equality is a two way street or else it's not equal. Living pale in the Chocolate City I've come to realized the importance of freedom of expression. They can be warning signs. It's not a White Power rally that's the problem, it's the ignorance that fosters such utter and total collective bullshit.

For the most part the Gay, Lesbian, Transsexual, Transgender humans are not saying that their way is right, just that it is not wrong. Us Naturalists are a different breed though. We are claiming that submitting one's will to the force of ghosts, goblins and reincarnated fat cats, is not only a bad idea but a dangerous one. Lately I've lost a little respect for Dawkins in two key areas. First, in his interview with the BBC he stated that god "almost certainly does not exist" and his collectivism attitude towards atheists. He's giving food to fools like Vox Populi, who are gaining legitimacy in their Dawkinism fear. Leave it to an English Biologist to develop the Theory of "Meme" Manipulation.

There seems to be a bit of confusion about existence. There is reason to believe that the famous pink cock head unicorn could come into existence, because it would consist of the two elements that make up the universe, god and ghosts are an entirely different story. To leave open their possibility, consciousness outside of body, is actually stating that nothing can't be proved. The last number "can't" be proved but +1 is a fact. God is an idea and ideas do exist in the metaphysical. And everyone knows the metaphysical is only found in the mindsurfing brain. With the billions who have searched critically, but found nothing, we are safe declaring a real god certainty does not exist.
However, Professor Dawkins does make one extremely significant point in his battle against the believer. Parents have no right speaking for their children. It's as ridiculous to declare one's child a Muslim as it is to declare them a Republican. To "speak" for anyone is to oppress their thought, that is never good. I understand why we are the last group that it's "alright" to hate, we are an antibody of Faith. And we don't have to force our children to twist their mind into a dogmatic stupor. But, I don't think that the OUT campaign is going to cause anyone to ponder deconversion. It's a numbers game and unfortunately Human numbers are the cause of most of Earths problems.

That crazy Jew
August 22, 2007

Pioneering Ignostic Jew, Rabbi Wine, died a short time ago. "In 1969 he helped establish the Society for Humanistic Judaism to serve as the national outreach vehicle for the humanistic movement. In 1986 he helped to create the International Federation of Secular Humanistic Jews" Although Ignostic Jew is an Oxymoron, I do find Rabbi Wine's coinage of the term "Ignostic" to be quite a revelation in linguistics. Ignostic is a version of agnostic but unlike agnostic, which is the stance that god may exist, ignostism is the belief that the word "god" is noncognitive. I don't have a cognition problem imagining a disembodied, all knowing, all powerful, and all loving consciousness. But I know it's logically impossible. That's the divine thing about logic, "it" doesn't care what you think or say.

Madness and genius sometimes seem to parallel each other, especially in thoroughbreds. When a species consciously encourages inbreeding to create a "pure blood line" or more accurately, an artificially restricted genetic pool to bring out subjectively desired physical traits, it seems that the mental positive and negative aspects are intensified within the breed, subspecies, race or whatever other noncognitive word you want to give it. The Pantheist Jew Albert Einstein is an excellent example of this. He was brilliant enough to discover that time is variable, depending on mass and speed relative to light in a near void, but was unable to see that race identity is what fostered the hate of the Nazi's. I don't think it takes a genius to realize that a group claiming "we are a different type of human" creates their own enemies. The secular and Christian Germans of the early 20th century were feeling financially oppressed by the Jewish Klan. It's a fact that there is no stronger unifying force than the common suffering and a common enemy, hence the war on whatever.

Intellectuals most beloved Jewish raised Ignostic, Noam Chomsky, has had some brilliant statements mixed in with his utter babble. I don't know If I'm over steeping political correctness by giving someone a label such as "Ignostic" but this is my reason: In the ChomskyChat public discussion forum, Chomsky was asked if he believes in a God. He replied, "Do I believe in God? Can't answer, I'm afraid. I'm not being flippant, but I don't understand the question." But along with that bullshit comes this clear and profound statement, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” He goes on to claim that the media is self censoring themselves, a most vile form of willed oppression. It's the free market, not oppression. No one forces the consumer to click their remote. I believe media selectiveness is not conspiracy but a natural avoidance tendency in humanity. Many times when we don't like something about ourselves or our family, it's easier to suppress those thoughts, pushing them deep into our subconscious, just hitting the kid upside the head or pressing the infamous delete button. Doing so can have a paralyzing consequence on growth. The mind or organization that prohibits self criticism is not free.

I have to admit, I'm for some forms of censorship. For instance, I would be against Jesus fish logos finding their way onto food packaging. "Contains nuts" is one thing, but gods blessing is bullshit. I'm actually surprised the pope hasn't started organizing a blessed food/factory campaign. With all the priests going out of business because of their pedophilia interests, they're going to need some other jobs. Gang tags on food would be a great way to help the Us. food market. I wasn't that surprised to find that the Nazi's had their own Food Production Association and a pin to boot. Call me crazy, but I'm thinking of starting a line of Atheist friendly food products.

Good girls never win
August 25, 2007

The idea of discriminating on anything other than performance infuriates me. My saintly twin has written about the virtues of the "no asshole rule." A simple idea: that a nice way to get a team to function at maximum efficiency is to remove all the assholes. That's a tough cookie to swallow because asshole is very difficult to define. It's a hole after all, dependent on the fleshy gluteus maximums for its existence. All one has to do is walk into a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods to see the benefit of the no asshole rule. What odd corporations they are. They remind me of a bizarro world New York stock exchange, selling tangible life sustaining things with a smile, but still somehow mechanically inhuman.

I've never been a team leader but I imagine that having an optimal team is about how the individuals interact with each other relative to the objective. There must be an asshole quotient, therefore if the mean is high, perhaps it would be a detriment to have an outsider on board, an antiass. I'm sure it's dependent on the purpose of the team. Think tanks probably work better with assholes; synchronized swimmers less so. While being an overass may be grounds for dismissal, I don't think it's a good basis for determining wage. I suppose the logic behind the assrule is that having one in the midst of the office could cause the nice folk to seek other employment or hurt the others performance by over activating the mental hate centers. It seems odd to me to even consider "who" a person is as relevant to their job. Cult of personality has it's place, I just think it makes more sense in Hollywood.

I've listened to the arguments against sexual discrimination in the work place. The statistics reveal that males tend to make more money than females doing the same job. I except a naturally existing variance in wage, depending on the job, because males and females generally exhibit much different behavior in youth, which lends to being raised differently, thus excelling in different areas of skill. I would expect that there are jobs that females average higher wages than males, jobs that require keen communications skills for instance, and vice versa. Statistics are a funny beast. Mark Twain said it best, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." I imagine people of resent African decent average more money in basketball. It's not that light skinned people are being unjustly discriminated against, it's just genetically there are more 7 foot dark skinned people. Hopefully humans realize that Mind is not genetic and that legitimate height discrimination for B-ball doesn't get carried over to the office. This is were the complex issue of sexual discrimination comes into play, men and women do have physically different brains. Natural discrepancies in performance are bound to surface.

A feminist activist friend of mine came to the same conclusion as I, wage should be based souly on individual performance. Anything else violates the principle of equality. I know that there are unjust biases in the minds of many and that will be a problem that humankind will probably always struggle with. No one is or ever will be perfect. However the problem is much larger than I had realized. A friend of mine in the corporate world told me of an experience she had with her boss. He hired a male for a secretarial position and started him at a much higher rate than the female that formally held the position. As this is obviously unconstitutional, my friend confronted the sexist bastards prejudice. He said, "Yeah, but he's a man. Men have families to take care of." My asshole opened up and I almost lost my shit. I knew that people discriminate unconsciously but to say it out loud and not be able to recognize it, boggled my mind.

At first I couldn't understand how my friend could keep working for him. Though, she concluded that he is just stupid, not really sexist. When she opened his eyes, he realized that he could get in trouble for what he did and started the trainee at a sexually equal rate. If I were a woman I would have a difficult time looking at him, lest working for his company. I'm the kind of person who has to believe 100% in what I do and who I do it for. I'd rather be poor than be you're hired by Donald Trump. I walk the walk too, I mean I walk so much my shoes wear fast. I began to think of ways women could fight back against this manly family man bullshit. My first thought was that the market could dent it. There are a limited amount of workers for any job, and generally half of them will be women. If women put the anti-ass principle above money, they will hurt the asshole business owners passively by reducing their available talent base. This would increase the success of equal minded business owners. Good girls never win, but they can help fight.

DIE NO MIGHT
August 26, 2007

The Bush burns. NO CONTRA septic. Because He said so.

I eat fascists for breakfast
August 26, 2007

Mr. Carvar said - Has anybody read [American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America] & if so, was it a worthwhile purchase & a worthy addition to any Freethinker's library?
Thanks

I said - I've got one more chapter to go. It's pretty good, though it's preaching to the choir and doesn't present any real solutions. It's not hard for anyone to see the problems we face from asecular madness. The author graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School so I assume he is a faith head. I've held a slight prejudice against the author because, although I despise invalid religious reasoning, I have more respect for a person who uses the complete "word of god" as their base, than I do from the religious that pick and chose "their word of god." If one believes in gospel, it should be gospel. The god of the bible is certainly not liberal and claiming that he could be only encourages faithers to put on humanities specially designed blinders.

Insert: "We face an imminent threat. His book reminds us of the dangers liberal democratic societies face when they tolerate the intolerant."

Call me intolerant, but I don't have respect for those who pick only the "good" things from their faith or collective and claim that the bad elements are a perversion of it's true form. Nor do I believe that the people who pump out the religious media are responsible for the idiots who turn it on and listen to the drivel. Like the invisible watch maker of evolution who is guided by survival pressure, the market is dependent on the demand of the "belief consumer." Collectivism is an insult to the individual. God bless democracy and the gang wars that follow. I'll donate it to the library next meeting.

Bill said - I have not read this book, but I've read a number of books quoting pre-WWII European leaders and followers who in one way or another could be described as fascists. Fascists overwhelmingly came out of the ranks of conservative Christians. Fascism reflects many Christian beliefs and attitudes. Many fascist leaders, both laity and clergy, especially hated/feared "atheism" as they defined it, which included church-state separation, political liberalism/socialism and the alleged immoralities of societies. Fascists believed Jews, more than any other gorup, were behind atheism. This fear of atheism likely was a major, if not the primary reason European Christians committed the Holocaust. The full chain of evidence/argument is too much to go into, but it's probably safe to assume that most conservative Christians are fascists, and vice-versa. Hatred of church-state separation is a particularly strong indicator of fascist attitudes.

I said - "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes." - Wikipedia

I've always thought the Christians were behind Atheism. The Catholic church "created" me, and I don't know many other people who despise religion or race more. But, I've always wondered where my skater punk culture would take me. I started my blasphemy career when I was a young pup.

The truth is all religions preach principle law, community service and common good. That sounds an awful lot like what a Nation-State is. I think the Jews are held under atheist suspicion because they seem to be the only ones that are able to be bend illogic enough to be a Believer Abelief. You don't see The Vatican, officially the "State of the Vatican City" or Iran, officially "Islamic Republic of Iran", embracing "atheisms values" quite like the worlds shining star of Israel

Mr. Calver said - [American Fascists] Sounds interesting but if the author is covering the same territory that has been explored repeatedly, I'll probably wait on reading it. It is frustrating to hear otherwise sane people tell me that their religious belief is good and naturally the correct interpretation of whatever scripture they claim as valid. It's those other people who have it all wrong that give "Insert Religion Here" a bad name.

I said - If you can't see the massi've problem the extreme religious right pose to equality and liberty, your just not looking or don't care about future generations. But Hedges main premise is that the Christian right is a threat to democracy. That simply is not true because democracy is about numbers nothing more. People chose to become sheep and choice is the principle of democracy. Democracies biggest downfall is mob rule, hence the constitution.

But history has shown you can't kill your way out of humans desire to be free. There will always be Humans who gravitate to being individuals because thats what we really are. We're not christians, democrats, blacks, gays, upperclass, atheists, groupies, ect... WE are Human, nothing more. I (and YOU) are many things but Unique is the most import thing to remember when we speak of identity.

The last paragraph of Hedges book: "The attacks by this movement on the rights and beliefs of muslims, jew, immigrants, gays, lesbian, women, scholars, scientists, those they dismiss as "nominal christians," and those they brand with the curse of "secular humanist" are an attack on all of us, on our values, our freedoms and ultimately our democracy. Tolerance is a virtue, but tolerance coupled with passivity is a vice."

I just don't understand how a Christian writer can say "our values" and include everyone. Values are irrelevant, principles are what matter. I've condensed where the prime "Human Values" are logically grounded: Self ownership, Equality of social and natural resources and Passive reciprocity. Everything else is just banter that gets in the way of understanding how not to be bad. They (and He) have an irrational book as their encore, logic has one line.

I think Dawkins has two extremely significant points in the God Delution. First, parents have no right branding their children with an identity other than their jeans. Second, it is not the extremists that threaten the rational world, it's the religious moderates because they create that agar dish for the spawning of the Dali dick head, Osama bin fuck nut, Iran Mahmoud Ah, George H. itler Bush, and everyones favorite Antichrist, Ratzinger.

Bill said - First of all, even scholars have a hard time defining fascism and identifying fascists. Many Nazis apparently rejected the fascist label. I define fascism as basically a belief that might makes right, as opposed to the constitutional democratic principle that might defends right. Among other characteristics, fascism rejected all of the principles of liberal democracy developed since the 18th century.

I also see fascism as one reaction to the horrendous trauma of World War I. Although many people turned to a libertine attitude (the Roaring 20s), others turned against what they perceived as the massive failure of liberal democracies in 1914.

One characteristic of liberal democracy was church-state separation, which conservative Christians (starting the later 19th century) increasingly blamed for society's problems, for immorality, and for freeing Jews from their traditional, Christian-imposed restrictions. Conservative Christians blamed this "atheism" for the bad things that happened. Before the war, Chr. antisemites were held in check. After the war, it seems that a lot of people blamed the war and other problems (down to the Great Depression) on God's wrath for rejecting him via church-state separation. Since Jews benefited the most from churcuh-state separation, conservative Chrs. blamed them more and more for everything that was wrong.

Another characteristic of fascism was intense paranoia toward "outsiders." Paranoia is also a pre-eminent Chr. attitude from the beginning of the cult, particularly toward the moral "contamination" ("infection," "pollution," "disease") posed by non-Chrs. I think this paranoia and antisemitism are the two most prominent Christian characteristics in fascism. Also, fascism and Christianity were both extremely authoritarian, so conservative Christians were conditioned (or oriented) toward authoritarian forms of government.

There's more I could point out, but I think the above is sufficient to show that Chr. was a significant factor in the rise of fascism and the attitudes behind it.

I said - ["Since Jews benefited the most from churcuh-state separation"]

This just blows me away. Why would the "Jews" be the people that benefit most from temple-state separation? Israel was not created to help the victoms of the Holocaust, the State was created for the Jews. The U.S. would have been the most logical location to give a new home to the survivors. Even more logical would have been to keep them in Germany so they could integrate into local life. I know that Israel is a "Liberal Democracy", but if it doesn't have anything to do with Religion then it is simply a Racist State nestled in a fruit full cradle. Though, I'm sure the continuing existence of the Dome of the Rock is a high priority and is etched into Israels constitution.

Antisemitism is not fostered solely because of xenophobia, it's generated by the collectivism and isolationism of the TrueJew™. Culture is dynamic, not an identity. Everyone's favorite fascist Führer was smart enough to know that race is nonsense.

Adolf Hitler - "I know perfectly well that in the scientific sense there is no such thing as race. As a politician I need an idea which enables the order which has hitherto existed on a historic basis to be abolished and an entirely new order enforced and given an intellectual basis. And for this purpose the idea of race serves me well."

I said - The simple fact is we would not except a group of roman nose folk claiming the circumference of the Mediterranean sea because they were oppressed from worshiping Zeus for a thousand years.

Bill said - First of all, Christian perspectives are what count, not what reality is. Christians believed Jews benefited the most from church-state separation. Prior to that, Jews were not allowed to be citizens of any state, could not own property, had no legal rights - only "tolerance, a limited protection from the government, and could not hold public office. Under church-state separation, they could (in theory) become full citizens of their countries.

In reality, Chrs. often found ways to block Jewish citizenship. Nonetheless, many Jews did gain legal rights, and that angered conservative Chrs., who believed that only Christians could be good (fill in a nationality - Frenchmen, Germans, Austrians, Poles, Hungarians, etc.) Christian resistance to equal rights for Jews and Chr. outbursts of violence eventually created the Zionist movement in the late 19th century. It was Zionism that promoted the idea of Jews returning to their homeland and creating a refuge. This was long before the Christian slaughter of 6 million Jews. And they could not come to the U.S. in large numbers because the U.S. limited Jewish immigration. When a ship with some 900 Jews fleeing Nazi Germany tried to dock in Cuba in the 1930s, the U.S. government helped coerce Cuban authorities to bar it from ports, and the U.S. turned it away.

Antisemitism and racism are both strictly Christian concepts/inventions. They are based in the Chr. belief that all non-Christians serve Satan. For historical reasons, Chrs. differentiated between pagans and Jews. Pagans were exterminated. Jews got limited protection/tolerance, although it was a concept that was too often ignored in favor of coerced conversion. Racism is nothing more than Chr. anti-paganism applied to dark-skinned peoples. The original "race laws" had nothing to do with race, but were intended to keep Chrs. separate from dark-skinned pagans and allowed the enslavement of pagans because they were pagans. When the concept of race was developed in the later 18th century, Chrs. seized upon it to "explain" why dark-skinned pagans were so hard to convert. The laws and anti-pagan prejudice were already deeply entrenched by then.

I said - ["Anti-Semitism and racism are both strictly Christian concepts/inventions."]

That is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard. I'm not trying to defend Christianity because I despise it as much as the other supernatural beliefs but really, Racism = Christianity? There's racism in Africa which isn't about any belief other than subspecies, whether or not they had the technical term, "breed" has been in the consciousness of humankind for millennia's. Dark or light gums cause some Africans to chop humanity into races. The term anti-semite gets used far to much. It's just easier to see with Jews because the Jews most dominate cause for cohesion is oppression. Those damn ancient Egyptian slave mongers are to blame for giving birth to the Jew. The fact is anti-isolationists can be found throughout the world.

Take high school for instance. I was a skater. The jocks automatically hated me because they thought I had the mindset of the other skaters, which was one of superiority, oppression and isolation. I however judge people by their actions not by their looks or interests. When I approached a jock or prep and they saw that I didn't think differently of them, they lost their prejudiced hate of me.

I was wrong about Israel. After researching the Online Jewish library, I discovered that they don't have a constitution. The main arguments put forward against a constitution was headed by Zionist David Ben-Gurion and the religious parties. However they do have this beauty:

Protection of Holy Places Law 1967:
The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places. Whosoever desecrates or otherwise violates a Holy Place shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of seven years.

I said - So the Jews are bound by law to protect the Rock of the Dome. Who would have guessed? Since I "am" Jewish due to my mothers "blood", I suppose I should get my free ticket to Israel and open an Olive Garden. Does anyone hear tax exempt status??? I've been a servant of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for years.

The reason I suggested "corporatism" rather than "fascism" is that you need to separate goals from methods. Religion, the police state, homophobia, racism, scapegoating, suppression of trade unions, etc. are all just tools, not goals.

Paul Krugman puts it well in his column today in the NYT: "The people who run the G.O.P. are concerned, above all, with making America safe for the rich. Their ultimate goal, as Grover Norquist once put it, is to get America back to the way it was "up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over," getting rid of "the income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.'"
michael

I quite agree that for some, mainly the leaders, fascism is about helping corporations and the wealthy. But for the vast unwashed masses of fascism, paranoid xenophobia, a swaggering militancy and militarism (most fascists are cowardly bullies who like the idea of beating up the weak), a shallow obsession with symbols and rituals (that's why fascists in this country like pledging allegiance to the flag and shouting nonsensical but emotionally satisfying slogans, rather than studying the Constitution and engaging in reasoned debate), and authoritarian systems that remove much of the thinking and doubts about daily life (religions, ideologies, fascist governments).
Bill

I said - I'm starting to think that the concept of Nation-State is synonymous with Fascism. Whereas City-State has a logical bases for collective identity, common good and community, Nation-State is about Capitol rights and the army that fights to own them. The Nationalist identity and devotion is almost essential for the Konk from Key West to identify with the Rocky ski bum for anything more than the bills they use and the stars they swear to. The Human element transcends all borders, cultures and nationalities.

The power of Religious and/or Secular Nation-State identity is quite useful in getting people in the middle of nowhere USA to be frightened of the evil terrorists kid napping their child. "US and them" is essential, because if we know they are us, we would realize we're doomed to fail because we fight ourselves.

Bill said - You need to do some research. The historical documentation is clear that Western racism is specifically Christian in origin. Before the concept of "race" was developed, Christians already had instituted legal discrimination against dark-skinned peoples - particularly Africans - because they were pagans. Yet initially, when black slaves were first brought to the English colonies, they were treated like indentured servants and freed after 7 years. They were not permanent slaves, and there are records of "black-white" marriages and sex (to use modern terminology). The legal records show that Africans' pagan status and the threat of 'contaminating' Chrs. is what alarmed people.

"Race" had nothing to do with racial discrimination, in its original form. "Race" was an ex post facto "explanation" for why dark-skinned pagans were so "inferior" that they refused to convert. (Yes, I do recognize that non-Christians can be racists; the Japanese are an example. But as far as Western society is considered, Christianity is the sole source of racism. Show me any racist - as opposed to ethnocentric (see below) materials from before the 18th century and you'll have the beginnings of a general argument, not the nonsense you've spouted so far.)

By arguing from blatant ignorance, you've simply, publicly shown that you're the one full of shit, not me.

You also need to recognize the difference between ethnic prejudice and racism. In ethnocentric or tribal cultures, there's an attitude of superiority to non-members. But in most societies, non-members can become members in one fashion or another. The Greeks were prejudiced against 'barbarians" because they did not wear Greek clothes, follow Greek customs or, most importantly, speak Greek. Adopting Greek culture could make one a Greek, as far as Greeks were concerned.

Likewise, most tribal societies have ways of adopting outsiders into the tribe, such as through marriage or adoption rituals. In contrast, racism assumes that members of another "race" are so inferior because of their biology that they can never change. That's what makes racism so virulent and difficult to eradicate. It's not like the prejudice against Italians or the Irish, which could fade away. A genuine racist simply cannot shake off the belief in the biological inferiority of other "races."

A key change in Christianity was the development in the 19th century of racial antisemitism (RSA), which was inherently opposed to theological antisemitism (TA). TA proponents argued that Jews could become Chrs. through conversion. Baptism was supposed to remove Jews' immoral nature and purify them. RA, however, argued that nothing could change a Jew or make him/her into a moral, normal human being. In general, RA was a Protestant position; TA was a Catholic position. However, there were TA Protestants and RA Catholics (Hitler is the most prominent example). When people try to claim that Nazis were anti-Chr., they're usually misled by the hostility between the RA Nazis and TA Protestants. But the majority of German Protestants supported the Nazis and so supported RA. TA Protestants were a minority. When Pius XI signed the concordat with Hitler, he basically was saying that atheism (particularly Communism) scared him more than RA, so he could live with RA proponents as long as they were Christians and anti-atheism.

I said - "By arguing from blatant ignorance, you've simply, publicly shown that you're the one full of shit, not me." - Bill

Ad homonyms have no effect on me. I attacked your argument, not you. 'That is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard.'

Bill said - I don't find Jesuitical hair-splitting persuasive.

I said - What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets. - Wikipedia

Bill said - But as far as Western society is considered, Christianity is the sole source of racism.

I said - That simply isn't even close to being true: "Minority racism or inter-minority racism is sometimes considered controversial because of theories of power in society. Prejudiced thinking among and between minority groups does occur, for example conflicts between blacks and Korean Americans (notably in the 1992 Los Angeles Riots) or between blacks and Jews (such as the riots in Crown Heights in 1991) in various urban environments, new immigrant groups (such as Latinos) or towards whites."

"There has been a long running racial tension between African Americans and Mexican Americans. There have been several significant riots in California prisons where Mexican American inmates and African Americans have targeted each other particularly, based on racial reasons. There have been reports of racially motivated attacks against African Americans who have moved into neighborhoods occupied mostly by Mexican Americans, and vice versa. There had also been cases in the late 1920's California in which Filipino immigrants have been victimized for moving into a predominantly white neighborhood, or for working in an overwhelmingly white workplace. Recently there has also been an increase in racial violence between whites and Hispanic immigrants and between African immigrants and American blacks." - Wikipedia

Steve siad - I am puzzled (and somewhat annoyed) by your communications. Perhaps you might help me understand a bit more.

Your words sound vehement and full of certitude but your support for your rather unclear points seems scattered all over the place.

Part of the confusion in my mind has to do with occasional malapropisms or mispellings: E.g., "millennia's" (vs "millennia" is already plural; "millennia's" is a possessive form and therefore makes no sense); "breed" (is apparently meant to rebut some use by Bill but I don't see it used or implied; so the context is lost); "far to much" (vs far too much); "the Jews most dominate cause for cohesion is oppression" (vs you intend the possessive "Jew's"; You apparently intend "dominant" rather than "dominate), etc.

I wonder if you are using a voice processor without proofreading and/or are not spell-checking your content.

You also seem to be trying to say too much in one paragraph:

"load of shit"..."despise...supernatural beliefs"..."dark or light gums"..."damn Egyptian slave mongers are to blame for...the Jew"..."I was a skater..the jocks hated me"..."mindset of ...other skaters"..."a jock or prep...I didn't think differently of them"; "I 'am' Jewish"..."I suppose I should get my free ticket to Israel", etc.

There might be valuable content or insight here but it's a furious stream-of-consciousness that produces in this reader a net interpretation of confusion; and/or perhaps English is a second language. It's too full of angst to be dealt with in a satisfying or even an intelligible way.

I'm suggesting that you pick just one or two points you wish to treat and organize and clarify your language. If you want to express a rage or personal experience, you might just announce this and then simply describe that.

I know. You didn't ask for this interpretation. It's just my impression and some feedback that might be helpful.

I said - I am not well read; hypomanic, dyslexic, ENTP, and if I told you my IQ you wouldn't believe me. I was born into a world of monkeys holding butcher knives, on ALL sides, and I feel a wee bit nervous about the next 20 years. The only thing that gives me comfort is the knowledge that I've lived an incredibly rich life on a paupers wage and I don't have a child.

The Topica mass email format of communication frustrates me. There are two main reasons for this. First, it is completely user unfriendly. For a coherent daily conversation to occur between a dozen people it would require the creation of over 36 emails, therefore it discourages use. Second, it seems as though it is not free or democratic. I may be wrong, but it seems as though there is a moderation process happening. I wrote two things critical of the Humanists, the first was never published and the second was suspiciously delayed in it's appearance. I have to test the steel.

A simple NOSHA blog would liberate everyone who is interested in non-religious ethical positions based in New Orleans, LA. I offered my service to maintain the blog and help members who didn't know how to become a publisher. But with the paranoia "nice" atheists understandably have with new members, I simply made a blog and waited for interest. It was a depressing No Show. Democracy don't mean shit if no one goes to the polls. I was told by HarryG that our group could barely check their email, lest post a blog comment, or g0d forbid, sign up to be an author.

That brings me to my final point. If our goal is to help the religious open their eyes and step into reality, the last thing we want to do is tell them they're stupid. It's easy to do because atheists tend to be more educated and thus statistically of a higher """"mentality"""" than the religious. I however don't judge people based on their IQ. I know that the idiot has just as much to offer me as the Einsteinium. What I'm interested in is creating a world were our children's children can look back and say thanks for all the delicious fish. As for me and my life, I look back and want to kill myself. I hope I coherently answered your question.

Michael said - ["If our goal is to help the religious open their eyes and step into reality, the last thing we want to do is tell them they're stupid."]

Speaking only for myself, I do not consider myself an atheistic evangelist. I do not think I'm going to convince the religious to abandon their illusions. Read some Eugene O'Niell plays. Man lives on illusion. The truth kills.

My objective is to prevent the religious from forcing their delusions on others, especially using the force of law. I was a political science major. I wanted to learn to use the levers and buttons of government to produce a better society. Later, I learned that using the law was also a good tool.

Logical argument is a very powerful tool, but not the only tool I used when I lobby. Ridicule is only useful when a majority agree with your position (which means you've won already), and should be reserved for humor only if you are trying to build a winning majority. People do not react well to mean-spirited ridicule.

I enjoy this forum, because I can call opponents "stupid", because I'm among the like minded. I do not call people stupid in negotiations.

I said - A constitution can just as easily be written or amended by Theists, as ours was created by the beloved Deists. So you ether want to be The team pulling the levers, which I think is a tenet of Fascism or you want to help the majority become fair and rational so democracy can function. You did after all finish your lever/button sentence with, "to produce a better society."

Ignorance kills, The Truth will set US free.

This is nosHa. Humanism is the belief in rational ethics (bible free), democracy (lever free), personal freedom/ responsibility (blame free), supports human rights and the value of imagination. I came to nosHa to find like minded people and advance the cause of Ethical Atheism. If all nosha is, is a place to make jokes about Christians (which doesn't require any imagination) or a place to pat ourselves on the back and declare how great we are, I'll take my talent else were.

Maybe it's just me but I make many mistakes. I encourage people to point out when what I say is stupid, as long as it's supported by logic and reason. But, "because I can call opponents 'stupid' ", is an Ad homonym were ever it's used. And we all know that adhomo sapienyms are full of shit.

I love this city
August 28, 2007

Family Feud
August 30, 2007

A few months ago I joined the New Orleans Secular Humanists Association. I wanted to help the religious residents of New Orleans discover that Atheists are not evil people. NOSHA is NOLA's only "free thinker" organization. I began to participate in their online discussion group but quickly realized there was something askew. I'm now under the impression that the organization has political motivations. I have no desire to see a "Free thinker" make office. A Thinker would suffice for me.

Most Humanist groups seem to be designed to give people who want a religion without god, a social outlet. NOSHA is a wild woman. Private organizations protesting other private organization is a strange ball game. New Orleans Christians have nothing to fear. NOSHA is about as skilled at drawing in new members, as a preacher is at making sence. This was my goodbye kiss.

Dear NOSHA

We've had some good times but I think I'm going to have to break it off. It's not that your ugly or intellectually unstimulateding, I've just been seeing another girl, Philosophy801. Some would say that this is masturbation, but I believe that the true principles of liberty, equality and social responsibility are objective. No committee is needed, just a persistent examination of facts, self criticism and metaphysical proofs.

I knew from the start that we would most likely end like this. Our "values" are just too different. For instance, I know that a Human with even modest brain waves, that's in a state of growth, has Human rights. Therefore killing a middle 1st trimester human is infanticide. I frown greatly upon murder. What exactly is that choice you support?

I also have a problem with your opposition to the liberty of other "non-profit" corporations. The Boy scouts (homophoebes) of America are registered as a non-profit private corporation and are funded from private donations. I empathize with your sympathy because MENSA has discriminated against me. You see, I'm only in the upper 3% of the population in Intelligence Quota. They've banned me from the round table! If you would picket them, I might consider a little somethin' somethin', on the side.

The main reason I put forth the effort to get to know you was because I thought you were focused and organized in opening up the eyes of the faith heads. Supernaturalism is a terrible sickness. Just look at those monks who let the mosquitoes suck their blood. Something is terribly wrong when you let a bug that's attacking you have free rain of your vessels. But I've come to realize that you're actually hurting the cause. You give the christfans a target, a face on the devil they fear. I'm close to many christfans and even though they're a little silly in the head, most of them are nice people, just like you.

Well I'm out the door. I've got Zero in my hand and I'll be looking for a new mate that loves Zero as much as I do. Lord knows, one has to have something to bind you with your mate.