I've decided to stop posting articles. Part of this is a sense of futility, for two reasons: one, most of the people who read atheist blogs are atheists; and two, getting any religious fundies to see logic is about as likely as teaching a cat to play violin.
Mostly, though, it's because I'm not an activist. I like a quiet life with my lovely wife, secure in our little corner of paradise far away from the maddening crowds. (We have a long driveway and a large dog, which does wonders for discouraging crusading fundies). I'm secure and comfortable in my views, and while religiosity and reich-wing politicians will always get my goat, I can't be bothered commenting on them any more.
Anyone interested in similar blogs should try the links at the right. "Atheist Haven" especially provides good reading, updated regularly with concise and cutting commentary from the Beast.
I look forward to a time when religion has as little relevance as alchemy. Until then, farewell, thanks for reading, and I hope you have a very pleasant life.
Marty
Friday, 10 August 2007
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
Individualism in atheism
They're not bibles - they're books by people who think pretty much the way I do.
I'm reading "The End of Faith" at the moment, and while I agree with an awful lot of what Sam Harris says, there's a fair bit I don't agree with. Still, that's the whole point of this, really - atheism is NOT a religion. Atheists have no rule book, no code of behaviour, no centralised tenents, canons, dogma or prophets. We think for ourselves. A boss I had once described managing a team of systems experts as akin to "herding cats" - which I think is a pretty fair simile for atheists too.
By contrast, you really have to leave your common sense at the door if you go to a church, mosque or temple. You're attending a gathering of people who believe corrupted, rambling and inconsistent writings from a different time and place, which advocate many behavioral practices and beliefs which by any modern definition are actually insane.
I don't have all the answers in life, and neither does anyone else. This is for sure though - I'd rather live by my own rules, they make a hell of a lot more sense than any religious book.
Monday, 23 July 2007
Why I'm an atheist...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
- Stephen Roberts
Concise, clear, and to the point, this quote echoes my own standpoint. Argue it if you can!
- Stephen Roberts
Concise, clear, and to the point, this quote echoes my own standpoint. Argue it if you can!
Sunday, 22 July 2007
SEX ED
If you're after naughty pictures, look elsewhere. This is serious shit. Mostly, anyways.
While browsing the right-wing conservative sites in search of laughs, I came across this little gem. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=why_liberals_lie_about_sex&ns=KevinMcCullough&dt=07/15/2007&page=full&comments=true
This bloke Kevin McCullough is a prime candidate for Arkham Asylum if he really believes the feculent slurry he writes. The gist of this garbage is that liberals (not Australian Liberals, which are actually conservative, but true liberals - to the left of centre - intelligent people - hell, you know who you are) - want your children to have sex. Apparently we're all deviates and perverts on a fast train to hell, while the only responsible people are the conservative religious right (who, incidentally, have the worst record of sexual abuse throughout history). In their view, they are battling to have their kids remain virginal until marriage, while us evil lefties are showering them with condoms and information that will encourage them to go out and fornicate.
Do these people live in the real world? My theory is that they're getting their beliefs confused with reality, when actually they are pretty much completely different. Kids, as in adolescents, are kids. They have raging hormones which no amount of cold showers or bible studies are going to suppress. Do you remember when you were 16? If you weren't actually having sex, a high proportion of your time was spent in contemplation of it. (That's a male perspective, anyways - ladies, correct me if you had a different view). Short of physically locking your kids away from puberty to marriage, you are not going to prevent them from making intimate contact with the opposite sex (or the same sex, if that's their inclination) - so telling them to save themselves for marriage will have about as much effect as an ice cube in a steel smelter.
Liberals don't want your kids, or their own, to have sex. However they're smart enough to realise that the chances are they'll do it anyway. In that case, the absolute best thing you can give kids is information - lots of it - on the risks, the possible consequences, and the ways to minimise both. Seeing some old teacher rolling a condom onto a banana is not going to encourage Little Tommy to go jump someone's bones, but it may just prevent him from catching an STD or becoming a father at 15.
To any conservatives out there, PLEASE think. Look past your beliefs and actually use your brains. Information is going to save your kids, not dogma.
While browsing the right-wing conservative sites in search of laughs, I came across this little gem. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=why_liberals_lie_about_sex&ns=KevinMcCullough&dt=07/15/2007&page=full&comments=true
This bloke Kevin McCullough is a prime candidate for Arkham Asylum if he really believes the feculent slurry he writes. The gist of this garbage is that liberals (not Australian Liberals, which are actually conservative, but true liberals - to the left of centre - intelligent people - hell, you know who you are) - want your children to have sex. Apparently we're all deviates and perverts on a fast train to hell, while the only responsible people are the conservative religious right (who, incidentally, have the worst record of sexual abuse throughout history). In their view, they are battling to have their kids remain virginal until marriage, while us evil lefties are showering them with condoms and information that will encourage them to go out and fornicate.
Do these people live in the real world? My theory is that they're getting their beliefs confused with reality, when actually they are pretty much completely different. Kids, as in adolescents, are kids. They have raging hormones which no amount of cold showers or bible studies are going to suppress. Do you remember when you were 16? If you weren't actually having sex, a high proportion of your time was spent in contemplation of it. (That's a male perspective, anyways - ladies, correct me if you had a different view). Short of physically locking your kids away from puberty to marriage, you are not going to prevent them from making intimate contact with the opposite sex (or the same sex, if that's their inclination) - so telling them to save themselves for marriage will have about as much effect as an ice cube in a steel smelter.
Liberals don't want your kids, or their own, to have sex. However they're smart enough to realise that the chances are they'll do it anyway. In that case, the absolute best thing you can give kids is information - lots of it - on the risks, the possible consequences, and the ways to minimise both. Seeing some old teacher rolling a condom onto a banana is not going to encourage Little Tommy to go jump someone's bones, but it may just prevent him from catching an STD or becoming a father at 15.
To any conservatives out there, PLEASE think. Look past your beliefs and actually use your brains. Information is going to save your kids, not dogma.
Thursday, 19 July 2007
HYPOCRITE
The man above (no, not god, the dude in the photo) is bible-bashing US Senator David Vitter from Louisiana, darling of the religious right, who stands for "family values", preventing gay marriages, and teaching abstinence (but not safe sex practices).
Oh, and he's been caught using hookers. Twice.
What makes it especially poignant is his letter to the Senate Committee on Finance of 21/6/07 pushing the abstinence bill (http://www.vitter.senate.gov/forms/abstinenceLetter.pdf), in which he says "These (abstinence) programs have been shown to effectively reduce the risks of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness."
Remaining faithful huh David? Which bit of that involves BANGING PROSTITUTES?
Just to make this even better, this hypocrite was one of the attack dogs howling for Clinton's impeachment when he got caught receiving a blowjob from Monica. Probably at the same time he himself was strapped to a hotel bed being whipped by a high-priced 'ho.
Of course, David's repented of his evil sins and says that both his god and his wife (in that order) have forgiven him. Neither of which makes a blind bit of difference to his misguided constituents who should have known better than to elect a bible-thumper on moral grounds rather than looking at the important issues (oh, say education, health, civil rights, equality, economy, and not to mention that little war you've got going). Now, looks like this man talks the talk but sure doesn't walk the walk.
And here lies one of the many problems with religion. Even "moderates" will elect a clean-cut conservative on the basis of his beliefs RATHER than any real policies. Then, when Larry Flynt finds your senator's phone number on the list of an escort service, what does your hypocrite really stand for?
Wake up and smell reality, America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)