Freethinker's corner

I will not go quietly into the night!

recent posts

about

  • The Founding Fathers Were Hip, Rad, or Whatever Applies Today… February 24, 2014.

    Over the years since I have become an atheist I have written on this subject before: The claim by the Christian faithful that this nation was meant to be a “Christian Nation” and that the founding fathers meant it to be so. To that I say “Nah”.

    If you consider the many quotations in the support of the separation of church and state that were made by the founding fathers at the time a realization of the true intent is clear.

    The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. – 1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams.

    I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. – Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

    Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

    The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church and State. – James Madison, 1819.

    Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. – James Madison.

    No religious doctrine shall be established by law. – Elbridge Gerry.

    There are many more quotes that indicate the direction that the founding fathers intended for the nation. Some can be found here: addictinginfo.

  • Well, Shut Your Mouth! February 21, 2014

    o·pin·ion (ə-pĭn′yən)
    n.
    1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion”(Elizabeth Drew).
    2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
    3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
    4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
    5. Law A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

    A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

    So, if I have an opinion on what it takes to be a man versus, say, a milksop panty-waist male, then it can be held without substantiation or proof. It is only an opinion, not presented as fact, no one else has to agree with it. Then why oh why do some people require the qualifier that it can be proven wrong, and if proven wrong it must be changed, even if it is only your opinion. How can you prove an opinion of this nature wrong? The example presented is merely my opinion of how things should be, not an edict.

    Not only does the above need be, also, if the challenger, has a different opinion he thinks you must adopt his opinion and forfeit your own. Who the heck made him or her dictator?

    From now on if I say I have an opinion, then it stands… without qualifiers!

  • Perfection is Idealistic … February 17, 2014

    Socialism will not work because Humanity is imperfect. People are greedy. Even the empathetic brains we are all born with are ineffective in alleviating this failing of humanity. Some people for some reason turn the feelings of empathy into sadistic delight in other’s tragedies. Others use the opportunity to place themselves in high positions. Sometimes it seems that those that plan for such a system think, foolishly, that they will be in charge.

    Capitalism will not work. In it’s purest form it is stark, unfeeling. People become human resources to be used, abused, and discarded. Without some socialistic systems assisting capitalism, capitalism would fall, or be taken down by the masses. The only thing protecting the rich from destruction now are the social programs they protest so loudly against.

    Anarchy is unworkable, an idealistic dream like all the others. Not only are we too uneducated to govern ourselves, we will always on average be so. Only the naïve dream of pure anarchy ever existing because they think that everyone someday will be intellectuals, or eliminated by wars which they envision. If ever enacted it will result in Chaos and the eventual fall of all of humanity.

    Communism only works at the point of a gun. Who, that is American now, would ever want communes, and no such thing as personal space?

    Therefore, only a blend of systems seems workable. China is blending capitalism and communism. America is blending capitalism and socialism. At this point it appears that China will be more successful because America is just plain stupid.

  • Death Incarnate.

    rocket-raccoon-gotg-ani-2

    Testing gif image.

  • Balancing on the Head of a Pin … February 10, 2014

    Is a little belief in magic okay? What about voodoo? Is a little belief okay?

    Prayer. Isn’t prayer the same as voodoo, only more arrogant? Since it has been proven that prayer is as efficacious as chance isn’t it on level with the witch doctor, the voodoo believer, the chanting medicine man? Prayer expects a god to change his plans in accordance with your wishes. Isn’t that arrogant?

    Is it okay for someone to be out of his/her mind just a little? If out of their minds a little what is to stop them from proceeding to a lot? Can you ever be sure of such a person, that is, whether or not they have the potential or are totally out of their mind? 

    Should you look upon such a person with pity? They have accepted belief that is in all respects very much like the beliefs that led to virgin sacrifice, stoning, bigotry, war, and misery. They have been infected with an affliction similar to a viral one, much like the viruses that infect computer programs. This program overrides their logic centers and causes them to believe falsehoods that have no basis in evidence or reality. Should you respect someone who has these beliefs simply because they are from all appearances , mentally ill?

    Isn’t giving such a person, who has accepted a belief without evidence and without reason, respect, the same as providing encouragement? I think it is. If after their arguments have been proven empty and foundationless, perhaps even, stupid, and they continue to believe, isn’t it time to tell them they are also just plain stupid, as stupid as their beliefs?

    Then again… the willfully stupid, are they just sick? Are they ignorant? Are they helpless? IQs vary. Some people are able to grasp concepts of a much deeper complexity. I have been told that I am above average intellectually, can grasp new concepts quicker than average. My reading comprehension has been above level, so they tell me. Still, I have difficulty above a certain level of complexity. Quantum mechanics is above my mental abilities, I dutifully admit. Since IQs vary so greatly there certainly must be those who are terminally ignorant. There’s nothing you can say or do that will convince them that there isn’t an all-powerful sky-daddy up there watching every single detail of everybody’s life. No amount of reason or evidence will be sufficient to eradicate a belief within these hapless people that something which they so want to believe in, isn’t so. That’s what it boils down to. They cannot accept simple belief does not make something so. They are for all intents prisoners of their belief, and they do not possess within themselves, nor can they be provided the tools, to free themselves. Do you have to give these people respect? The best I could offer would be of a patronizing nature. Treating them like they are children is the only avenue, even though, being adults, they can be potentially very dangerous. When they tell you “You’re going to hell” they really mean it. When they tell you “you’re why America is being punished with all these calamities”, you should be aware. When they finally decide to put an end to you, is it too late? How do you live a peaceful coexistence with what are potential homicidal maniacs?

    So what is it? Is a little bit of an infection okay so long as they do not degrade further? Can it be trusted that a small viral infection will not proceed to a full-blown disease? Do you treat them respectfully? Do you treat them as being mentally ill? Are you able to treat someone respectfully who asserts that you are not only going to hell and will suffer pain and anguish for eternity, but that you are the cause of miseries to which you have no connection whatsoever?

    I think every single infection, however mild, has the potential of becoming a full blown disease. Unlike real viruses, weak ones do not inoculate you from acquiring the actual malady. The only remedy is education. Yet for some, even this will not serve as an antidote to the poison which they have willfully ingested.

  • Unmentionables … Taboo Subjects … February 6, 2014

    As an atheist I thought everything was on the table for discussion. Many theists consider the subject of religion as being separate and off the discussion table unless, of course, everything you write or say is in complete agreement with established belief.

    Now I find there are many other topics which are off the table, even for an atheist. As an atheist you cannot speak about disparities in feminism, or the fact that there are man-hating feminists. Shhhhh! You just can’t mention that. You must as an atheist, it seems, be an automatic supporter of the feminist movement, without question.

    Other topics that are off the table are: Racism, unless of course you are in complete agreement with the established mantra. In fact any movement that exclaims equality, even while exclaiming a desire for special privileges or considerations, is a taboo area of discussion. To venture there is to risk being excised, ridiculed, and marginalized.  

    Well, shoot, I don’t have to be a feminist, I don’t have to agree to special privileges or considerations for any group, as a matter of fact. Usually these groups that specialize in equal rights for one segment end up demanding special privileges or considerations and usually tandem with restricting the rights of all other groups. That’s BS, I am for equal rights for everyone!

    As a result of all this I am now seeking out men’s rights groups. It seems, where the laws are concerned, that men need this. However, disparagingly, there seems to be a dearth of such groups. To find one just for equal rights instead of the the right not to be men, is, I am finding, a difficult endeavor.

  • The Inevitable Decline of a Nation … February 3, 2014

    What year is this? Is it 1214 or 2014?

    In the not too distant past the United States was considered the technological envy of the world. Maybe it still is. Nevertheless, due to people that believe much as those who lived in the 1200s, our technological lead can not last for long.

    There have been many times I have heard people credit a deity for their recovery from various physical maladies. They went to a physician, but nevertheless, credited a deity with their recovery rather than the skills of the physician. If the physician stateshands up something as simple as “he/she is recovering much better than we expected”, naturally this is due to some deity in the Prayer 1background rather than the skills of the physician. This simple-minded belief sickens me to no end.

    This drift backward to ignorance is, more than anything, caused by the perpetuation Bible on your headof belief instilled in the children of believers. In the name of freedom of religion we allow the perpetual dumbing down of the population. People praying for relief from societies ills results in the continuation of these failings and the eventual magnification of them as no real action is taken to alleviate them. Despite the fact that praying to a deity is no more efficacious than praying to a statue, a rock, or even a plastic spoon, people continue to engage in these activities. When they do so they think they are actually doing something when in reality, nothing gets done. Religion paralyses people into inaction. Actions and remedies that might have solved problems is not taken when the preferred action is to pray and wait for relief instead.

    I have nothing in common with the sort of people who will credit a deity instead of their physicians skill for their recovery. Furthermore, I neither desire contact with these Cowpeople or communication with these sorts of cow-eyed irrational beings. I have as much in common with these sorts as I would have in common with those ancients who credited leaches, spells, and potions for their recovery when nothing could be further from the truth. A belief of this nature, that we live, heal, and even breath at the behest of some hideous deity somewhere is insane beyond belief.

    “Oh, but Mr. Freethinker, this type of belief provides people with comfort in the time of need.” Do we really need the type of comfort that instills a sense of complacency and well-being when things are simply not well at all? Don’t we instead need the motivation that would cause people to spring into action? Wouldn’t it be better to be a little worried, a little distraught, and do something about it rather than sit back in a chair and take a sip of coffee and a bite of donut assured in the knowledge that a god will make things better? Or is that a little too mature for you?

    Prayer is an excuse, an excuse for doing nothing instead of something. Prayer is no better than sticking a pin in a doll, mixing a bunch of inert ingredients in a pot expecting some potion of a healing nature to develop, and certainly no better than reciting an incantation from an old and useless tome. In fact, it is the same thing.

    I want nothing to do with these sort of people. I look upon such “well-meaning” no christians please apeople with utter disdain. These are the people who are responsible for the stunted nature of human technological development. Whereas we should in this century have bases on other celestial objects, perhaps even have left the solar system, instead we are headed back to bloodletting, leaches, and faith-based initiatives.

  • Man-Haters …

    I used to call myself a feminist. I can no longer. It was really ridiculous to ever think a man could be a feminist. Any man who calls himself a feminist should be neutered.

    Barbera Walker author of “Man Made God” has asserted that for a man to be called a feminist he must support the eventual creation of a Matriarchy in the United States. Wow… I was never for that. Are all these feminists walking around desirous of creating a Matriarchy? Do they want to exclude men from government, from the vote? I was never for that. Just thinking about that makes me feel unclean and needing a shower.

    Many feminists exclaim that in the United States we now have a patriarchy. This is totally untrue. If this was true, women would not be able to hold office and neither would they have the vote. The only patriarchy I know of in the United States is within that religion, Christianity, from which a number of people have been voted into office. These people through their numbers have made these laws intruding into women’s reproductive system, not the entirety of the nation.

    I hereby declare the feminist movement tainted and unworthy of my support. Even one man-hating feminist is too many if they hold some sway over others.

    Henceforth I will support equality for all, special privileges and considerations for no one. No, no special privileges or considerations, not even on a temporary basis. The problem with special privileges and considerations is that they always fail to go away.

    As far as women declaring that they must have total control of the reproductive process, then I insist they also assume total responsibility for any children that result. If a man has no input on whether or not he wants children, then he should have no responsibility for them. That’s a period at the end of that last sentence.

  • Morality is Relative … January 27, 2013

    Recently I posted the following on my Facebook timeline: “It seems to me that a lot of people have the meaning of tolerance and the meaning of acceptance confused. I tolerate quite a bit, but I do not accept all of those things I tolerate as being moral or right and neither will I adopt them as part of my life.” People seem, through assumptions, to not understand what this means.

    I happen to accept the fact that morality is relative. What may be moral to me might be immoral to you, what may be immoral to me might be moral to you.

    Then there is toleration and acceptance. I stated that I tolerate a great deal but do not accept as moral or right everything that I tolerate. A small, exceedingly small, example: I tolerate people who use a swear word as every other word they say. Nevertheless, even though I do not move to “correct” them, I do not think it moral or right to speak in that manner. I think that “I do not move to correct them” is significant because I do not feel it is appropriate to force my idea of what is moral or right on anyone else. (There is of course exceptions: a murderer thinks murder is okey dokey, naturally I would call the appropriate law enforcement agency in an attempt to “correct” him/her)

    I have always felt that there are some things better left unsaid. These hurtful and critical things, if spoken, will change nothing and may do harm as far as friendships and mental well-being. Clarification: I might think you are an immoral SOB due to my held views of morality, but I will never say it. It’s none of my business how you live your life and my morals and outlook on life are my own concern and no one else’s.

    Is this hypocritical? Perhaps. This would be so only if people made assumptions. If I never speak up to support or oppose your morality views you might assume that I support or oppose them when you really don’t have a clue. Silence on an issue means nothing though many confrontational individuals like to think it does.

    If someone really wants knowledge of my moral views then they will have to ask the right question. Just as I do not go about exclaiming everywhere that “I am an atheist” but do not hesitate defending it when pressed, so I will respond likewise to other questions, properly phrased, of course.

  • Assume Not Lest Ye Be Assumed … January 22, 2014

    Now here’s a post that might rile some friends. I must however address this lest someone make some flawed assumptions.

    Many assume that to be an atheist (I made this error) one must support feminism. Well, I did at first, it seemed reasonable at the time. Then along comes Barbara G. Walker who asserts that to be a feminist you must support the creation of a Matriarchy.

    I do not support a matriarchy, nor do I look upon a patriarchy fondly, as both are discriminatory in nature. Many think we have a patriarchy now. This is not so as if it were the case women would not have the ability to vote or hold office. Yes, there is a majority of men in government now, as they were duly elected. Should there come a time when women are the majority in government, having been duly elected, so be it.

    Radical man-hating feminists have ruined the feminist movement. They have turned some good people away through their efforts.

    Meanwhile I will support equality for all, discrimination for none, and will never support a “faction” again, for any reason.